Disband the Royal Air Force?
Guest
Posts: n/a
30% of the RAF Deploy to 2 areas Afghan and Iraq. Hot Zones as you call it .The Navy has the same % deployed where , roaming around the ocean beating up people in poor countries, and the army well they have probably 60% of there resources deployed overseas cause after the air war we are not needed as much,we have made ground safe for you army peeps to take control. Army think too much thats why they have to justify themselves by saying we should be gone , it only does one thing breaks morale , i think thats what has already happened and thats why we will never win any more wars , We supposed to be one, we are not anymore and i dont care a **** if army and navy want us gone then all i have given in all war zones is for nothing.sums up morale today
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magners.........................less magners 
Edited as I have just re read what this fuc@ing twerp has written and feel the need to point out a few home truths
"and the army well they have probably 60% of there resources deployed overseas cause after the air war we are not needed as much,we have made ground safe for you army peeps to take control"
So having made it so safe for our green and dark/light blue brothers in arms could you please explain why we in Wilts, and previously in Oxon have had the privelege......Beags et al help me with a better descriptor...of repatriating so many fallen comrades over the last few years............
You should be thoroughly ashamed of your drunken rant and once sober apologise forthwith........................ar@e
Edited as I have just re read what this fuc@ing twerp has written and feel the need to point out a few home truths
"and the army well they have probably 60% of there resources deployed overseas cause after the air war we are not needed as much,we have made ground safe for you army peeps to take control"
So having made it so safe for our green and dark/light blue brothers in arms could you please explain why we in Wilts, and previously in Oxon have had the privelege......Beags et al help me with a better descriptor...of repatriating so many fallen comrades over the last few years............
You should be thoroughly ashamed of your drunken rant and once sober apologise forthwith........................ar@e
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 19th Dec 2007 at 01:06.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldomfitforpurpose, I can see his point, to a point. Control is not actually held until boot's are actually upon the deck. Leave aside CVF, the Air Force will always be at the pointy end of any Operation against a Nation State. From then on, it's a balance of force.
Just because the current tribal intervention needs lots of cloggies (Bill Tidy) doesn't mean the rest of the Air spectrum is reduntant. If we don't train (and equip) for all eventualies, we are truly buggered. The balance is the quest from Hell but, personally, I'd rather pay too much insurance than not enough. Air Defence capability is soon lost and hard to regain. In the meantime, the HELOs and Hercs are flogged to death.
Just because the current tribal intervention needs lots of cloggies (Bill Tidy) doesn't mean the rest of the Air spectrum is reduntant. If we don't train (and equip) for all eventualies, we are truly buggered. The balance is the quest from Hell but, personally, I'd rather pay too much insurance than not enough. Air Defence capability is soon lost and hard to regain. In the meantime, the HELOs and Hercs are flogged to death.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBZ,
I have no argument with your rationale but IF, and I can only go on approx figures given to me, ONLY 30% of the light blue actually deploy please explain to Vortex what the other 70% are up to.........and I suspect a huge swathe of the SH, AT, Harrier, GR4, RAF Regt, UK MAMS please excuse those I missed would be very interested in why this exclusivity
I have no argument with your rationale but IF, and I can only go on approx figures given to me, ONLY 30% of the light blue actually deploy please explain to Vortex what the other 70% are up to.........and I suspect a huge swathe of the SH, AT, Harrier, GR4, RAF Regt, UK MAMS please excuse those I missed would be very interested in why this exclusivity
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I’m not trying to start a war here 
I’m not in agreement with the original idea that the RAF should be disbanded. My own Army ignorance of Air Power makes it clear that we don’t understand all the issues.
Those of you getting all defensive about what you are doing are missing the point. It’s not a whine and I acknowledge lots of bods are working very hard and it is appreciated. No one is saying the RAF aren’t doing a good job, far from it. I think the 30% of the RAF deployed is a bit of a red herring, rotation means that most have probably been in theatre by now with aircrew and maintainers bearing the brunt of tours.
What I am asking is why only 7 cabs out of 4 operational squadrons are deployable? The gist of it seems to be not enough pilots. But there has been plenty of time to train more and the excuse that 6 years wasn’t foreseen is a cop out.
If it is just bad planning fair enough, but what is now being done to be able to provide more? OK you have other tasks to cover but remember we’re fighting a war today and no matter what might happen in the future, currently when it comes to CAS there’s not enough available.
Oh and I’m not entirely sure what Martin Henry rifles have got to do with things.
