Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Mawgan
Age: 48
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep the RAF!
On which planet do people really think that disbanding the RAF would save money/resources?! The RAF was created to save money and resources!!!
If you split the various roles of Air Power between the Army and the RN then you will get all the inefficiencies that the RAF was designed to get rid of - duplicated areas of specialisation competing for resources without any 'joined up' procurement being directed by people without the vision or knowledge to fully exploit the potential of Air Power.
The whole point of _not_ having organic air transport with the Army is that you can make fewer resources go further rather than having them tied to particular Regiments/Divisions that end up too dispersed to be effective - unless you spend even more money!
Let's just hope that nobody takes this preposterous idea seriously.
If you split the various roles of Air Power between the Army and the RN then you will get all the inefficiencies that the RAF was designed to get rid of - duplicated areas of specialisation competing for resources without any 'joined up' procurement being directed by people without the vision or knowledge to fully exploit the potential of Air Power.
The whole point of _not_ having organic air transport with the Army is that you can make fewer resources go further rather than having them tied to particular Regiments/Divisions that end up too dispersed to be effective - unless you spend even more money!
Let's just hope that nobody takes this preposterous idea seriously.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Originally Posted by engineer(retard)
The other unthinkable alternative could be to make the army all wear the same uniform, the savings are potentially huge 
regards
retard
regards
retard
And what about all those breast plates that the horsey folk wear eh? Not very practical for modern warfare.
Originally Posted by SASless
What size standing force stands ready for deployment to the furtherest reach of the Realm within three hours call? How many squadrons in the RAF can be dispatched to support that force. (And show up!)
If you mean some wider world role, then I think you may find that projecting air power rapidly, is one of the things in which the Royal Air Force excel, and have done for many years. This skill is, as always, being refined and differs markedly from the Fortress Britain and RAFG TACEVAL scenarios of the 80's and early 90's.
This force projection capability to provide an almost immediate presence is also from flying units that are constantly practicing and not merely sat about in barracks doing a bit of Phys Ed to pass the time of day, till they paint the wagons again.
Yes, modern warplanes do require a massive support footprint that takes a vast amounting or regular planning and practice to deploy effectively. Red Flag is not for fun (honest).
Flexibility is the key to air power, let some of the myopia and tunnel vision that besets the regimental system of the British Army take over the reigns of the most effective Air Force, and yes I do appreciate there are much larger Air Forces, in the world and our credibility will quickly wane.
BTW
If we do combine, who will the reds and dark blues use as their whipping boys every year in the Inter-Service Rugby?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L1A2
The 'Canadian Forces' almalgamation is widely regarded as a complete disaster! I have worked over there and just about every Canadian I met thought the combined service idea was a bad one.
I think the Col is making a provocative arguement to get people thinking and doesn't actually believe that the RAF should be disbanded. We are all biting like 'good uns' and I've no doubt that southside and a few pongos are having a good laugh at us! This said, anyone with half a brain would realise that if you want to maintain the same capability you need the same amount of people and equipment, regardless of uniform colour.
Maybe we could get 10% more productivity every week out of the Army if they didn't take every Wednesday afternoon off for sport!
The 'Canadian Forces' almalgamation is widely regarded as a complete disaster! I have worked over there and just about every Canadian I met thought the combined service idea was a bad one.
I think the Col is making a provocative arguement to get people thinking and doesn't actually believe that the RAF should be disbanded. We are all biting like 'good uns' and I've no doubt that southside and a few pongos are having a good laugh at us! This said, anyone with half a brain would realise that if you want to maintain the same capability you need the same amount of people and equipment, regardless of uniform colour.
Maybe we could get 10% more productivity every week out of the Army if they didn't take every Wednesday afternoon off for sport!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just read the ARRSE thread on the same subject.
Comments like this
and this
and (believe it or not) this
(Italics in parenthesis mine)
serve to demonstrate, far better than I ever could, why the venerable (non-Royal) British Army could NEVER run anything approaching effective air power, save for a handful of helos used as battlefield taxis and flying golf carts for senior Melchetts.
Nuff said.
Comments like this
Why not simply hand all strike craft over to the Army, they're basically long ranged flying "artillery", air to air being air defence, and C130/C17's being transport.
Nimrod being naval assets
Nimrod being naval assets
Stab Tiffy.......Strategic Airlift could go to the RLC. It's no mystery. You can shift loads of MFO in a Herc. Couple of Fijiian Drivers can do a conversion from DROPS to C 130 in about a fortnight.
