Preparing The Country For The Disbandment Of The Raf?

[timex]

How strange, I was going to suggest the very same thing for the not insignificant number of forces personnel in my part of the MOD who treat their office posting as an excuse to get drunk, come in late (usually hungover), take every Wednesday afternoon off for "sport" and the f*ck off home early on Friday. Doubtless were a CS to act in this way you'd be screaming from the rooftops, or is it just double standards for HM Forces?

Or...just the fact that your job is the only place for some down time from front line Mil service and not Mon-Fri 9-5?

[cooheed]

Originally Posted by Lucy Lastic

I'm not sure about this. It looks to me as though the forces generally are refusing to go quietly and using the media to lay the blame where it belongs - at the feet of this half-*ss*d government.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

The way they have been running up the white flag to the EU over the years exemplifies this crass proposal!

[Bismark]

I think the RAF would fare better if they appeared more Joint in their thinking. Their problem is that their (Torpy) attitude is "if it flies it must be RAF".....relax chaps and do not feel constantly threatened by the other Services.

Embrace JHC, JHF, CVF, etc and you will find that you get more support from the other 2 Services. Drop the attitude that SAR is for the Air Force, Harriers must be flown by the Air Force (but look what 800 NAS are doing in Helmand), AH should really be flown by the Air Force, SH must be flown by the Air Force.

No doubt the RAF is also claiming ownership of UAVs despite the fact that all 3 Services operate them (actually in my day it was only the RN and Army that operated UAVs).

So why not start the New Year on a friendly note RAF, be more Joint and you may find you have more friends.

PS Great job you aare doing in Morecambe Bay searching for the lost helo guys.....but the RN are there with you, you know.

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by Bismark

I think the RAF would fare better if they appeared more Joint in their thinking. Their problem is that their (Torpy) attitude is "if it flies it must be RAF".....relax chaps and do not feel constantly threatened by the other Services.

Embrace JHC, JHF, CVF, etc and you will find that you get more support from the other 2 Services. Drop the attitude that SAR is for the Air Force, Harriers must be flown by the Air Force (but look what 800 NAS are doing in Helmand), AH should really be flown by the Air Force, SH must be flown by the Air Force.

So why not start the New Year on a friendly note RAF, be more Joint and you may find you have more friends.

I know this is going to be a mistake but, hell, I'll bite! Of course the FAA and the AAC are skilled, capable and professional operators, but their operations are of necessity of a tactical nature and usually for the tactical needs of their parent service. The philosophy of the RAF is to use Air Power at that level as well, but also (and often with the same assets) at a strategic level. So when Dowding insisted that the RAF element of the BEF be withdrawn from France to the UK in 1940, to preserve it for the inevitable Battle of Britain, it was a Strategic decision at the expense of the Tactical needs of the Army, and not a popular decision amongst those making that bloody withdrawal. When Harris insisted that the 4-engined bomber force be used solely for the Strategic Bomber Offensive it caused great friction with the Royal Navy who wanted sustained attacks on the Kriegmarine's Bases and U-boat Pens, and he had to be ordered to switch the effort to Northern France for the tactical requirements of the Army before and after D-day. Both led to a bitterness between the three services that lasts to this day.
On the whole the Army's and the Navy's assets are their own, and neither has a great interest in interfering in the other's environment. The Air however is part of all military operations, and there is rarely a sufficiency of supply to meet the demand. The RAF has always to keep an eye on the strategic woods at the expense of the tactical trees. A lot of discussion is going on now re Typhoon. Very expensive in monetary, resource and manpower terms to ensure an Air Superiority that is not even threatened at the moment!
So Joint is good, but only up to a point! The Luftwaffe was very joint, making the Wehrmacht's Blitzkrieg tactics seemingly unstoppable. But the lack of a Strategic Bomber Force later in the war meant that Soviet War Production could grow unmolested, churning out the thousands of T34s that would overwhelm that same Wehrmacht. The customer is not always right, and Air Power must be independent to be a war winner, which was what Trenchard intended when he founded the RAF in 1918, and which the present CAS has got to push now just as hard!
Rant ends, take cover, very heavy incoming!

[tucumseh]

" Time to put them (civilians) on three year contracts, with renewal subject to … superior performance assessment."

