Disband the Royal Air Force?

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Why would I need to bother when I have the wisdom of you lot to draw on? Thats why I asked the question.

As an Army man, bombs on target in support of the battle is what counts to me. With the arforementioned exceptions, educate me on what the rest of you are doing when theres a war on, because 7 cabs doesn't seem like a best effort to me, or is that all the RAF has left?

Now if I'm asking the question then you can be sure someone that matters is too. Calling me thick doesn't answer the question, it just re-enforces my thoughts that you can't answer it.

[LFFC]

Vortex ... "The money may have been spent but I'm sure we could buy a few needed mine proof vehicles against the trade in value."

As I said in post 36 earlier in this thread:

What all suggestions like this boil down to, is the desire to get their hands on the RAF's share of the defence budget - and that's very sad, and quite naive, when you consider how budget decisions are made in the Centre.

I rest my case!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Vortex

And my point was that all elements, with perhaps the exception of the Typhoon force, are working. Your original quote, which I did read, states that the RAF are doing nothing with the exception of 7 GR9s and the SH and AT fleets!!!

I have much respect for the army, but yet again the army and the navy always seem to assume that because the RAF aircraft aren't in theatre then:

a. we are doing nothing - (I was just to point out to you who is doing what, where).

b. it is the RAF's fault that they are not there in bigger numbers.

IT IS NOT up to the RAF how many assets are deployed. It is up to PJHQ (last time I checked a TRI-SERVICE organization) to ask for more assets to be deployed. Then it is up to HMG (last time I checked NOT an RAF organization) to approve the deployment ..... and FUND IT!!!

If the theatre commanders want more fast air, they have to request it - though PJHQ. And as I pointed out the GR9 force are pretty stretched at the moment, so unless you want us to start doing the Empire thing and basing squadrons of fast air in Afghanistan for full 3 year tours then I cannot see a way round it!! I wouldn't be taking my family though.

And if you had bothered to read my post it isn't just about the numbers of RAF aircraft in a particular theatre, the "rest of us" are supporting the army in theatre doing our day jobs out there. That is the air traffickers, dentists, doctors, medics, blunties, regiment, police, chefs, MT drivers, firecrews etc etc. Just how many aircraft and aircraft do you think there are!!!!!

One could equally argue that as only 7500 army personnel are deployed we don't need the other 90 000 who must be sat around doing nothing when we are fighting 2 wars. So

you had better start with a good explanation as to why you're still needed

[Vortex what...ouch!]

I don't deny for a second that there is a lot going on, Ive said it before very good work and much appreciated. 7 cabs during a war means someones priorities are wrong IMO, if thats all the jets available I would suggest the RAF is not fit for purpose (not a dig at people BTW). The very reason for the RAF is for jets to fly around dropping bombs on people, to coin a phrase, and not much of it is doing that.

If you've not enough crew to man the GR9's then perhaps you could retrain all those Typhoon boys to do something useful?

People say the Army don't understand Air Power, maybe because we hardly ever see it actually being used, unless its Americans filling in.
I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse but what are you there for if not to fight during a war?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Vortex

I will try and keep this as simple as possible for you:

1. The RAF does not choose to send assets on a whim - nor do the army or the RN.

2. If the theatre commanders feel they need more air support then they need to request that through PJHQ.

3. IF PJHQ decide that the request is valid they will decide what additional assets need to be deployed and they will seek approval from the government via the MOD.

4. IF if it is approved the task organisation will deploy the most suitable assets.

5. The RAF, just like the army and RN, do not simply deploy additional assets because they feel like it.

The army as I have tried to point out are doing tours of 4 months in 16 - not nice for them. The RAF (and RN) Harrier pilots are doing the same. If we deploy more Harriers then we cannot sustain the Harrier force. Simple really.

All I am trying to get across here is that the GR9 force is a small force - you are probably looking at no more than 80 pilots total - and it is not the RAF's decision to deploy more, or different types of aircraft. Trust me I know a few GR4 crews who would be more than willing to help the GR9 force in Afghanistan. If you are short of fast air, go through the theatre commanders to request more -if it gets stopped it will be at MOD or Government level over which the RAF has no control!!

Oh and by the way

If you've not enough crew to man the GR9's then perhaps you could retrain all those Typhoon boys to do something useful?

It takes 9 months to train a GR9 pilot, the OCU is running at maximum capacity at the moment. The only way to increase capacity is to withdraw frontline pilots to go to the conversion unit which reduces the number of pilots available to deploy. Chicken/Egg.

