Abolish the RAF, says Col. Tim Collins
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ratpackgreenslug
It comes down to bang for the buck and Collins is correct to point out the woefully under performing return on our RAF investment. Time for changes. Big ones.
Many of my army chums still do not understand the need and function of air power, and as for cost analysis, their thinking is even more lamentable
A gardening mag I get had a fantastic offer of a slug trap...thought of your post when I read it...can't think why.
Thank you.
NC43
Nutcracker+ numbers.
Not a wind up, but the branding of such is the last refuge of those unable to supply a coherent counter argument. Yours is conspicuous by its absence. My opinions do, I freely admit, go against the grain of the head-up-your-own-backside attitude of most on this forum, but their attitude is hardly surprising is it? How can they possibly see a solution when their identity is tied to being part of the problem.
Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.
Your erstwhile horticultural endeavours are duly noted. Alas that your fellow officers lack your depth and lucidity for then they, like you, would see for miles and miles. Best of luck with the slugs. Stale beer in a shallow cup traps them too, see if you can place the cup without drinking the beer.
May your magazine bring you joy.
Not a wind up, but the branding of such is the last refuge of those unable to supply a coherent counter argument. Yours is conspicuous by its absence. My opinions do, I freely admit, go against the grain of the head-up-your-own-backside attitude of most on this forum, but their attitude is hardly surprising is it? How can they possibly see a solution when their identity is tied to being part of the problem.
Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.
Your erstwhile horticultural endeavours are duly noted. Alas that your fellow officers lack your depth and lucidity for then they, like you, would see for miles and miles. Best of luck with the slugs. Stale beer in a shallow cup traps them too, see if you can place the cup without drinking the beer.
May your magazine bring you joy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The British Army and RM contributed some 25-30% of the ground forces during the main combat phase of OIF. The RAF's contribution to the 'coalition' air effort?
SIX per cent of total sorties.
Granted, somewhat more than the 4% the RAF managed in Kosovo, but not something to write home about.
SIX per cent of total sorties.
Granted, somewhat more than the 4% the RAF managed in Kosovo, but not something to write home about.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ŁŁŁŁŁ
At the end of the day, the reason we find ourselves discussing this foolish idea, and the only reason those in power would EVER think of disbanding the RAF is because of the (false) promise of SAVING MONEY.
That is the issue here - the defence budget with which HM Armed Forces must live with, its too small!! Whilst it is one of the largest defence budgets in the world (I believe only Japan, China and obviously the US spend more), it just isn't enough dosh as we have to do an awful lot with what is in our pot
However, this idea is so fundamentally flawed it amazes me that it has ever had a serious word said about it!! What a huge backward step it would be. Also, I can imagine that disbanding the RAF would result in a response not far short of national uproar. What with the loss of jobs on/near bases, national heritage taking a dent, RAF personnel refusing to transfer to the army/navy...... not worth the hassle really! Certainly not worth the loss of votes for the party in power at the time for such a meager saving.
In order to actually save a real amount of money, the govt would have to take the drastic step of getting rid of an expensive capability altogether, such as not renewing our nukes or chopping our FJs
altogether like the Kiwis have done. I hope neither of those scenarios ever happen as both are terribly important!
My point is; just 'abolishing' the RAF but then transferring most of its personnel and its equipment to the other services would save a little money on uniforms - but then the army could probably save half the defence budget if they narrowed their selection down a little bit!
Its a terribly daft idea being entertained here and, inter-service banter aside, we all know it.
That is the issue here - the defence budget with which HM Armed Forces must live with, its too small!! Whilst it is one of the largest defence budgets in the world (I believe only Japan, China and obviously the US spend more), it just isn't enough dosh as we have to do an awful lot with what is in our pot
However, this idea is so fundamentally flawed it amazes me that it has ever had a serious word said about it!! What a huge backward step it would be. Also, I can imagine that disbanding the RAF would result in a response not far short of national uproar. What with the loss of jobs on/near bases, national heritage taking a dent, RAF personnel refusing to transfer to the army/navy...... not worth the hassle really! Certainly not worth the loss of votes for the party in power at the time for such a meager saving.