I tend to agree. But first I’d insist that ALL staff are treated the same instead of the current two-tier approach whereby direct entrants are not required to attain the competences of the five grades they skipped. By doing this, you would avoid the situation we have today whereby some very senior staffs in DPA think it acceptable to trade-out safety and airworthiness, and consider it the done thing to knowingly waste money; all with the express approval of their bosses.

“How strange, I was going to suggest the very same thing for the not insignificant number of forces personnel in my part of the MOD who treat their office posting as an excuse to get drunk, come in late (usually hungover), take every Wednesday afternoon off for "sport" and the f*ck off home early on Friday. Doubtless were a CS to act in this way you'd be screaming from the rooftops, or is it just double standards for HM Forces?”

I also agree with this sentiment, if not the details. If one accepts that a large percentage of Service personnel at Abbey Wood are employed on “Requirements” and “ILS”, the real problem in my experience is they are seldom trained for these tasks, particularly requirements management. Couple this with the rule (long upheld by successive CDPs and Ministers) that if Servicemen cannot or will not carry out these roles, then the project manager must do them himself without the benefit of further manpower or financial resources, then you have a recipe for disaster and discontent. And in turn couple this ruling with the above concessions to direct entrants (who, by definition, have not learnt Requirements or ILS as they have skipped the relevant grades) it is easily seen why failures in these disciplines are now screwing up projects on a regular basis.

There is good and bad on both sides. I have unfortunately experienced Service RMs who, being unwilling to do their job, have actively lobbied for projects to be cancelled; thereby avoiding any blame for delay. Not a good quality in a Lt Colonel I suggest. Equally, I know many civvy PMs who have done the same because their lack of basic competence and experience (and hence premature promotion) has left them quite incapable of managing anything but the simplest task. On more than one occasion I have been instructed to cease work on a project because it involved, for example, a modicum of system integration – a taboo subject among many of DPA’s higher flyers. Too difficult you see. Too much scope for risks they don’t understand and so can’t mitigate. And can’t abide the thought of their subordinate doing it effortlessly. Sod the user who’s dug in a ditch begging for the kit. (I just ignored them, every time).

So yes, put us on contracts by all means, but first make it a level playing field. No promotion to C1 until they’ve managed a variety of technologies, across all 3 services, in every stage of the acquisition cycle. And don’t get me started on beancounters!

[Jimlad1]

"So yes, put us on contracts by all means, but first make it a level playing field. No promotion to C1 until they’ve managed a variety of technologies, across all 3 services, in every stage of the acquisition cycle. And don’t get me started on beancounters!"

Very good point - its too easy for new entrants to get fast promotion using the JOB system to reasonably senior levels based solely on a job interview. There is no detailed assessment until B2, possibly too senior.

The problem I've had with forces in my office is that they are keen for a while, then lose interest as they have their next posting to sort out. They also take 6 - 12 months to build up reasonable corporate knowledge and then move on taking it with them. While getting a Central TLB post is doubtless a good thing career wise for forces personnel, only having people for 2 years does not build long term stability. I'd strongly argue for a 3 - 4 year tour to implement knowledge and reduce the time spent working up (the time taken to brief new senior folks is literally stunning).

I am concious that many see it as a well deserved break - 9-5 work is a nice change for a lot of guys. The problem is that a lot of these posts are pretty important and treating it as 'downtime' is very damaging to the MODs wider interest.

[engineer(retard)]

Spooky, I was discussing this 2 days ago. As well as the utterly useles diatribe, we've also had the Tim Collins self publicity stunt and the RAF hammered for celebrating Christmas. Bismarck is on the money but forgets jointery is green. Scrap those aircraft carriers, you'll need more troop ships.

regards

retard

[Bismark]

On the whole the Army's and the Navy's assets are their own, and neither has a great interest in interfering in the other's environment. The Air however is part of all military operations, and there is rarely a sufficiency of supply to meet the demand.

Chug,

I do not think 800/801 NAS nor the Junglies could be considered part of the RN's own - they are tasked by either JFH/PJHQ or JHC/PJHQ - my RN serving colleagues would say they have little control over their tasking.

Who said Harris was right?

