Disband the Royal Air Force?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex, when we say we can't afford it, we are not talking about cost. If they were needed that bad then they would be deployed. People paid a lot more than you (and thankfully with a lot more foresight) make these decisions by balancing everything that has been covered in this post.
Just how much money do you think would be freed up by selling the aircraft not commited to current ops, and what happens to our future capability. You should be a politician or consider a move into MOD where your infactuation with costs will serve you well.
Spanners is right, there is no telling some people.
Keep posting tho, you are keeping us all entertained and fulfilling our stereo-typical view of the army.
Just how much money do you think would be freed up by selling the aircraft not commited to current ops, and what happens to our future capability. You should be a politician or consider a move into MOD where your infactuation with costs will serve you well.
Spanners is right, there is no telling some people.
Keep posting tho, you are keeping us all entertained and fulfilling our stereo-typical view of the army.
Last edited by shawshank; 19th Dec 2007 at 11:11.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex,
Thanks for pointing out we have a finite defence budget. However, if you don't like the MTs HMG assigns, then you need to take it up with them.
All 3 services (even the Army!
) have assets that are not commited to ops. That will be because that capability is not required in that specific op, and because a proportion of those assets are required at home to support the deployment. Likewise, specific capabilities are being developed that may not be needed right now (eg T45, loitering munitions, AWACS upgrades). This is because, thankfully, there are still people in all 3 services who have a longer term view than yourself.
Sadly however, there is a danger that individuals such as yourself erode capabilities that are not directly related to boots on the ground. I've heard so many Army guys asking why we have Nimrod R1 ('it's a strategic spy in the sky, no use for modern ops'), MR2/MRA4s ('where's the submarine threat?!'), Typhoon ('it has no cannon!'), T45 (see comment re MR2s) etc thereby displaying a quite astounding lack of awareness that these assets are making a very big contribution to what they do on the ground.
However, I'm interested in your assertion that the Army require more CAS. Having worked in a deployed Army HQ, I was frankly appalled at the lack of Joint awareness that exisited and I believe strongly that serious questions need to be asked about Army staff trg at the ICSC(L) level in particular. This manifested itself in very poor economy of use of air in particular and a failure to consult the other component specialists. In particular, I'd suggest that at least 30% of all land FMV requests were superflous. However, unless things have changed recently, there was NEVER a request for significantly more CAS made to the ACC.
So why do you suggest there is insufficient CAS? At what level has your experience been? JNCO? SNCO? Co command? BG? Bde? Div?
Regards,
MM
Thanks for pointing out we have a finite defence budget. However, if you don't like the MTs HMG assigns, then you need to take it up with them.
All 3 services (even the Army!
) have assets that are not commited to ops. That will be because that capability is not required in that specific op, and because a proportion of those assets are required at home to support the deployment. Likewise, specific capabilities are being developed that may not be needed right now (eg T45, loitering munitions, AWACS upgrades). This is because, thankfully, there are still people in all 3 services who have a longer term view than yourself.Sadly however, there is a danger that individuals such as yourself erode capabilities that are not directly related to boots on the ground. I've heard so many Army guys asking why we have Nimrod R1 ('it's a strategic spy in the sky, no use for modern ops'), MR2/MRA4s ('where's the submarine threat?!'), Typhoon ('it has no cannon!'), T45 (see comment re MR2s) etc thereby displaying a quite astounding lack of awareness that these assets are making a very big contribution to what they do on the ground.
However, I'm interested in your assertion that the Army require more CAS. Having worked in a deployed Army HQ, I was frankly appalled at the lack of Joint awareness that exisited and I believe strongly that serious questions need to be asked about Army staff trg at the ICSC(L) level in particular. This manifested itself in very poor economy of use of air in particular and a failure to consult the other component specialists. In particular, I'd suggest that at least 30% of all land FMV requests were superflous. However, unless things have changed recently, there was NEVER a request for significantly more CAS made to the ACC.