I’m not in agreement with the original idea that the RAF should be disbanded. My own Army ignorance of Air Power makes it clear that we don’t understand all the issues.Those of you getting all defensive about what you are doing are missing the point. It’s not a whine and I acknowledge lots of bods are working very hard and it is appreciated. No one is saying the RAF aren’t doing a good job, far from it. I think the 30% of the RAF deployed is a bit of a red herring, rotation means that most have probably been in theatre by now with aircrew and maintainers bearing the brunt of tours.
What I am asking is why only 7 cabs out of 4 operational squadrons are deployable? The gist of it seems to be not enough pilots. But there has been plenty of time to train more and the excuse that 6 years wasn’t foreseen is a cop out.
If it is just bad planning fair enough, but what is now being done to be able to provide more? OK you have other tasks to cover but remember we’re fighting a war today and no matter what might happen in the future, currently when it comes to CAS there’s not enough available.
Oh and I’m not entirely sure what Martin Henry rifles have got to do with things.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex
7 ac are in theatre to meet the requirements of the Jt Comd. If the Jt Comd needed more ac then they would be requested by PJHQ.
You must also understand that Coalition Air works in an entirely different way to coalition Land operations. On land, individual nation's formations generally operate within geographic AORs. Coalition air is totally intergrated and not restricted geographically (we frequently operate in mixed formations involving several air forces). This enable the Air component commander to provide the best effect anywhere in his AOR with the assets available. Having an air component where the UK air element only supports UK land forces, US air element only support US land forces, Dutch air... Is not effective - and runs counter to several principles of war - primarily economy of effort. So you shouldn't be surprised that UK land forces are being supported by US/NL/Can fast-air it is because the best wpn system is being employed effectively, as this is happening UK air will more-than-likely be supporting US/NL/Can TiCs elswhere in theatre.
As for saying that 4 sqns only sp 7 deployed aircraft, you miss the fact that these Sqns (like the rest of the RAF and RN) are also providing assets at readiness in support of UK JRRF/NRF/EU BG. With UK combat land elements heavily commited the UK (wishing to be seen to be pulling its weight within NATO/EU (unlike some)) has reduced the number of land elements assigned to NRF/EU BG but compensated this with an increase in the number of maritime/air elements commited. I know that the likelyhood of these assets being used are slim (almost super-model slim); however, that doesn't take away the requirement to keep these assets at readiness.
7 ac are in theatre to meet the requirements of the Jt Comd. If the Jt Comd needed more ac then they would be requested by PJHQ.
You must also understand that Coalition Air works in an entirely different way to coalition Land operations. On land, individual nation's formations generally operate within geographic AORs. Coalition air is totally intergrated and not restricted geographically (we frequently operate in mixed formations involving several air forces). This enable the Air component commander to provide the best effect anywhere in his AOR with the assets available. Having an air component where the UK air element only supports UK land forces, US air element only support US land forces, Dutch air... Is not effective - and runs counter to several principles of war - primarily economy of effort. So you shouldn't be surprised that UK land forces are being supported by US/NL/Can fast-air it is because the best wpn system is being employed effectively, as this is happening UK air will more-than-likely be supporting US/NL/Can TiCs elswhere in theatre.
As for saying that 4 sqns only sp 7 deployed aircraft, you miss the fact that these Sqns (like the rest of the RAF and RN) are also providing assets at readiness in support of UK JRRF/NRF/EU BG. With UK combat land elements heavily commited the UK (wishing to be seen to be pulling its weight within NATO/EU (unlike some)) has reduced the number of land elements assigned to NRF/EU BG but compensated this with an increase in the number of maritime/air elements commited. I know that the likelyhood of these assets being used are slim (almost super-model slim); however, that doesn't take away the requirement to keep these assets at readiness.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex,
We could deploy more than 7 cabs to Afghanistan!!!! The issue here is that for a variety of reasons (primarily cost and personnel footprint), PJHQ have capped the deployment at that number.
However, the GR9 fleet is also a small community and the numbers of available aircrew has actually reduced since the RN took over half of it. They are required to remain familiar (if not current) with carrier ops, as well as conducting trg in other activities which may be called for. When 20 Sqn are taken out of the equation (conversion and weapons instructor trg), the normal rotation plot leaves very little flex in the Harrier force.
Why don't we train more aircrew? For the same reason the Army don't have more CSS and CS assets: cost. Plain and simple. However, the trg system is maxed out trying to train the naval pilots required to bring the Naval Strike Wing up to strength.
The deployment of GR4s has been examined but again, the cost of deploying a more labour intensive asset into theatre was deemed prohibitative. Likewise, it would be difficult to fly fast air missions from elsewhere in the Gulf or Stans (or for that matter a carrier) but the RAF tanker fleet is pretty broken.