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by Bismark

Chug,

I do not think 800/801 NAS nor the Junglies could be considered part of the RN's own - they are tasked by either JFH/PJHQ or JHC/PJHQ - my RN serving colleagues would say they have little control over their tasking.

Who said Harris was right?

I was thinking more of non aviation assets, but your point is taken and of course with a shrinking UK defence base Joint, wherever it can be done, makes sense. My point is that the strategic use of Air Power must sometimes override joint if you want to win wars as against battles.
As to Harris, I might be tempted to answer Speer. For though he charmed and lied his way out of the Hangman's noose, in his more unequivocal moments he would let slip the chaos that the campaign caused him. His much vaunted success in maintaining production was not the point, for his enemies were increasing theirs dramatically. If he could have done the same, Germany's superior technology could still have won the war. My other candidate would be Eisenhower. When he told Allied D-day troops not to bother looking up if they heard aircraft, for they would be ours, he knew that the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern Front or defending the Reich against the round the clock bombing. Otherwise they would have been in France, and the close run thing that was D-day could have swung the other way and we would have been driven back into the sea. So strategic air campaigns have far greater effects than the obvious ones of laying waste to city after city. To my mind Harris was right, and it was a war winning campaign. It was however an embarrassment in the peace, especially as friends became foes and vice versa. But all that is currently featured on another thread.
I think it's safe to come out now, but whatever you do don't mention the war! I did, but I think I got away with it!

[really not]

Forgive me for being parochial, but has the justification for the RAF always been The Battle of Britain and er...... that's it? An excellent PR machine in the past moved Australia 200 miles to get the CV programme cancelled in the late 60's, and it has managed to continue to justify what can be considered the biggest MOD white elephant - the Typhoon. (Soon to be outclassed at at massively reduced cost by the JSF).

The argument for devolving the CRABs to the battlefield owners (over/on/ under SEA = RN , Over/on/under land= Army) has been going on since 1919, and gathered pace since the defence of the UK home base has become less of a requirement, and more of an insurance policy.

The RAF's ability to operate anywhere in the world is now severely hampered or even in doubt with the lack of overflight rights, and an empire to land aircraft in. If a nation wants to project power anywhere in the world, the only platform capable of "instant" response is sea based. But the daily bigot, sorry Mail and the currant bun would never let the heroes of the BofB (forget the RN and other forces that were rushed into that crisis) be "phased out".

If it were to be looked at coldly and dispassionately, IMHO there is no justification for the 3rd service these days, but no government would ever have the wherewithall to make the change.

Rant over, your mess kit is still crap!

[Willi B]

Jimlad1/GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

OK, from an Antipodean perspective, I'll bite.

If memory serves me correctly, there have been eight major reviews into the structure of the Australian Defence Department in as many years; and five recent reviews into equipment failures and cost blow outs.

The total cost to the taxpayer of the various procurement bungles alone must now run into the several billions - funds that might have been used to address some major inequalities in our society.

Yet those responsible for such largesse with taxpayers' funds remain on the public payroll, seemingly immune from retribution.

If the situation were replicated in private enterprise, the corporation would have gone to the wall, with the shareholders and ASIC baying for the directors' blood.

And you've not walked around the Department of Defence Russell Hill complex in recent times, and noted the number of people in plain clothes standing outside buildings, smoking, gossiping and generally not attending to the duties for which the taxpayer shells out generous recompense.

These days, Defence is a haven for indolent left handed basket weavers; where regression to mediocrity is preferred to the pursuit of individual excellence; where individual worker ‘rights’ ‘permanency’ and ‘entitlements’ take precedence over the duty to do a fair days’ work for a fair days pay; where commercial experience and business acumen is vilified; and where poor performers are retained and even promoted because of an inability to terminate employment without endless counselling, letter writing and other warnings.

I used to believe in permanence for public servants to ensure 'frank and fearless advice'. But these days, all permanence seems to represent is a senior bureaucratic 'sheltered workshop' in Canberra (and London), where, in a restricted gene pool, ethical standards of public administration and concerns/accountability for taxpayers' funds have reached a new low.

And comparisons to alleged shortcomings in serving personnel are, with great respect, quite irrelevant, mischevious and unhelpful. When public servants are subject to the same posting, disciplinary, and administrative sanctions as their military counterparts, then you may have grounds for complaint.