So why do you suggest there is insufficient CAS? At what level has your experience been? JNCO? SNCO? Co command? BG? Bde? Div?
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not half as much as some here re-enforcing the stereotypical view of the RAF as filled with arrogant smartarses who sit whining about how tough it is being in the military and they know best. Instead of trying to answer my question most just called me thick and tried to score points against the Army. Arrogance is not a good look.
But at least you had a go at answering my question, although still managed to slip in a childish dig.
Sorry to have sullied your lovely world view with something so common as a question about what you do.
Instead of the Professionals you lot claim to be, some reactions here leave me thinking petty amateurs.
Have a nice day.
But at least you had a go at answering my question, although still managed to slip in a childish dig.
Sorry to have sullied your lovely world view with something so common as a question about what you do.
Instead of the Professionals you lot claim to be, some reactions here leave me thinking petty amateurs.
Have a nice day.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question and reasonably put. I'm with you 100% Vortex! No satisfactory answer about CAS but there is certainly no capability gap in pomposity, obfuscation and stereotypical prejudices within the Junior Service!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex,
I think the point here is that many people have answered your question. Repeatedly.
You talk about arrogance perhaps because we are giving you answers you may not like/understand. It is sometimes difficult to argue with the written word in the same manner which a chat over a beer can accomplish. Sadly, this appears a common trait with the Army right now and something which I know my RN colleagues in the HQ in question felt. Whichever component we come from, you will (hopefully) be a specialist in that specific warfare discipline. Clearly that doesn't absolve you from asking searching questions. Indeed, it is to be encouraged and an 'outsiders' perspective will sometimes throw harsh light on realities.
However, what was and is frustrating is when you get the same answer from numerous individuals and you still fail to take a longer term perspective. Intersetingly, many in the AAC feel that there needs to be a change in how their services approaches Air Power and Avn.
I do genuinely believe that the Army needs to address some serious shortcomings in the Joint awareness and trg of its officers at SO2 level in particular. However, all 3 services will have similar shortcomings that need to be addressed. Why are the Army so defensive in this respect? Clearly, you don't like the 'harsh light' being thrown on that issue from this outsider. It's not childish. It doesn't make me arrogant though and maybe I'm wrong. If you think so, offer me a counter argument. If you as a land power specialist can do so, I'd accept it unless it was clearly flawed. I would not accuse you of being childish or arrogant.
Regards,
MM
I think the point here is that many people have answered your question. Repeatedly.
You talk about arrogance perhaps because we are giving you answers you may not like/understand. It is sometimes difficult to argue with the written word in the same manner which a chat over a beer can accomplish. Sadly, this appears a common trait with the Army right now and something which I know my RN colleagues in the HQ in question felt. Whichever component we come from, you will (hopefully) be a specialist in that specific warfare discipline. Clearly that doesn't absolve you from asking searching questions. Indeed, it is to be encouraged and an 'outsiders' perspective will sometimes throw harsh light on realities.
However, what was and is frustrating is when you get the same answer from numerous individuals and you still fail to take a longer term perspective. Intersetingly, many in the AAC feel that there needs to be a change in how their services approaches Air Power and Avn.
I do genuinely believe that the Army needs to address some serious shortcomings in the Joint awareness and trg of its officers at SO2 level in particular. However, all 3 services will have similar shortcomings that need to be addressed. Why are the Army so defensive in this respect? Clearly, you don't like the 'harsh light' being thrown on that issue from this outsider. It's not childish. It doesn't make me arrogant though and maybe I'm wrong. If you think so, offer me a counter argument. If you as a land power specialist can do so, I'd accept it unless it was clearly flawed. I would not accuse you of being childish or arrogant.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't call you anything, did you not see the word some?
I don't deny there are shortcomings in the Army, it would be incredibly arrogant to say we get it right all the time or could not improve. Not all the Army are unwilling to review how they do things but as in any organisation some people don't like change.
But then I was actually asking about the provision of CAS and I got answers ranging from no money, no crew to no interest. When I ask which one I get called thick, see my problem?
