Sky Live Debate the Need For An Independent Air Force
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North of England
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Collins - who do you work for?
Lt Col (Rtd) Collins worked/works for a PMC (funny, we used to call them mercenaries) who have frequently proposed to help NATO out in Afghanistan by providing civilian manned (but armed) helicopters. Civilian helos are used here in the log spt role, but the point is that Col Tim needs to declare his interest in this matter.
CF in the 'Stan
CF in the 'Stan
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't start this again, plenty of other threads to choose from!!
Oh please No!!
Not another month of defencive - offencive forces bashing (by ourselves). Nah na na we are better than you crap, my RAF granny can spot a Vulcan from 52 meters!!! not 51 like your pongo one!!!
Let these fools get on with it, why do you think the idiot channels put this on - divide and rule?
I can't fly a fast jet (it makes me sick) and I bet not all of you are A2's so let me do my job, you do yours and all of us fight the one cause - the over all survival and improvement of a job that is slowly sapping our will to live (well serve at least)
Collins who?????
Not another month of defencive - offencive forces bashing (by ourselves). Nah na na we are better than you crap, my RAF granny can spot a Vulcan from 52 meters!!! not 51 like your pongo one!!!
Let these fools get on with it, why do you think the idiot channels put this on - divide and rule?
I can't fly a fast jet (it makes me sick) and I bet not all of you are A2's so let me do my job, you do yours and all of us fight the one cause - the over all survival and improvement of a job that is slowly sapping our will to live (well serve at least)
Collins who?????
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Gnd, so do you support the idea of an 'open and fair debate' or think it should not be held?
Having had the debate, will there be a vote for a winner? 0906 ........
Having had the debate, will there be a vote for a winner? 0906 ........
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we just merge this thread with the UAV's and KA's for the Army thread. It's sure to turn into another pathetic willy waving contest so lets just starve prats like THS, SFFP and others of their oxygen?
For what it's worth, I think that this could be an interesting debate. I don't personally believe the RAF should be disbanded, but I am willing to listen to an intelligent debate that says otherwise.
I've read Tim Collins's book and although I think he's egotistical, he was undoubtedly a quality soldier. It would be odd for any of us in the RAF to agree with his point of view on this subject, but that doesn't in itself mean it's wrong. If we are so confident that our arguments stand up, we shouldn't be afraid to debate it.
For what it's worth, I think that this could be an interesting debate. I don't personally believe the RAF should be disbanded, but I am willing to listen to an intelligent debate that says otherwise.
I've read Tim Collins's book and although I think he's egotistical, he was undoubtedly a quality soldier. It would be odd for any of us in the RAF to agree with his point of view on this subject, but that doesn't in itself mean it's wrong. If we are so confident that our arguments stand up, we shouldn't be afraid to debate it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Hachet Harry - As you are a probationer why don't you crank your neck in a couple of notches with the personal attacks until you've a little more experience on the forum.
But to reply to your post, I believe Tim Collins is an excellent soldier too, but Lt Col soldiers are not authorities on the use and control of airpower.
I wouldn't try to preach on the best way to remove an engine from an a/c and neither do I believe Gp Capt Lockwood would be as bold as to tell the press what he thought would be the best way for infantry to conduct operations so by the same measure Tim Collins should keep his nose out of a subject he obviously knows very little about, other than what he has picked up reading Janes or watching Sky News.
That said though I too am interested to listen to debate because as has already been mentioned, an argument against the retention of three separate air arms is also an argument against the retention of the two separate air arms some of our FAA and AAC so desire.
But to reply to your post, I believe Tim Collins is an excellent soldier too, but Lt Col soldiers are not authorities on the use and control of airpower.
I wouldn't try to preach on the best way to remove an engine from an a/c and neither do I believe Gp Capt Lockwood would be as bold as to tell the press what he thought would be the best way for infantry to conduct operations so by the same measure Tim Collins should keep his nose out of a subject he obviously knows very little about, other than what he has picked up reading Janes or watching Sky News.
That said though I too am interested to listen to debate because as has already been mentioned, an argument against the retention of three separate air arms is also an argument against the retention of the two separate air arms some of our FAA and AAC so desire.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a shed
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope this programme is a little bit more interesting than the previous effort I saw featuring Lt Col Collins, when he presented his views on the state of the army today.
Utterly tedious and repetitive, and Lt Col Collins displayed all the charisma and television presenting ability of a cardboard box. (This is not intended as 'army bashing' coz I am sure he was a bloody fine officer and soldier!)