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by really not

Forgive me for being parochial, but has the justification for the RAF always been The Battle of Britain and er...... ).

The RAF's ability to operate anywhere in the world is now severely hampered or even in doubt with the lack of overflight rights, and an empire to land aircraft in. If a nation wants to project power anywhere in the world, the only platform capable of "instant" response is sea based.

If it were to be looked at coldly and dispassionately, IMHO there is no justification for the 3rd service these days, but no government would ever have the wherewithall to make the change.

Rant over, your mess kit is still crap!

Doh! and just when I thought it had all gone quiet!

Well RN (oh that is clever, do you see boys and girls his initials are the same as zzzz....), oh yes the BoB, well it was our party piece until Hitler's waiter said that Hitler never had any intention of invading, which rather made the RN (there they are again!) claim to it somewhat superfluous. I should sort it out with the waiter if I were you.
I see you share the same concerns as Admiral West has about Dip Clearances. Personally I don't know what all the trouble is about. Ours were always tickety-boo and done by a Corporal in Ops. Perhaps the waiter could help with that as well?
As to my Mess Kit, Sir, how very much dare you! Mrs C always said I looked very fetching in it, and I'll value her opinion against yours any day!

[N Joe]

To add to Rev I. Tin's photo - it was typical of the coverage of Basrah over Christmas to see the interview with the Sqn Ldr Doc from the "Army".

Now to play devil's advocate with a theory dreamed up in the bar during a course at AWC:

SAMs are better at shooting down aircraft than AA guns. AAMs are just SAMs with a vulnerable launch platform. You don't need the RAF to look after SAMs.

Cruise missiles (and possibly ballistic missiles, and in the future, UCAVs) are better than aircraft at IDS-type missions. You don't need the RAF to look after cruise missiles.

With the jointery that surrounds everything rotary, the Army and Navy would happily snap up anything that actually remains light blue.

The AT fleet is primarily tasked with moving the Army about. With the increase in the number of charters, the RLC would certainly take on this role.

With last orders looming, close air support, recce, ELINT, SIGINT, SF etc were lumped together - mostly tasked by the Army in support of the Army. Could be run by the Army.

So all that's left to justify the existence of the RAF is a token FJ fleet for CAS to champion and to support Red Flag. And of course you couldn't do without a CAS or Red Flag!?!?!?

Yes, I know the theory ignores essentials such as Regt, PEd, Admin, but these branches were not represented on the course!

N Joe

[Golf Echo 30]

Reading about the 'imminent demise' of the RAF in this thread is pretty sad . Despite all of the negative press that the RAF may have received (some justified, some not) the politicians in Whitehall are not about to fall into the trap of merging or disbanding what is a very high profile institution. Do the Army top brass really want the RAF merged in? I doubt it very much for a significant number of reasons. (too many to type) Do the politicians have the guts to disband it? Again, I very much doubt it due to their moral cowardice and the Falklands factor (let's sell our landing ships!).

However, would the RN and Army like a bit of the aviation action? Almost certainly! Show me the armed forces of any country and all three services (if they have three) are always encroaching on each others turf. It's one big game of office politics in which there are ups and downs.

Moving onto the RAF and its bad PR..... Does the Army have a high opinion of the RAF? Not really and the problem is that it is a matter of perception and 3rd hand stories. How many soldiers can tell you about a 3 day patrol in Norther Ireland when p*ss wet through, tired and you are told that the RAF can't pick you up as a)there is a small cloud over RAF Aldergrove b)The pilots have flown over 2hrs that week and regs state they can't do more c)the aircrew are having trouble checking out of their 5* hotel. Not to mention having to turn up at RAF Lyneham well ahead of your flight and being mucked around from dusk til dawn. (See recent Cyprus debacle)

In short, fully support maintaining the RAF; but comeon chaps, you don't always cover yourself in glory in the eyes of the other services.

[engineer(retard)]

I suspect that the current furore is more to do with fighting over a budget that is miniscule in proportion to the task. This governement is not swayed by historical argument, nor by whose got the best mess dress, but by by press headlines.

In between the Gulf Wars, the RAF had the whip hand in the politicians eyes due to the various ops going on and were at the front of the money queue, their money was spent on fast jet and weapons. The others had the hind t1t.