I don't deny there are shortcomings in the Army, it would be incredibly arrogant to say we get it right all the time or could not improve. Not all the Army are unwilling to review how they do things but as in any organisation some people don't like change.
But then I was actually asking about the provision of CAS and I got answers ranging from no money, no crew to no interest. When I ask which one I get called thick, see my problem?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate (I'll call you that because all us Crabs call people 'mate'
),
I think in reality is it's a combination of all of those excpet the no interest. One of the weaknesses of Air Power is that it requires quite hefty manpower overheads. Many of those will obviously not directly be involved in combat ops. However, the bean counters don't like extra people because it costs money and they need all the associated FP, life support aspects. Like you guys, we also try to manage the amount of people we deploy and, more importantly, how often they do so. Sometimes (eg TELIC 1), the host nation will also place strict limits on manpower in theatre. I'm not sure if this is a factor in this case.
Looking at the Harrier case specifically, it's a small community which has other commitments. Perhaps you don't feel those commitments are important enough. However, that's irrelevent because the MoD does and we're tasked to provide. However, take it from me that the fleet is busy.
The RAF offered to deploy Jags out to Afghanistan but that fleet was canned. That placed yet more workload on the GR9s to provide the HERRICK det, carrier assets (even though that happens very rarely now), and (of more direct significance to you), assets for trg (for aircrew, groundcrew, FACs, BATUS, UK Land trg etc). That is hurting them and it is hurting them at a time when the transition to joint RAF/RN manning has had some, err, how can I put it, problems. However, I don't want to get into a dark/light blue pi$$ing competetion.
How do we provide extra CAS then? The GR4 fleet has flex and is keen to deploy whilst still maintaining it's TELIC det. However, PJHQ have rejected that option in this instance, I suspect partly because the move to strategic overwatch of the southern Iraqi provinces will place additional emphasis upon the air component. Typhoon is therefore slated to take over the HERRICK CAS task from next year.
However, I reiterate. To my knowledge. Land have not requested more CAS
recently.
I shall now retire to wash my white socks and polish my plastic shoes for Xmas! (There we go, a few more Army preconceptions reinforced for Clockwork Mouse!!
)
Regards,
MM
),I think in reality is it's a combination of all of those excpet the no interest. One of the weaknesses of Air Power is that it requires quite hefty manpower overheads. Many of those will obviously not directly be involved in combat ops. However, the bean counters don't like extra people because it costs money and they need all the associated FP, life support aspects. Like you guys, we also try to manage the amount of people we deploy and, more importantly, how often they do so. Sometimes (eg TELIC 1), the host nation will also place strict limits on manpower in theatre. I'm not sure if this is a factor in this case.
Looking at the Harrier case specifically, it's a small community which has other commitments. Perhaps you don't feel those commitments are important enough. However, that's irrelevent because the MoD does and we're tasked to provide. However, take it from me that the fleet is busy.
The RAF offered to deploy Jags out to Afghanistan but that fleet was canned. That placed yet more workload on the GR9s to provide the HERRICK det, carrier assets (even though that happens very rarely now), and (of more direct significance to you), assets for trg (for aircrew, groundcrew, FACs, BATUS, UK Land trg etc). That is hurting them and it is hurting them at a time when the transition to joint RAF/RN manning has had some, err, how can I put it, problems. However, I don't want to get into a dark/light blue pi$$ing competetion.
How do we provide extra CAS then? The GR4 fleet has flex and is keen to deploy whilst still maintaining it's TELIC det. However, PJHQ have rejected that option in this instance, I suspect partly because the move to strategic overwatch of the southern Iraqi provinces will place additional emphasis upon the air component. Typhoon is therefore slated to take over the HERRICK CAS task from next year.
However, I reiterate. To my knowledge. Land have not requested more CAS
recently.
I shall now retire to wash my white socks and polish my plastic shoes for Xmas! (There we go, a few more Army preconceptions reinforced for Clockwork Mouse!!