70% {of the RAF}do not contribute to operational effect
serve to demonstrate, far better than I ever could, why the venerable (non-Royal) British Army could NEVER run anything approaching effective air power, save for a handful of helos used as battlefield taxis and flying golf carts for senior Melchetts.
Nuff said.
Last edited by TheInquisitor; 15th May 2006 at 21:19.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Between the devil and the deep blue sea
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the best thread in a long time. I have not come across so much bobbing and weaving by the Crabs since the last time "Harriers" and "Carriers" were mentioned in the same week. Some people are taking themselves a teensy-weensy bit too seriously.
The correlation between defensiveness of post and likelihood of not having read the article in the first place is quite high. Col Collins is clearly a great fan of airpower. He is just not being blinkered by traditional views on who delivers it.
Inquisitor - chill out, dude. The debate should be had rationally with reasoned argument, not the childish unsubstantiated truisms you keep spouting. Now back to Arrse I go where life is more fun.
The correlation between defensiveness of post and likelihood of not having read the article in the first place is quite high. Col Collins is clearly a great fan of airpower. He is just not being blinkered by traditional views on who delivers it.
Inquisitor - chill out, dude. The debate should be had rationally with reasoned argument, not the childish unsubstantiated truisms you keep spouting. Now back to Arrse I go where life is more fun.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Goodness!,
It is no wonder we have so many dramas in todays defence climate with discussions like this going on!. TC is a man who says what he thinks......I think anyone who read his article will agree... There are many many faults with the armed forces, why is it there is allways this c**k fight about who is the best every time?.
As for lean!: 1 regt of AAC aircraft (52 aircraft/320 personnel) compared to 1 Sqn of aircraft ( 24 aircraft/200 personnel) how does that workout???.
Let alone a station of RAF personnel supporting numbering 1200?? ( with 185 coppers???)
I know that when Islander was up for grabs the RAF offered establishment tables in the order of 120 personnel for 6 aircraft.........the army manning was 26 pers for 6 aircraft......do the sums!!
Everyone is hurting these days with manning...talk to an infantry battalion which has done 9 months in two years in Iraq.
Desperate times call for desperate measures
It is no wonder we have so many dramas in todays defence climate with discussions like this going on!. TC is a man who says what he thinks......I think anyone who read his article will agree... There are many many faults with the armed forces, why is it there is allways this c**k fight about who is the best every time?.
As for lean!: 1 regt of AAC aircraft (52 aircraft/320 personnel) compared to 1 Sqn of aircraft ( 24 aircraft/200 personnel) how does that workout???.
Let alone a station of RAF personnel supporting numbering 1200?? ( with 185 coppers???)
I know that when Islander was up for grabs the RAF offered establishment tables in the order of 120 personnel for 6 aircraft.........the army manning was 26 pers for 6 aircraft......do the sums!!
Everyone is hurting these days with manning...talk to an infantry battalion which has done 9 months in two years in Iraq.
Desperate times call for desperate measures
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inquisitor,
Please tell me how many "Royal" Titles there are in the air force in comparison with the British army. Then please tell me how many battle honours are to be compared.......how many years of history are to be compared and how many awards for gallantry there are!!!
Please don't make throw away comments....you only serve to portray your service in a wholly undeserved light!!!
Please tell me how many "Royal" Titles there are in the air force in comparison with the British army. Then please tell me how many battle honours are to be compared.......how many years of history are to be compared and how many awards for gallantry there are!!!
Please don't make throw away comments....you only serve to portray your service in a wholly undeserved light!!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ralphmalph, and your argument is so well crafted and eloquent as to portray the British Army in what light? So, because something is older and has more traditions it is therefore better; I think not. Look at what that kind of thinking did to Rover.
This thread has descended into puerile tat, there is blood in the water and people are pointing the spotlight onto the junior service to cover their own shortcomings.
Having served in the British Army and now serving in the RAF I can say with experience that savings could be made in all 3 services. We are island dwellers with notions of Empire, the Army must deploy by sea or air; it no longer has the ability to self deploy(unless they make the Channel Tunnel significantly wider), how annoying!
The Royal Navy and RAF both have organic infantry assets. Maybe a better solution would be split the British Army asunder and have 2 truly deployable, flexible Arms.
I type with tongue in cheek, I am a proud member of the Armed Forces and can see the strengths and weaknesses of all 3 Services. Yes, Nimrod AEW/CH47 MK3 are examples of how the RAF get it wrong, are we saying that the Royal Navy never waste cash or crash ships, has the British Army got the best rifle and secure radio that money can buy?
Time to congratulate each other on our unique qualities and strengths and stop the "we could do it better than you' rubbish.
iPodder out.