In order to actually save a real amount of money, the govt would have to take the drastic step of getting rid of an expensive capability altogether, such as not renewing our nukes or chopping our FJs
altogether like the Kiwis have done. I hope neither of those scenarios ever happen as both are terribly important! My point is; just 'abolishing' the RAF but then transferring most of its personnel and its equipment to the other services would save a little money on uniforms - but then the army could probably save half the defence budget if they narrowed their selection down a little bit!
Its a terribly daft idea being entertained here and, inter-service banter aside, we all know it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
The British Army and RM contributed some 25-30% of the ground forces during the main combat phase of OIF. The RAF's contribution to the 'coalition' air effort?
SIX per cent of total sorties.
Granted, somewhat more than the 4% the RAF managed in Kosovo, but not something to write home about.
SIX per cent of total sorties.
Granted, somewhat more than the 4% the RAF managed in Kosovo, but not something to write home about.
Of course one could always say that the RAF (including aviators from other Services (that's for you FB11)) was employed on the Coalition's Main effort (ie the advance(s) to Bagdhad) as opposed to the 'securing the flanks' role of others.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Climebear
Statistics don't win wars.
Of course one could always say that the RAF (including aviators from other Services (that's for you FB11)) was employed on the Coalition's Main effort (ie the advance(s) to Bagdhad) as opposed to the 'securing the flanks' role of others.
Of course one could always say that the RAF (including aviators from other Services (that's for you FB11)) was employed on the Coalition's Main effort (ie the advance(s) to Bagdhad) as opposed to the 'securing the flanks' role of others.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.
I'm not after banter or a slanging match - that will just go round in circles until everyone gets bored of this thread. I want to know how YOU would implement these changes and make it work.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that keeps coming to my mind in this arguement is why, if the RAF is such a redundant force, did the army B***h and moan claiming they were being left with no adequate air support when the harriers were due to pull out of Afghanistan recently. Surely if it as toothless and ineffective as some of our army buddies on here would have us believe, maybe they should come home now? After all having them out there must surely be a big waste of money? No I didn't think so.
I bet the troops that suddenly come under sustained fire from taliban positions and can call in a friendly GR 7 to redress the balance are quite happy the RAF are out there.
I bet the troops that suddenly come under sustained fire from taliban positions and can call in a friendly GR 7 to redress the balance are quite happy the RAF are out there.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Mawgan
Age: 48
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ratpackgreenslug
Nutcracker+ numbers.
Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.
Bottom line: Britain can no longer afford the cost structure of the RAF when many of its functions are either duplicated, redundant or viable for farming out to more efficient operators. And everything, with the exception of FJ minus the worthless money pit called Harrier, can be farmed out.
ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) beyond the range of a Phoenix - as carried out by E3, Nimrod R1, Sentinel, RAPTOR, JRP, Canberra, satellites and others.
Space Operations - Space Support and Force Enhancement (ISTAR, Navigation, Comms and Environmental Monitoring).
Offensive Counter Air Ops - Airfield Attack, Suppression of Enemy Air Defences, Fighter Sweep, Escort and C2 Warfare.
Active Air Defence System - beyond the range of a Rapier (and not at Sea - the RN do it very well there).
Air Operations for Strategic Effect - Tomahawks and STORMSHADOW (which needs a Tornado to launch) are only good against fixed targets.
Air Refuelling
Strategic Air Transport - into theatres that civilian contractors refuse to enter!
I would be interested to hear how you propose to cover these roles or remove them. RAF chaps feel free to add any I've missed.