)Regards,
MM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps the army should purchase a few A-10's, train up some switched on blokes that have actually been at the sharp end, and who know what effective and non effective CAS feels like. Cross train with the RAF for their invaluable knowledge of air ops and do the job themselves.
Should only take about 15 year to get the program past the early planning stages.
Cutting out all the daft comments and repeated questions. You guys need to understand that as a ground hugger, all your Perce or Bootneck really cares about is effective CAS. Getting effective munitions onto a target that can be spitting distance away without getting stiffed yourself. Eurofighters,tankers, hercs, jags, up-diddley-up-up etc etc, the blokes don't really care. Yep, those hercs etc got them there safe and sound and will take them back ok soon (hopefully) and the fighters keep the nasty enemy airforce off of their backs (in other wars obviously), and all of the things that the RAF and Navy do for them are great but don't really matter a lot to the blokes in cam cream.
But Chinooks, Puma and Merlin, now thats different, they care about them an awfull lot, and on that front they recognise that the RAF are doing it right etc.
But from what I have heard from mates returning and from reading the other forums, the guys are getting threaders with having to make do with little or not enough effective CAS. To Private Smithy who is being pinned down by some bloke on his holidays from Burnley with a toy Dushka, it matters a lot.
The big question is why doesnt the RAF have an effective CAS airframe? Or enough Harriers to give round the clock support?
The big picture is not important to the guy on ground, he just wants to know why we don't have A-10's or even a few old SkyRaiders would do.
Should only take about 15 year to get the program past the early planning stages.
Cutting out all the daft comments and repeated questions. You guys need to understand that as a ground hugger, all your Perce or Bootneck really cares about is effective CAS. Getting effective munitions onto a target that can be spitting distance away without getting stiffed yourself. Eurofighters,tankers, hercs, jags, up-diddley-up-up etc etc, the blokes don't really care. Yep, those hercs etc got them there safe and sound and will take them back ok soon (hopefully) and the fighters keep the nasty enemy airforce off of their backs (in other wars obviously), and all of the things that the RAF and Navy do for them are great but don't really matter a lot to the blokes in cam cream.
But Chinooks, Puma and Merlin, now thats different, they care about them an awfull lot, and on that front they recognise that the RAF are doing it right etc.
But from what I have heard from mates returning and from reading the other forums, the guys are getting threaders with having to make do with little or not enough effective CAS. To Private Smithy who is being pinned down by some bloke on his holidays from Burnley with a toy Dushka, it matters a lot.
The big question is why doesnt the RAF have an effective CAS airframe? Or enough Harriers to give round the clock support?
The big picture is not important to the guy on ground, he just wants to know why we don't have A-10's or even a few old SkyRaiders would do.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters
Serious questions, sorry to be so dull.
During my time, 60s/70's, N Ireland/Hong Kong/BAOR, almost the entire role for the RAF helicopters squadrons was carrying the Army.
Is that still so?
If not, what percentage (ish) of its effort is spent other than moving the Army?
What does that other role consist of?
Would operational efficiency of the Armed Force in Iraq/Afghanistan/anywhere be improved if the RAF helicopter squadrons were transferred to the AAC?
During my time, 60s/70's, N Ireland/Hong Kong/BAOR, almost the entire role for the RAF helicopters squadrons was carrying the Army.
Is that still so?
If not, what percentage (ish) of its effort is spent other than moving the Army?
What does that other role consist of?
Would operational efficiency of the Armed Force in Iraq/Afghanistan/anywhere be improved if the RAF helicopter squadrons were transferred to the AAC?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: scotland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAS
Vortex, 
I will do my best to explain to you the why's and wherefore's as to your perception that there is a lack of CAS. But to put it into context I have to tell you I was a pongo before joining the light blue and have some experience of the oft quoted 'where the **** is the Air Force, the bunch of poofs'. In addition I am on the Aircrew side but not a fast mover wallah.