Utterly tedious and repetitive, and Lt Col Collins displayed all the charisma and television presenting ability of a cardboard box. (This is not intended as 'army bashing' coz I am sure he was a bloody fine officer and soldier!)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hachet Harry - As you are a probationer why don't you crank your neck in a couple of notches with the personal attacks until you've a little more experience on the forum.
I think we underestimate our senior officers. They don't get to be senior officers by knowing nothing about other Arms and Services. You imply from your posts that you are a Groundie; I would bet that Collins knows more about Air Power and its potential and effectiveness than you and me just as Lockwood probably has a better understanding of holding ground than the average grunt.
I agree that a debate over the merger of air assets is long overdue. The JHC has made a half ar5ed attempt at it, why not go the whole hog? Or at least a re-alignment;
if it's got wings = RAF (it's what we know).
if it hovers = Army (they all work for them anyway).
if it's got wings or hovers, but flies from a ship = Navy (because that bit is obvious!).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't aware that the UK had an independent Air Force....
If independent means 'free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others' then the RAF is not independent. It is governed vicariously by the Queen, via the Government and the MoD, as are the British Army and the Royal Navy. None of them are independent.
The statement 'In the current fiscal climate, there is no need for an Independent Air Force' is probably correct - only Bill Gates could probably afford one right now. If the statement was meant to say 'In the current fiscal climate, the Royal Air Force should be absorbed into the British Army and the Royal Navy' then the argument would be slightly more credible, albeit illfounded, since all 3 services are still governed by one Ministry. A rebranding of the Air Force as AAC or Fleet Air Arm would incur massive initial costs before returning to the exact same running costs as seen today. Absolute nonsense - And didn't I read somewhere that the correct title for Lt Col (retd) is Mister?
If independent means 'free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others' then the RAF is not independent. It is governed vicariously by the Queen, via the Government and the MoD, as are the British Army and the Royal Navy. None of them are independent.
The statement 'In the current fiscal climate, there is no need for an Independent Air Force' is probably correct - only Bill Gates could probably afford one right now. If the statement was meant to say 'In the current fiscal climate, the Royal Air Force should be absorbed into the British Army and the Royal Navy' then the argument would be slightly more credible, albeit illfounded, since all 3 services are still governed by one Ministry. A rebranding of the Air Force as AAC or Fleet Air Arm would incur massive initial costs before returning to the exact same running costs as seen today. Absolute nonsense - And didn't I read somewhere that the correct title for Lt Col (retd) is Mister?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
D-IFF
No, if you trawl back in pprune and check the official rank protocol it is indeed Lt Col (Rtd) NNNN late of Royal Irish.
For the gp capt it is Gp Capt NNNNN but neither RAF (Rtd) or even (Rtd).
If the gp capt was serving then it would be Gp Capt NNNN RAF.
No, if you trawl back in pprune and check the official rank protocol it is indeed Lt Col (Rtd) NNNN late of Royal Irish.
For the gp capt it is Gp Capt NNNNN but neither RAF (Rtd) or even (Rtd).
If the gp capt was serving then it would be Gp Capt NNNN RAF.
The JHC has made a half ar5ed attempt at it, why not go the whole hog? Or at least a re-alignment;
And with RW being the flavour of the month, just think of all the good PR and cash that Air Command could generate by commanding all those 'army helicopters'. I think we may be about to become popular with our light blue lords and masters once again.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim Collins retired as a full Colonel. And yes, he was a bloody good soldier and a charismatic and courageous leader, but also a strong personality and very outspoken. That is probably why the heirarchy in the MOD ganged up on him after G2 and eventually compelled him to resign, which they seem to be developing into a habit.
I would be surprised if he actually believes in the idea he is proposing and suspect that there is a tongue in cheek. He is, after all, an Irishman. However, it should produce a fascinating debate and I bet he has some fairly cogent arguments to make.
Hope there is some reasoned and intelligent discussion and it doesn't just develop into a pure p*ss*ng contest with cries of "if you're brown you can't possibly understand the use of airpower" a la Prune.
Can't wait.
I would be surprised if he actually believes in the idea he is proposing and suspect that there is a tongue in cheek. He is, after all, an Irishman. However, it should produce a fascinating debate and I bet he has some fairly cogent arguments to make.
Hope there is some reasoned and intelligent discussion and it doesn't just develop into a pure p*ss*ng contest with cries of "if you're brown you can't possibly understand the use of airpower" a la Prune.