Hope that helps you to understand why it is not just a case of deploying more aircraft. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Roly Out

[serf]

How many personnel does it take to keep a couple of QRA jets available 24/7, and what else does the F3 fleet do - and if they are so hard pressed why have dets to UAE,India etc etc etc

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Thanks for keeping it simple mate all us Army blokes are thick don't you know.

The army as I have tried to point out are doing tours of 4 months in 16 - not nice for them. The RAF (and RN) Harrier pilots are doing the same. If we deploy more Harriers then we cannot sustain the Harrier force. Simple really.

All I am trying to get across here is that the GR9 force is a small force - you are probably looking at no more than 80 pilots total - and it is not the RAF's decision to deploy more, or different types of aircraft. Trust me I know a few GR4 crews who would be more than willing to help the GR9 force in Afghanistan. If you are short of fast air, go through the theatre commanders to request more -if it gets stopped it will be at MOD or Government level over which the RAF has no control!!

Again I don't mean to be annoying but we've been in this war thingy for 6 years now, whats the RAF been planning for in that time? If you cannot deploy more than 7 cabs before the organisation comes unstuck then whoever organised it needs shooting. But more importantly things need to change to remedy the fault.

Oh and by the way

It takes 9 months to train a GR9 pilot, the OCU is running at maximum capacity at the moment. The only way to increase capacity is to withdraw frontline pilots to go to the conversion unit which reduces the number of pilots available to deploy. Chicken/Egg.

Fair enough but its not as if this has just snuck up on us, as I said we've been at it for 6 years now.

And finally the Army has asked for more fast Air, many many times. But your comments above say the RAF (as an organisation, I'm not bitching at people here) cannot supply it. I have to ask again, if you can't provide cabs, or more than 7 of them, to support British troops on operations then what are you there for?

[Magic Mushroom]

As an Army man, bombs on target in support of the battle is what counts to me.

Vortex,

If I may, I'll try and answer your question. However, with respect, your considerable ignorance is illustrated with the above statement. Last year I served in an Army HQ on ops and the Dunkirkian adage 'if we can't see it it can't be there' sadly is never truer with the Army.

You discuss the importance of bombs on target. However, let's consider the wider concept of Joint kinetic effect (itself a fairly narrow view). Inevitably the laws of averages dictate that you may rarely see an RAF aircraft because the US assets in theatre will inevitably outnumber our own. Using your principles, perhaps I should have written a similarly strongly worded email to arrse after Bosnia, Kosovo, the initial Afghanistan ops and TELIC 1. In said email I could have suggested that if the sole role of the British Army is to fix toilets and install electricity at deployed RAF bases then why not contract out the sappers and disband the Army?

Why would I say this? Because in my operational experience over said theatres I rarely worked with the green British Army. Would it be an accurate assessment? No, of course not. However, the laws of averages meant that we were more often than not supporting US forces not the British Army.

Now let's take a step back and look at what goes on in a Joint and combined op. I'm sure you've experienced CAS being provided by USN FA-18s and F-14s. The likelihood is that those assets tanked from an RAF tanker. How did the USN aircraft find their target? It is quite possible that they located their targets via an RAF ISTAR asset such as a Nimrod MR2 or Reaper and received their rear brief from an RAF E-3D who is also working to coordinate Joint fires to ensure that the Iraqi arty piece that is currently spoiling your day is being fixed by MLRS prior to a check fire enabling CAS to finish him off.

Was it one of your FACs who controlled the USN or USAF CAS aircraft? How did he qualify and remain current in the UK prior to deploying? Probably by working with Tornado F3s and/or Typhoons in dry CAS training. And incidentally his initial trg would have been with RAF Hawks from JFACTSU.

Involved in an assault on a village in Helmand? Mmm, that's a reeeaaally useful briefing packup the plt cdr got issued. Look it shows which doors we can use and what parts of a roof we can move across. We can even decide where to blow our mouseholes so we can advance more quickly through the village without getting ourselves into dead ends and kill zones. The pics you're looking at most likely came from an RAF recce pod and were developed by RAF image analysts to be flown up to you on RAF comms fleet aircraft or helos.

Luckily, it shouldn't be much of a drama for you because we know Terry is already retreating down these 2 waddis here. The fact the green slime is briefing you that is probably because he has been provided by int derived from RAF assets. Ever get rerouted or delayed on a convoy move? Maybe it's because a Canberra PR9 spotted a roadside bomb and ambush being laid?

Vortex, I could go on but won't. These are just the aspects which can be placed on open source. Inevitably, there are far more that can't be discussed here. It is particularly worthy of note however that even types apparently uncommitted to ops in Iraq or Afghanistan (such as the F3) often make a significant contribution in terms of providing FAC trg etc. That is in addition to the extant national ops which they are still involved in such as QRA, ASW/ASuW, counter drugs and terrorism.