You keep stating that '7 cabs' is not enough and that CAS is needed now, well yes, that is on the face of it possibly true, however the following applies, in no particular order.
Because we have tankers with AAR capability this equates to a force multiplier, allowing said cabs to remain in the air for longer to meet the tasks required of them. Why only 7 in theatre, well, as discussed some are needed for other tasks and some will be going through extensive mantenance/upgrades therefore precluding their constant presence. We are part of a coalition and other aircraft types from other Air Forces might be the better solution to problem on the ground. The priorities on the ground constantly change so if a higher priority tasking comes in you will not get the CAS from anyone. The intelligence gained may prevent a strike by CAS. The possible collateral damage may prevent CAS being used. Aaaand finally, from first hand experience both the light blue and green controllers on the ground did not communicate with each other causing confusion. The tasking priorities by some ground forces were inappropriate for the aircraft thereby wasting the assets available. So the upshot of those last comments is that 7 may be enough for the task, unless there is a 'surge op' but what there is may not be used most effectively.
Before I go I must also stress that it is not our only task to drop bombs on people as other solutions could serve the objective better and consideration has to be given to the wider defence picture.
I hope this helps and please remember we are the jointery now and this does not help any of us!
I will do my best to explain to you the why's and wherefore's as to your perception that there is a lack of CAS. But to put it into context I have to tell you I was a pongo before joining the light blue and have some experience of the oft quoted 'where the **** is the Air Force, the bunch of poofs'. In addition I am on the Aircrew side but not a fast mover wallah.
You keep stating that '7 cabs' is not enough and that CAS is needed now, well yes, that is on the face of it possibly true, however the following applies, in no particular order.
Because we have tankers with AAR capability this equates to a force multiplier, allowing said cabs to remain in the air for longer to meet the tasks required of them. Why only 7 in theatre, well, as discussed some are needed for other tasks and some will be going through extensive mantenance/upgrades therefore precluding their constant presence. We are part of a coalition and other aircraft types from other Air Forces might be the better solution to problem on the ground. The priorities on the ground constantly change so if a higher priority tasking comes in you will not get the CAS from anyone. The intelligence gained may prevent a strike by CAS. The possible collateral damage may prevent CAS being used. Aaaand finally, from first hand experience both the light blue and green controllers on the ground did not communicate with each other causing confusion. The tasking priorities by some ground forces were inappropriate for the aircraft thereby wasting the assets available. So the upshot of those last comments is that 7 may be enough for the task, unless there is a 'surge op' but what there is may not be used most effectively.
Before I go I must also stress that it is not our only task to drop bombs on people as other solutions could serve the objective better and consideration has to be given to the wider defence picture.
I hope this helps and please remember we are the jointery now and this does not help any of us!
MM,
CGS agrees with you...
Vortex - the answers about CAS are (a) not enough money (b) not enough aircrew/maintainers (c) the government. This isn't the fault of RAF, rather the government. In the early 1990s, the then CAS suggested that the RAF was rather stretched to meet its defence commitments with a force of over 50,000,despite the fact that the op tempo was rather lower than today. Having committed the RAF to support two wars simultaneously as well as fulfil AD of the UK and FI, and conduct normal training and deployments, Hoon reduced the size of the RAF yet further.
As I'm sure you appreciate, like infantry battalions, you have to rotate units out of the line at some point to refresh skills, train and just get a rest, otherwise the units will fall to bits, their best efforts notwithstanding. You may not like the answer with regard to CAS, but the RAF lacks the aircraft and the personnel to provide the level of support you'd like (although as MM says, there seems to be little evidence of increased demand for CAS from land to the ACC).
And, as has been noted by others, the government is unwilling to provide the money and personnel required to 'up' the levels of CAS in theatre. And you can almost guarantee that if the F3s (for instance) were sold off, the money wouldn't go on more CAS, but on consultants or on bailing out the bottomless pit that is Northern Rock.