Can't wait.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a feature on Sky news questioning the RAFs ability to support another Op such as Op Corporate. Col Collins was indeed giving his tuppence worth. To summarise his points:
1. All helis go to Army.
2. All strike capability goes to Navy (!)
3. All heavy lift goes to Richard Branson.
4. Bearing in mind 1-3 the RAF now has to defend itself, its role and place within the MoD budget.
No doubt a very fine Army officer but his view of what the RAF does and can bring to any Op is naive at best. I think this was a bit of mischief making, as his view / arguments don't hold water whatsoever. Stick to cogent debates where you won't damage your credibility would be my advice.
1. All helis go to Army.
2. All strike capability goes to Navy (!)
3. All heavy lift goes to Richard Branson.
4. Bearing in mind 1-3 the RAF now has to defend itself, its role and place within the MoD budget.
No doubt a very fine Army officer but his view of what the RAF does and can bring to any Op is naive at best. I think this was a bit of mischief making, as his view / arguments don't hold water whatsoever. Stick to cogent debates where you won't damage your credibility would be my advice.
Last edited by Chris Griffin; 17th Jun 2007 at 09:12. Reason: spolling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: glasgow
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standby for some heresy.
I am an officer in the RAF and I think that the independent air force is far from a safe premise. Dont get me wrong, we have a proud history and have done much to help the world but perhaps there are sound arguments for our absorption.
When I look around the air force I see an organisation where 40% work their tits off (AT, Rotary, Regiment and other supporting ground elements/ trades) in repeated and lengthy deploments to the gulf and elsewhere. They contribute to front line operations and represent the best the RAF has to offer the sister services and the country.
What does the other 60% do? Well sadly, often not a lot really. The reforming airships have, in my view correctly, done much to move us away from the cold war mentality - but the rest of our air force are often little more than uniformed civil servants who deploy to gain the proverbial career tick. People bemoan the shrinking RAF, but I ask myself what some personnel groups contribute now. Christ knows what it was like 20 years ago. And Im not suggesting individual laziness here, Im talking about institutionalised inefficiency.
People rattle on about how the army and RN could not cope with high tech air platforms. I say fiddlesticks - we have finest armed forces in the world and we would adapt. It is facile to suggest that the RAF is the only place where the brains exist to use assets effectively. The other services also have highly skilled and intelligent servicemen. The RAF should be able to hang its hat on more than a simplistic sense of technical arrogance. The fact it cant smacks sometimes of desperation. And think how much more defence budget would be freed up without a 3rd service to stick its oar in. Im proud of my uniform but think people need to look beyond the partisan views expressed here and take in the big picture.
We are heading in the right direction, but I for one am not surprised when commentators propose the very real possibility of absorption into the other services. I for one think it may not be so far fetched or unreasonable.
I am an officer in the RAF and I think that the independent air force is far from a safe premise. Dont get me wrong, we have a proud history and have done much to help the world but perhaps there are sound arguments for our absorption.
When I look around the air force I see an organisation where 40% work their tits off (AT, Rotary, Regiment and other supporting ground elements/ trades) in repeated and lengthy deploments to the gulf and elsewhere. They contribute to front line operations and represent the best the RAF has to offer the sister services and the country.
What does the other 60% do? Well sadly, often not a lot really. The reforming airships have, in my view correctly, done much to move us away from the cold war mentality - but the rest of our air force are often little more than uniformed civil servants who deploy to gain the proverbial career tick. People bemoan the shrinking RAF, but I ask myself what some personnel groups contribute now. Christ knows what it was like 20 years ago. And Im not suggesting individual laziness here, Im talking about institutionalised inefficiency.
People rattle on about how the army and RN could not cope with high tech air platforms. I say fiddlesticks - we have finest armed forces in the world and we would adapt. It is facile to suggest that the RAF is the only place where the brains exist to use assets effectively. The other services also have highly skilled and intelligent servicemen. The RAF should be able to hang its hat on more than a simplistic sense of technical arrogance. The fact it cant smacks sometimes of desperation. And think how much more defence budget would be freed up without a 3rd service to stick its oar in. Im proud of my uniform but think people need to look beyond the partisan views expressed here and take in the big picture.
We are heading in the right direction, but I for one am not surprised when commentators propose the very real possibility of absorption into the other services. I for one think it may not be so far fetched or unreasonable.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
And think how much more defence budget would be freed up without a 3rd service to stick its oar in
cks mentioned when this subject is brought up.Where will all these savings be made? All the aircraft that the RAF currently operate will still be needed, they will still need to be supported and as has often been shown PFI type arrangements aren't cheaper in the long run. The people that support the aircraft will themselves need to be supported. The aircraft will still need to be based at suitable locations and those suitable locations will still need to be supported. Would the RN be able to support the entire strike fleet from their existing bases and under their existing command structures or would it be more than likely that they would add HMS Brize Norton, HMS Marham and HMS High Wycombe to their empire?