That's why Typhoon should be deployed next year to enable the GR9s home for some much needed operational rest of airframes.
We could deploy more than 7 cabs to Afghanistan!!!! The issue here is that for a variety of reasons (primarily cost and personnel footprint), PJHQ have capped the deployment at that number.
However, the GR9 fleet is also a small community and the numbers of available aircrew has actually reduced since the RN took over half of it. They are required to remain familiar (if not current) with carrier ops, as well as conducting trg in other activities which may be called for. When 20 Sqn are taken out of the equation (conversion and weapons instructor trg), the normal rotation plot leaves very little flex in the Harrier force.
Why don't we train more aircrew? For the same reason the Army don't have more CSS and CS assets: cost. Plain and simple. However, the trg system is maxed out trying to train the naval pilots required to bring the Naval Strike Wing up to strength.
The deployment of GR4s has been examined but again, the cost of deploying a more labour intensive asset into theatre was deemed prohibitative. Likewise, it would be difficult to fly fast air missions from elsewhere in the Gulf or Stans (or for that matter a carrier) but the RAF tanker fleet is pretty broken.
That's why Typhoon should be deployed next year to enable the GR9s home for some much needed operational rest of airframes.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pathfinder country
Age: 49
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex
I think you're missing the point that lots of people have already made.
You could put more than 7 GR9's in theater but you wouldn't get any more air support.
Why?
Because there aren't enough pilots to fly them or engineers to keep them flying, or at least not without increasing the length of individual detachments wich would soon mean you wouldn't have any pilots or engineers at all.
So why don't we get more pilots and engineers?
Because the Government have decreed the size of the air force (too small)
and they have to balance their manpower between all fleets.
If the government is willing to increase the size of the air force I'm sure we'd be willing to provide more air support, but until they do we do the best we can with the forces we have same as the Army and Navy are doing.
I think you're missing the point that lots of people have already made.
You could put more than 7 GR9's in theater but you wouldn't get any more air support.
Why?
Because there aren't enough pilots to fly them or engineers to keep them flying, or at least not without increasing the length of individual detachments wich would soon mean you wouldn't have any pilots or engineers at all.
So why don't we get more pilots and engineers?
Because the Government have decreed the size of the air force (too small)
and they have to balance their manpower between all fleets.
If the government is willing to increase the size of the air force I'm sure we'd be willing to provide more air support, but until they do we do the best we can with the forces we have same as the Army and Navy are doing.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks and that rather comes back then to my original point. If you're never going to deploy more aircraft because of cost, why do you need them if you can't afford to use them?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks and that rather comes back then to my original point. If you're never going to deploy more aircraft because of cost, why do you need them if you can't afford to use them?
Supporting ops and maintaining a wider defence capability requires overheads. Period.
* delete as appropriate.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God might give you strength but listen carefully. We have a finite defence budget and you have assets which you are saying you can't afford to deploy to a current war where they are needed. If you can't afford them lets sell them off and use the money for something we can use.
I don't give a monkeys chuff about what might happen 5 years down the line when we are currently fighting a war with inadequate resources.
I don't give a monkeys chuff about what might happen 5 years down the line when we are currently fighting a war with inadequate resources.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you're just looking at things from one side.
The Army needs more CAS. You guys provide it. You're saying you have the means to provide it but can't afford to deploy it. From where I'm sitting something thats needed but can't be deployed due to cost is nothing more than a shiny toy wasting money for no return. You don't lose the capability as I'm not saying get rid of them all but you could probably bin half and use the money better elsewhere. Your justification is it might be needed in the Falklands in the future, nice but what about the war we're fighting today?
The Army needs more CAS. You guys provide it. You're saying you have the means to provide it but can't afford to deploy it. From where I'm sitting something thats needed but can't be deployed due to cost is nothing more than a shiny toy wasting money for no return. You don't lose the capability as I'm not saying get rid of them all but you could probably bin half and use the money better elsewhere. Your justification is it might be needed in the Falklands in the future, nice but what about the war we're fighting today?
Using your logic, can I assume that you would support the scrapping of all the Challenger tanks, Apache etc and any other kit that the army has left back in the UK? After all, this would free some cash for Ops!
Originally Posted by spanners123
Using your logic, can I assume that you would support the scrapping of all the Challenger tanks, Apache etc and any other kit that the army has left back in the UK? After all, this would free some cash for Ops!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using your logic, can I assume that you would support the scrapping of all the Challenger tanks, Apache etc and any other kit that the army has left back in the UK? After all, this would free some cash for Ops!
Why all defensive when it is a valid question?