I do genuinely believe that the Army needs to address some serious shortcomings in the Joint awareness and trg of its officers at SO2 level in particular
Vortex - the answers about CAS are (a) not enough money (b) not enough aircrew/maintainers (c) the government. This isn't the fault of RAF, rather the government. In the early 1990s, the then CAS suggested that the RAF was rather stretched to meet its defence commitments with a force of over 50,000,despite the fact that the op tempo was rather lower than today. Having committed the RAF to support two wars simultaneously as well as fulfil AD of the UK and FI, and conduct normal training and deployments, Hoon reduced the size of the RAF yet further.
As I'm sure you appreciate, like infantry battalions, you have to rotate units out of the line at some point to refresh skills, train and just get a rest, otherwise the units will fall to bits, their best efforts notwithstanding. You may not like the answer with regard to CAS, but the RAF lacks the aircraft and the personnel to provide the level of support you'd like (although as MM says, there seems to be little evidence of increased demand for CAS from land to the ACC).
And, as has been noted by others, the government is unwilling to provide the money and personnel required to 'up' the levels of CAS in theatre. And you can almost guarantee that if the F3s (for instance) were sold off, the money wouldn't go on more CAS, but on consultants or on bailing out the bottomless pit that is Northern Rock.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think many are failing to see that Vortex does not appear to be currently in the Army, his profile lists him as an engineer with a PPL(H). As such he may not fully understand what is actually happening on the ground and in the air in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Gulf waters.
Vortex, your questions have all been answered, repeatedly. The other posters are not showing arrogance, they are simply frustrated that you are refusing to accept those answers.
As has been said, several times, before; every AT sqn (C130, C17, Tristar, VC10), every SH sqn (Merlin, Chinook, Puma), every recce sqn (MR2, R1, GR4), every offensive sqn (GR7/9, GR4), is committed in the above regions. The defensive sqns (E3, F3 and Typhoon) are not currently committed in the above regions although the E3's have been and the Typhoon will be once it has completed its operational work up as a CAS aircraft. Even the small transport sqns (BAe 125, BAe 146, Islander) are in the above regions, playing their own part.
You keep talking of the 4 RAF GR7/9 sqns. The RAF only has 2 GR7/9 sqns. You keep talking of only 7 aircraft. Those 7 aircraft use a whole sqn of air and ground crew in order to continue the intensity of flying that they conduct in theatre (each aircraft flies more than each pilot is allowed to, therefore you need more than one pilot per frame). The other sqns are at home training both themselves and others (Army FAC's, Army pre-deployment training exercises, etc).
The GR4's have 7 operational sqns of which one is always in theatre. Again the others are conducting training as above. Yes, maybe more GR4's could be deployed to the Afghan region, but that call is not one that is made by the RAF, it comes from PJHQ and the MOD (both tri-service) and ultimately the Government (civilians). If THEY decide that more GR4's should be sent to the region then they could be there within a matter of days. The RAF do have the capability but the politicians do not have the will or are prepared to spend the required money (required by all 3 services in general and in theatre). So, you should be taking this particular argument to the Government and not continuously airing your blinkered views here.
The F3's and Typhoons are currently purely air defence sqns, although the Typhoon will also become a CAS aircraft in the future. As has been said, there is currently no role for AD aircraft in theatre. OK, so the MOD sell all the RAF AD aircraft and spend the money on the Army. Just say, for pure arguments sake, that a potentially hostile nation in that same region with its own capable air force decided that it wanted to support Terry or Al. What would the Army say then when it found that it was now on the receiving end of hostile CAS? I have a pretty good idea that they will be blaming the RAF for not having any AD assets to take on the hostile aircraft and regain air supremacy!
There may be only 7 GR7/9's in theatre at any one time but that represents a utilisation of 25% of that particular fleet (including the 2 RN sqns). What % of the Army Challenger tank fleet is currently in theatre? What % of the Infantry are currently in theatre? What % of the Army Rapier units are currently in theatre? What % of the Cavalry units are currently in theatre?