What savings would actually be made? Lack of needing to buy RAF uniforms? If thats the case why not just simplify the bewildering array of uniforms the various regiments of the British Army has, or is tradition untouchable whilst the operational experience of the worlds oldest air force is in open season?
Also as a serving RAF officer can you really see the personnel serving under you happily rebadging to RN or AAC? 'Experts' are always quick to say where the kit could go to but don't often mention the most valuable asset the RAF has, its people. Can you really see thousands of RAF techies happy to be told they will be part of REME as of next week? How long do you think it would take for those PVRs to come flooding in and then where will the RN and AAC be left, with a pile of aircraft that they have no experience in at all and no one around to fix them? The premise that you can just hand aircraft over to a different branch of the armed forces cheapens the dedication to their service and knowledge of those RAF personnel who currently support those aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
40% working their bits off!!! How do you work that out? As far as air assets are concerned note the following:
AT: currently working at between 105 - 120% (20% for Timmy
)
Strike: Harriers and Tonkas - continuous Herrick and Telic
AD: F3s Falklands, Typhoon Q work up
Nimrods - continuous Herrick and Telic
New ISTAR assets also ramping up.
When not on ops there are work ups and exercises with all support that they entail.
40% - sounds like a typical blinkered wannabe senior officer - try closer to 60 - 70% the other way.
So, the whole premise of your argument is that the RAF aren't working hard and the Navy can cope with the technology...well, I'm sold, lets do it
How will doing away with the RAF slice of the budget increase or at best maintain our capability? The frames still need buying and supporting; the drivers and maintainers still need paying, they still need a strip of concrete and support infrastructure. Support infrastructure of the other Services has been pared to the minimum so any absorption will necessitate more HR staff. In a nutshell the costs will still be there unless major cuts are proposed.
However, other problems exist such as how willing will the existing RAF personnel be to transfer to sister Services? There would be a massive experience drain in all aspects - FACT. In my opinion you would be lucky to transfer 40% of staff -if people wanted to be in the Navy or Army they would have joined them.
What is this "big picture" of which you speak wotsit? Could it be that there isn't one and it is a typical weaseling way of admitting there is no real case for it? Just state that your opponent doesn't see the big picture and the argument is won!!
The only big picture is that people are doing more with less, with everyone looking for more to do it with, hence arguments like this will be inevitable.
We are heading in the right direction if the intention is to reduce the RAF to a token third world defence force.
If you want others to listen to your Melchett ideas wotsit, then organise an Xmas draw and get yourself promoted. Failing that come up with some better arguments.
AT: currently working at between 105 - 120% (20% for Timmy
)Strike: Harriers and Tonkas - continuous Herrick and Telic
AD: F3s Falklands, Typhoon Q work up
Nimrods - continuous Herrick and Telic
New ISTAR assets also ramping up.
When not on ops there are work ups and exercises with all support that they entail.
40% - sounds like a typical blinkered wannabe senior officer - try closer to 60 - 70% the other way.
So, the whole premise of your argument is that the RAF aren't working hard and the Navy can cope with the technology...well, I'm sold, lets do it
How will doing away with the RAF slice of the budget increase or at best maintain our capability? The frames still need buying and supporting; the drivers and maintainers still need paying, they still need a strip of concrete and support infrastructure. Support infrastructure of the other Services has been pared to the minimum so any absorption will necessitate more HR staff. In a nutshell the costs will still be there unless major cuts are proposed.
However, other problems exist such as how willing will the existing RAF personnel be to transfer to sister Services? There would be a massive experience drain in all aspects - FACT. In my opinion you would be lucky to transfer 40% of staff -if people wanted to be in the Navy or Army they would have joined them.
What is this "big picture" of which you speak wotsit? Could it be that there isn't one and it is a typical weaseling way of admitting there is no real case for it? Just state that your opponent doesn't see the big picture and the argument is won!!
The only big picture is that people are doing more with less, with everyone looking for more to do it with, hence arguments like this will be inevitable.
We are heading in the right direction if the intention is to reduce the RAF to a token third world defence force.
If you want others to listen to your Melchett ideas wotsit, then organise an Xmas draw and get yourself promoted. Failing that come up with some better arguments.