In short Vortex, may I recommend you look beyond the end of your minimi and consider that even boots on the ground requires Joint effects from a coalition. Much of the RAF assets involved will never be seen or heard by yourself and, like the RN, are often rarely in the news, sometimes out of choice.

If you stop to think a little, you may be surprised to find how your ops are enabled and you and your mates remain alive.

Regards,
MM

[Roland Pulfrew]

Again I don't mean to be annoying but we've been in this war thingy for 6 years now, whats the RAF been planning for in that time? If you cannot deploy more than 7 cabs before the organisation comes unstuck then whoever organised it needs shooting. But more importantly things need to change to remedy the fault.

Deep breath...... and relax!! (Excellent fishing though)

Vortex I will say this v e r y s l o w l y as

all us Army blokes are thick don't you know.

When "we" invaded Afghanistan the then Defence Minister said that he hoped all British troops would be home without having needed to fire a shot and at the time there was no need for fast air. Things change so that answers the 6 year question. I wasn't ever meant to be 6 years.

You still do not seem to be able to grasp the basics here - there are 4 Harrier Squadrons and an OCU. If you deploy 1 squadron of aircrew and groundcrew for 4 months and there are only 4 squadrons the rotation comes round 4 months in 16, just like it does for the Army. If you deploy 2 squadrons of aircraft it comes round 4 months in 8 - and you rapidly have no aircrew left to fly your GR9s, so no CAS!! We cannot just magic up additional GR9s or their pilots or their groundcrew. It actually takes 3 - 5 years to train a pilot to combat ready, so even if we had foreseen the major ramp up in ops then those pilots wouldn't be coming through the system until next year. And even then, as I have said you would have to withdraw frontline pilots to increase the size of the OCU.

And isn't just 7 Harriers, it's the GR4 crews and aircraft, the C130s, the MR2s and R1s, and the Pumas and Chinooks and Merlins. The VC10s and Tristars and C17s. Your statement about 7 aircraft is, well... simply naive.

If

the Army has asked for more fast Air, many many times.

then your requests have not been strong enough or reasoned enough for PJHQ to support them or, more likely, the government to fund them. Not the RAF's fault.

[Climebear]

The very reason for the RAF is for jets to fly around dropping bombs on people

And thereby you show how little you know. You fail to ackowldge the other elements of air power even when you see them.

When conducting operations in a land-locked country many miles away from the UK how does the land component:

a. get there?

b. get resupplied?

c. get back?

Would that be by air by any chance?

How do they move around areas that are unsuitable (either because of terrain or sy environment) for land tpt? Would that be by those aircraft with funny twirly wings with 'Royal Air Force' painted on the side?

Who produces those nice overhead images and other intelligence material that are so useful for the conduct of land operations?

These are all elements of Air Power that are directly supporting Land Operations on HERRICK (not to mention others supporting TELIC and those sp the Maritime components in the region).

As for number of ac deployed by available fleet - I wonder what the similar percentages are for Challenger or AS90.

To expose your argument further, I note that none of the RA's Rapier system's are deployed on operations (BFSAI aren't on ops and you have chosen to omit them from your calculations) - this does not mean that the whole Army is not fit for purpose. We still need some assets for what we can be required to do as well as what we are actually doing.

As for fit for purpose for wider conflict. Since the Falkands (some 25 years ago) the Army has conducted 2 major conventional warfighting operations (both against Iraq). On neither occasion, have they had to fight a combat effective (ie above 50% combat effectiveness) land formation. How do you think that these forces were reduced before the Land Forces arrived? Their armour didn't mysteriously burst into flames by themselves, their C2 structures didn't accidently fall to bits, their LoCs didn't cease working by chance...


Serf
There are more than a couple of F3s on Q. The Southern QRA task is shared with Typhoon and BFSAI is still manned by the dwinderling F3 Force (down to 2 squadrons within the next 6 months).

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Good reply MM, I hope it's not too complicated for the brave and well meaning, albeit naive Vortex.

[goudie]

Vortex stop digging now .................... the hole's deep enough!

[Biggus]

Vortex....

You seem to have three main issues:

1) The RAF has lots of 'shiney expensive toys' that are not doing anything, the money for which could be better spent elsewhere.

2) What is the point of the RAF if not to fight?

3) The RAF is not providing enough close air support (CAS) to the Army.

I hope that is about correct.