You talk of the RAF not deploying aircraft due to the cost. This again falls to Government, not the RAF. If the Government were really committed to sending more aircraft then the RAF has the capability to do so. Likewise, if they had the willingness to pay for more troops in theatre (as I am sure that more troops would also be a great asset) then the Army probably has the capability to send them. After all, with 12,000 troops in both theatres out of a total of 102,000, the Army has only 12% of its personnel deployed
I could discuss the actual employment of the RAF assets in theatre and show you that they do a hell of a lot more than you seem to realise or appreciate, but this is not the place and, judging by your profile, you are not entitled to know
MadMark!!!
Vortex, your questions have all been answered, repeatedly. The other posters are not showing arrogance, they are simply frustrated that you are refusing to accept those answers.
As has been said, several times, before; every AT sqn (C130, C17, Tristar, VC10), every SH sqn (Merlin, Chinook, Puma), every recce sqn (MR2, R1, GR4), every offensive sqn (GR7/9, GR4), is committed in the above regions. The defensive sqns (E3, F3 and Typhoon) are not currently committed in the above regions although the E3's have been and the Typhoon will be once it has completed its operational work up as a CAS aircraft. Even the small transport sqns (BAe 125, BAe 146, Islander) are in the above regions, playing their own part.
You keep talking of the 4 RAF GR7/9 sqns. The RAF only has 2 GR7/9 sqns. You keep talking of only 7 aircraft. Those 7 aircraft use a whole sqn of air and ground crew in order to continue the intensity of flying that they conduct in theatre (each aircraft flies more than each pilot is allowed to, therefore you need more than one pilot per frame). The other sqns are at home training both themselves and others (Army FAC's, Army pre-deployment training exercises, etc).
The GR4's have 7 operational sqns of which one is always in theatre. Again the others are conducting training as above. Yes, maybe more GR4's could be deployed to the Afghan region, but that call is not one that is made by the RAF, it comes from PJHQ and the MOD (both tri-service) and ultimately the Government (civilians). If THEY decide that more GR4's should be sent to the region then they could be there within a matter of days. The RAF do have the capability but the politicians do not have the will or are prepared to spend the required money (required by all 3 services in general and in theatre). So, you should be taking this particular argument to the Government and not continuously airing your blinkered views here.
The F3's and Typhoons are currently purely air defence sqns, although the Typhoon will also become a CAS aircraft in the future. As has been said, there is currently no role for AD aircraft in theatre. OK, so the MOD sell all the RAF AD aircraft and spend the money on the Army. Just say, for pure arguments sake, that a potentially hostile nation in that same region with its own capable air force decided that it wanted to support Terry or Al. What would the Army say then when it found that it was now on the receiving end of hostile CAS? I have a pretty good idea that they will be blaming the RAF for not having any AD assets to take on the hostile aircraft and regain air supremacy!
There may be only 7 GR7/9's in theatre at any one time but that represents a utilisation of 25% of that particular fleet (including the 2 RN sqns). What % of the Army Challenger tank fleet is currently in theatre? What % of the Infantry are currently in theatre? What % of the Army Rapier units are currently in theatre? What % of the Cavalry units are currently in theatre?
You talk of the RAF not deploying aircraft due to the cost. This again falls to Government, not the RAF. If the Government were really committed to sending more aircraft then the RAF has the capability to do so. Likewise, if they had the willingness to pay for more troops in theatre (as I am sure that more troops would also be a great asset) then the Army probably has the capability to send them. After all, with 12,000 troops in both theatres out of a total of 102,000, the Army has only 12% of its personnel deployed
I could discuss the actual employment of the RAF assets in theatre and show you that they do a hell of a lot more than you seem to realise or appreciate, but this is not the place and, judging by your profile, you are not entitled to know
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last some sensible (and moderate) answers.