This thread has descended into puerile tat, there is blood in the water and people are pointing the spotlight onto the junior service to cover their own shortcomings.
Having served in the British Army and now serving in the RAF I can say with experience that savings could be made in all 3 services. We are island dwellers with notions of Empire, the Army must deploy by sea or air; it no longer has the ability to self deploy(unless they make the Channel Tunnel significantly wider), how annoying!
The Royal Navy and RAF both have organic infantry assets. Maybe a better solution would be split the British Army asunder and have 2 truly deployable, flexible Arms.
I type with tongue in cheek, I am a proud member of the Armed Forces and can see the strengths and weaknesses of all 3 Services. Yes, Nimrod AEW/CH47 MK3 are examples of how the RAF get it wrong, are we saying that the Royal Navy never waste cash or crash ships, has the British Army got the best rifle and secure radio that money can buy?
Time to congratulate each other on our unique qualities and strengths and stop the "we could do it better than you' rubbish.
iPodder out.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Mawgan
Age: 48
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iPodder: I couldn't agree more! 
RalphMalph: I didn't think we were fighting about who was the best - we are all the best in our own specialisations, but we should never get so pretentious that we think we can do each other's job!
Keep all 3 Services, I say. But we should try to work a little more closely and understand each other's needs and capabilities.
RalphMalph: I didn't think we were fighting about who was the best - we are all the best in our own specialisations, but we should never get so pretentious that we think we can do each other's job!
Keep all 3 Services, I say. But we should try to work a little more closely and understand each other's needs and capabilities.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Ex-services I would just like to amplify the above post...
All 3 services contribute, what I think needs to happen is that things such as 'smart' procurement actually becomes smart and not remain the farce it is, with over budget, over deadline equipment.
The people on the ground should be given far better support by the civil servants that are polishing the a
e of their trousers at a desk, going home every night and weekend to the family.
All 3 services contribute, what I think needs to happen is that things such as 'smart' procurement actually becomes smart and not remain the farce it is, with over budget, over deadline equipment.
The people on the ground should be given far better support by the civil servants that are polishing the a
e of their trousers at a desk, going home every night and weekend to the family.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?
1947. Spitfire v Spitfire.
It is good to see that the eons of experience of air transport has enabled the process of making air transport miserable to be honed to the levels now seen at South Cerney! No wonder Col Collins fancies a crack at making things better!
1947. Spitfire v Spitfire.
It is good to see that the eons of experience of air transport has enabled the process of making air transport miserable to be honed to the levels now seen at South Cerney! No wonder Col Collins fancies a crack at making things better!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=greenfreddie]When was the last time the fast jet heroes of the Airforce actually shot anything down?
1947. Spitfire v Spitfire.
QUOTE]
This doesn't help the debate - just as much as saying that the last UK Armoured Engagement was UK Challenger II on UK Challenger II.
Do be effectively joint means that individuals need to fully understand their own enviornments (Mar/Litt; Land; Air) and how they contribute to Joint Campaign in which the component commanders can be supporting or supported commanders depending on the phase of the campaign. By all means engage in inter-Service; inter-Regt; inter-Ship; inter-Sqn banter but don't play into the hands of the real enemy - the Treasury.
And RalphMalph the counting of people in an organisation is not a very good way of measuring its importance. It is only really played by organizations that rely on masses of people rather than technology. Taking you point further then the CO of a Inf Bn is far more effective that the CO of an Armd Regt, an RA/RHA Regt or an AAC Regt because he has more people.
1947. Spitfire v Spitfire.
QUOTE]
This doesn't help the debate - just as much as saying that the last UK Armoured Engagement was UK Challenger II on UK Challenger II.
Do be effectively joint means that individuals need to fully understand their own enviornments (Mar/Litt; Land; Air) and how they contribute to Joint Campaign in which the component commanders can be supporting or supported commanders depending on the phase of the campaign. By all means engage in inter-Service; inter-Regt; inter-Ship; inter-Sqn banter but don't play into the hands of the real enemy - the Treasury.
And RalphMalph the counting of people in an organisation is not a very good way of measuring its importance. It is only really played by organizations that rely on masses of people rather than technology. Taking you point further then the CO of a Inf Bn is far more effective that the CO of an Armd Regt, an RA/RHA Regt or an AAC Regt because he has more people.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SlopJockey
Flexibility is the key to air power, let some of the myopia and tunnel vision that besets the regimental system of the British Army take over the reigns of the most effective Air Force, and yes I do appreciate there are much larger Air Forces, in the world and our credibility will quickly wane.