Starting with your first point, hopefully I will show that most of the RAF is actually doing something. Looking at the unclassified RAF web page, available to all, the number of RAF Sqns (excluding the training untis which maintain traditional Sqn numbers to preserve heritage and enable the politicians to quote figures more impressive than they really are) is currently:

C-17 1
Hercules 4
Tristar 1
VC-10 1
Nimrod R1 1
Nimrod MR2 2

All of which, as I think you fully acknowledge, are fully committed to the 'wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, did I mention that the RAF (just like the Army) is committed to 2 'wars' at the moment!

Then, helicopters:

Chinook 3
Puma 2
Merlin 2

Again all fully committed, as you agree.

Next, the Air Defence world:

E-3 Sentry 2 (7 aircraft I think?)
Tornado F3 3 (1 due to disband in a few weeks)
Typhoon 2 (more to come)

Yes, you are correct, these don't contribute much to the Gulf, although the Typhoons will in future. They are mainly air defence assets, and there is no air threat in the Gulf conflicts at the moment. However, the RAF is also charged with the Air Defence of the UK, Falklands, etc, and in the next war the Army fight the bad guys may have some air power, and fighters, AEW, etc will be needed to gain air superiority so the British Army isn't on the receiving end of CAS. As for the 'it isn't contributing to Afghanistan so lets get rid of it and use the money elsewhere arguement', then how about getting rid of the RNs new Astute submarines (£2-3 billion at least I think), Type 45 destroyers, the Armys tracked Rapier, most of the Tanks, etc, etc.

Finally CAS Sqns:

Harrier 2 (+1 RN)
Tornado GR4 6

The Harriers are in Afghanistan, on rotational deploymens the same way Army assets are, the Tornados cover Iraq. Whether there is any option for slighly more input from the Tornados (rotating from a body of 6 Sqns) I couldn't say.

So, so far you have some AD assets not committed as there is no air threat, and the possibility of some more input from Tornado GR4s, otherwise all the frontline RAF is committed in some way or other.

As to why rotate the assets, what is the point of the RAF if not to fight, and why only 7 Harriers.... Well, why do the Army rotate assets? Why are there not 40,000 troops in Afghanistan rather than the 7-8,000 we have? What is the point of the Army if not to fight? Why are all the AAC Apaches not in Afghanistan? The reason, the UK government is not committed to TOTAL WAR in Afghanistan in the way WWII etc were conducted. Troops are rotated for rest, training, to preserve morale, etc, and the minimum force is sent to try to achieve the plotical aim, partly to save costs. Returning injured soldiers are swept under the carpet as they are an embarassment to the UK government.

It seems to me if you want more CAS support in Afghanistan you are argueing for a LARGER RAF, and more money to be spent by the UK government on this conflict!!

[Vortex what...ouch!]

I'm not digging or even fishing and thanks for the replies, even the condescending bits, I never claimed to be an Air power expert after all.

I also never said various assets are not doing lots to support ops and do appreciate a great deal we don't see.

All the roulemont and limited assets are problems well understood these days by all services.

But thats not what I'm asking so lets get back to CAS. Not the sole purpose of the RAF I understand, never-the-less an important part of what you do. The OCU is for training but what are the 4 Sqns of GR9s for if only 7 can be deployed at any one time? Maybe one for ongoing training/currency, so why do you need the other 2?

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear and I get that I'm seeing things from a narrow viewpoint. I'll say again I appreciate a lot of what you do is valuable, welcome and we don't see it but if you have an asset that can't be deployed, for whatever reason, when we are at war surely you can see I would ask why have you got it then? I can say it slowly if that helps.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Thanks biggus, my previous was posted before I read your reply. Thats what I was asking exactly.

[OKOC]

Red VerveLaLala-whatever--in Falmouth--what's your balanced (2 chips) view on this?

[minigundiplomat]

Chinook 3
Puma 2
Merlin 2

Try 10 Chinooks. Im sure the Puma/Merlin figures are low too. I have some sympathy with Vortex's point. There is a large section of the RAF doing sweet FA and keeping 'Active' in articles whilst some are being ground into the floor by 2 consecutive wars.

For the record, the Harriers have done a great job, and Ill always be happy to see them in the skies above KAF

[Archimedes]

minigun, I think you've misread - If you re-read his post, you'll see that biggus' figures of 3, 2 and 2 are the number of squadrons of each type, not of airframes deployed.

[knowitall]

Vortex

"I would ask why have you got it then?"
The UK's apache's weren't doing anything during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, why wasn't the programme scrapped then?
on the basis of your argument we'd never buy any new kit and the army would still be using horses and Martini-Henry Rifles

[minigundiplomat]

Yes.


Very well spotted, I wondered when someone would spot that, er.....

Actually, apologies to all. Reading post sandwiched between leaving beers and dinner with Mrs MGD. Though sqn no's/aircraft no's, my sentiment remains the same.

Apologetic MGD