Alternatively, we could conduct an experiment and just let you do your own thing in Afghanistan and see just how effective you can be without us. That would be a laugh - except for the families of the hundreds of dead Army chaps that is.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the one that ALWAYS seems to get missed out - TACTICAL air transport - the one that forms the main thrust of the 'dirty' AT fleet's efforts nowadays.
And the one that NO civilian operator is (or ever will be) capable of performing.
And the one that NO civilian operator is (or ever will be) capable of performing.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just let them do it
After re-reading this post and the alternate ones on E-Goat and ARRSE, why don’t we just do it, take the redundancy package and leave if our Lords and Masters decide to do it. 
Let the Army and Navy fight over what’s left, them get on see if they can run a cohesive and sustainable Air Flights, or what ever they want to call them.
I know this is a passionate subject for those of us in Light Blue, but I am sick to the back teeth of the ‘we can do it better’ attitude of the other two, if so let them get on and do then. They will not have the comfort zone of being able to draw expertise from us to get them out of a particularly bad situation, due to their short sightedness, strict manpower policies and blinkered options.
Let us start with JHC remove all RAF Aircrew, Engineering Tradesmen, Ops Bods, MT, Suppliers, Painters, ATC and Adminer’s (if any left after JPA), move out of Odiham, Benson, Aldergrove and Culdrose. Give them our resources and see how long they last at the job before the whingeing starts. I’ll give them 3 months if that.
But of course they’ll have to gut all the single accom to make it suitable for them to move into, wasting how many thousands of pounds? Just as they did at RAF Abingdon when they turned it into Dalton Barracks.
My final note is that the Army were always grateful to see the Helo’s in the field in NI. The RAFs problem has been in letting the Press say a ‘Army helicopter removes troops from the field’ etc for far too long, so they have had more publicity at our cost and Tim Collins and Army posters on this site believe it too.
Oh well my last tuppence worth on this sorry subject.
Let the Army and Navy fight over what’s left, them get on see if they can run a cohesive and sustainable Air Flights, or what ever they want to call them.
I know this is a passionate subject for those of us in Light Blue, but I am sick to the back teeth of the ‘we can do it better’ attitude of the other two, if so let them get on and do then. They will not have the comfort zone of being able to draw expertise from us to get them out of a particularly bad situation, due to their short sightedness, strict manpower policies and blinkered options.
Let us start with JHC remove all RAF Aircrew, Engineering Tradesmen, Ops Bods, MT, Suppliers, Painters, ATC and Adminer’s (if any left after JPA), move out of Odiham, Benson, Aldergrove and Culdrose. Give them our resources and see how long they last at the job before the whingeing starts. I’ll give them 3 months if that.
But of course they’ll have to gut all the single accom to make it suitable for them to move into, wasting how many thousands of pounds? Just as they did at RAF Abingdon when they turned it into Dalton Barracks.
My final note is that the Army were always grateful to see the Helo’s in the field in NI. The RAFs problem has been in letting the Press say a ‘Army helicopter removes troops from the field’ etc for far too long, so they have had more publicity at our cost and Tim Collins and Army posters on this site believe it too.
Oh well my last tuppence worth on this sorry subject.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
Token gestures don't win wars either. In fact, when one considers the deconfliction, C2 and logistics problems the presence of the RAF must have caused CENTAF, as well as the ramp-space the RAF took up which could have been more effectively used by F15s, F117's, A10's, etc., one has to wonder whether it was worth the RAF turning up at all.
The waisting of ramp space! As opposed the the ramp space took up by the RAF provision of TacRecce (something the USAF doesn't do a lot of), Air Refueling (crucial for USN), STORMSHADOW equipped aircraft...
Not to mention the RAF SH and RN CF that flew when their US counterparts refused.
The RAF is just as much of a supporting arm of the USAF (and USN air) as the British Army is to the US Army - discuss.
One could say the same for everything else the UK took to theatre - including an understrength UK division (2 x lt 1 x armd). National political stances aside, the kit that went was used and was needed by the Coalition.
Token efforts - my ARRSE.