MM (not Mad Mark, but the Mushroom). You tend to regard the serious shortcomings as lying exclusively with the Army. As far as the Army's priorities AT GROUND LEVEL are concerned, GPMG is correct. The RAF SH effort in support of ground forces is, and always has been, outstanding. CAS is, however, another matter. No point in entering a widdling contest about who's at fault. Weaknesses exist on both sides, and badly need sorting out. FAC equipment, procedures, integration and training need urgent attention.
And please, can we have a CAS aircraft with a canon?
The fantastic job done by the AT, tankers, airborne CCCI assets etc are recognised by the Army but are of no direct interest to the guy in the slit trench. He wants effective bangs on the ground 200m in front of him and in time to have an influence on his local battle.
And I have few erroneous preconceptions about the Crabs. I have served extensively with them, married one and sired one!
MM (not Mad Mark, but the Mushroom). You tend to regard the serious shortcomings as lying exclusively with the Army. As far as the Army's priorities AT GROUND LEVEL are concerned, GPMG is correct. The RAF SH effort in support of ground forces is, and always has been, outstanding. CAS is, however, another matter. No point in entering a widdling contest about who's at fault. Weaknesses exist on both sides, and badly need sorting out. FAC equipment, procedures, integration and training need urgent attention.
And please, can we have a CAS aircraft with a canon?
The fantastic job done by the AT, tankers, airborne CCCI assets etc are recognised by the Army but are of no direct interest to the guy in the slit trench. He wants effective bangs on the ground 200m in front of him and in time to have an influence on his local battle.
And I have few erroneous preconceptions about the Crabs. I have served extensively with them, married one and sired one!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for an example of condescention and arrogance in a post, look no further than Mad Mark's last. Pity, because the meat of what you say is both pertinent and helpful.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
No I don't, honest!! As you suggest, there are faults on both sides and Air Land Integration (ALI) was allowed to whither on the vine during the 90s in particular. As a result, we're having to relearn old lessons that date back as far as the North African and Arakan campaigns of WWII. However, we must equally guard against allowing similar erosion of air-maritime integration otherwise the same argument will be happening with a different service in a few years.
As far as CAS aircraft with a cannon, both the GR4 an Typhoon do and the latter is gaining very positive feedback from FACs during the CAS and A-G weapons trials conducted so far.
Regards,
MM
You tend to regard the serious shortcomings as lying exclusively with the Army.
As far as CAS aircraft with a cannon, both the GR4 an Typhoon do and the latter is gaining very positive feedback from FACs during the CAS and A-G weapons trials conducted so far.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real Shortcomings in Helmand
During my time in theatre it has struck me that the real problem is, not the shortage of CAS but, the shortage of troops. Whenever involved in the plannning of a Op the limiting factor was always the number of teeth arm soldiers. This was always frustrating when one considered the number of infantry batallions sitting in the UK providing no tangible benefit to the 'war' in either of the current areas of note. If this is the case what are they for, surely one of the most expensive assets is manpower, with health, housing, etc taken into account. If we disbanded all the regiments the Army cannot field on Ops at any one time then the money from that could be used far more beneficially. If they can be fielded then what are the Bn commanders thinking, get your troops onto transport and get into the mix. Holding the ground so hard won and then consolidating it and winning the hearts of the local populace will be much easier with a significant increase of manpower.
Before you reply to this post please consider that it is 100% tongue in cheek, and my effort to explain the reality of the situation in the current British Military to Vortex.
Before you reply to this post please consider that it is 100% tongue in cheek, and my effort to explain the reality of the situation in the current British Military to Vortex.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MofN
Unfortunately, though it is a relatively easy task for troops to take ground, subsequently holding it in a country like Afghanistan is quite a different matter. It would require an Army of millions!
Mushroom
Has the Typhoon been able to fire its canon yet? Is ammo now being procured? Good news if so.
Unfortunately, though it is a relatively easy task for troops to take ground, subsequently holding it in a country like Afghanistan is quite a different matter. It would require an Army of millions!
Mushroom
Has the Typhoon been able to fire its canon yet? Is ammo now being procured? Good news if so.