The situation is now changing, the Army needs the budget urgently and the defence budget by its nature is not very responsive in the short term. Typhoons money is locked down in contract, I would guess that anything else is up for grabs by delay or cancellation. JSF delays are a good reason for delaying CVF and releasing near term budget. I would also guess that FSTA money will be siphoned off.

regards

retard

[Bismark]

the Army needs the budget urgently

I am not too sure this is actually the case - do not be swayed by comments from hard pressed troops on the front line - they will never have enough. What the Army needs is a break from ops so they can re-group, recover and re-constitute themselves with some proper training. Costs of being on ops comes from the Treasury not MoD, but Gordon will only pay for the additional cost of being on ops not the full cost (ie MoD would be paying for the people etc anyway). We should listen to the likes of West who rightly said that all funds should not be squandered on the "now" as there will be nothing to pay for future equipment, whether it be for replacement of earlier than planned wear out or the big ticket projects like CVF. What is important with future project is that they are not allowed to haemorage money like Typhoon, MRA4, Astute etc - this means more intelligent contracting by MoD.

[engineer(retard)]

Bismark

Again, I agree with most of what you say but believe that the army are not adequately equipped or manned to do the job without taking avoidable losses. Decent patrol vehicles would be high on the shopping list.

Also you mention the Treasury are footing the bill, I understood that the defence budget was supposed to be set for 2 simaltaneous medium sized conflicts and that the Treasury had not intention of bailing out the MoD. I also find it hard to believe that we will not rob Peter to pay Paul and that anything the Treasury doles out now will be recouped in the future. Perhaps its the cynic in me.

regards

retard

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by Bismark

I am not too sure this is actually the case - do not be swayed by comments from hard pressed troops on the front line - they will never have enough. What the Army needs is a break from ops so they can re-group, recover and re-constitute themselves with some proper training.
What is important with future project is that they are not allowed to haemorage money like Typhoon, MRA4, Astute etc - this means more intelligent contracting by MoD.

Really Bismark, for someone who tells the RAF to be more friendly, and enthuses over the joys of Joint, am I alone in finding your opening remark little short of outrageous? In all fairness to the Army on the front line, what they need is not just enough, but the right type and quality of enough. A military that goes to war constantly on the scrounge is hardly a vote of confidence in any ministry of the British Government, or its CS, or its service staffs. They have been betrayed by malign neglect, incompetence and good old politics. Never mind the means, we must secure CVF, and devil take the hindmost! May I respectfully suggest that you practise what you preach? The only protection against this bigoted, incompetent and malevolent government is for Joint to start and be practised from top to bottom. Do you really believe that this bunch of shysters have any intention of laying down a keel, let alone launching, fitting out and equipping two carriers, and then acquiring the aircraft to arm them? Get real! These people have been opposed to the Armed Forces for their entire political careers, our esteemed leader was a fully paid up member of CND, none of them have served, nor have their children AFAIK. They are grinding down the UK bases to minuscule numbers, and the trend is much more of the same. No service will survive unscathed, let alone be augmented at the expense of the others. The habits of generations have got to be cast aside and a Joint stand made against our most dangerous foe ever-HMG! So bin the banter and get together, for divided we fall, united we stand

[Bismark]

Chug,

I agree with much of what you say. However, if Hansard is to be believed - that the RAF are still operating 72 airfields - then something is seriously out of balance (I think the RN only operate 2 and the Army about 4). Cut the waste for sure, but please get the RAF to think of Joint benefit not "light blue or bust" as is the present CAS (and CDS?) mantra.

[Sven Sixtoo]

RAF Stations operating aircraft as the primary task.
Kinloss
Lossiemouth
Leuchars
Leeming
Linton-on-Ouse
Church Fenton
Waddington
Scampton
Coningsby
Cottesmore
Cranwell
Barkston Heath
Wittering
Marham
Benson
Odiham
Lyneham
Brize Norton
St Mawgan
Valley
Shawbury
Woodvale
Aldergrove
23
Other RAF Stations operating aircraft:
Mount Pleasant
Boulmer
Wyton
Other places the RAF operates aircraft from
Leconfield
Wattisham
Chivenor
I must have missed a few, but 72 active airfields? I think not.