Clime,
How far is it from Basrah to Baghdad by road?
How far is it from Basrah to Baghdad by road?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
The article on The First Post last week certainly kicked up a storm of controversy. we've posted some of our letters and responses here in our letters section
Enjoy
Enjoy
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only winners in a ‘debate’ like this are the politicians and civil servants who are able to divide, conquer and take more savings.
Until we can recognise and genuinely respect that each Service are experts at delivering capability within their own environment – where each environment presents unique and complex challenges which are too easily dismissed if ignorance is allowed to prevail – we all lose.
Until we can recognise and genuinely respect that each Service are experts at delivering capability within their own environment – where each environment presents unique and complex challenges which are too easily dismissed if ignorance is allowed to prevail – we all lose.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever watched Star Trek? They all fly around in Star Ships and have Naval ranks. Atmosphere bound Airforces will be regarded as a quaint historical blip of the 20th and early 21st Centuries.
(Oh are those men in white coats for me Mother?)
(Oh are those men in white coats for me Mother?)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Clime,
How far is it from Basrah to Baghdad by road?
How far is it from Basrah to Baghdad by road?
Very much a rought estimation - by the northern route - approx 580km.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Climebear
Unlike our land breatheren that rarely work in combined formations (below division) the Air world has been working in the combined world for many years (multi-national COMAOs were a common occurance in Cold War days) so interoperability with allies isn't new.
The waisting of ramp space! As opposed the the ramp space took up by the RAF provision of TacRecce (something the USAF doesn't do a lot of), Air Refueling (crucial for USN), STORMSHADOW equipped aircraft...
Not to mention the RAF SH and RN CF that flew when their US counterparts refused.
The RAF is just as much of a supporting arm of the USAF (and USN air) as the British Army is to the US Army - discuss.
One could say the same for everything else the UK took to theatre - including an understrength UK division (2 x lt 1 x armd). National political stances aside, the kit that went was used and was needed by the Coalition.
Token efforts - my ARRSE.
The waisting of ramp space! As opposed the the ramp space took up by the RAF provision of TacRecce (something the USAF doesn't do a lot of), Air Refueling (crucial for USN), STORMSHADOW equipped aircraft...
Not to mention the RAF SH and RN CF that flew when their US counterparts refused.
The RAF is just as much of a supporting arm of the USAF (and USN air) as the British Army is to the US Army - discuss.
One could say the same for everything else the UK took to theatre - including an understrength UK division (2 x lt 1 x armd). National political stances aside, the kit that went was used and was needed by the Coalition.
Token efforts - my ARRSE.
Unaware of the US forces refusing to fly when the RAF/RN would - perhaps you'd elucitdate and provide a link? I
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound
I'm willing to bet the USAF/USN/USMC provided a lot more manned and unmanned tacrecce than the RAF did. The RAF's AAR fleet was irrelevant as far as USAF was concerned, being unable to refuel USAF aircraft. As for Stormshadow -what did that do that any number of US systems couldn't?
Unaware of the US forces refusing to fly when the RAF/RN would - perhaps you'd elucitdate and provide a link? I
Unaware of the US forces refusing to fly when the RAF/RN would - perhaps you'd elucitdate and provide a link? I
I'm willing to bet the USAF/USN/USMC provided a lot more manned and unmanned tacrecce than the RAF did.
The RAF's AAR fleet was irrelevant as far as USAF was concerned, being unable to refuel USAF aircraft.
As for Stormshadow -what did that do that any number of US systems couldn't?
Unaware of the US forces refusing to fly when the RAF/RN would - perhaps you'd elucitdate and provide a link?
By the way, was anything the UK did in any environment that the US couldn't have done by themselves?
Re-read my posts I am not saying that any Service can win a conflict by itself that is why we need to understand joint... and combined... and comprehensive... and multi-agency.
Last edited by Climebear; 17th May 2006 at 16:30.