Disband the Royal Air Force?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
Yep, RAF Tiffs have strafed with their cannon and dropped A-G weapons and as far as I understand (bearing in mind I'm not a fast jet mate), it'll deploy to HERRICK with both as well as Litening III pods.
Regards,
MM
Yep, RAF Tiffs have strafed with their cannon and dropped A-G weapons and as far as I understand (bearing in mind I'm not a fast jet mate), it'll deploy to HERRICK with both as well as Litening III pods.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info Magic Mushroom.
Mad Mark, well done you know I'm no longer serving but my brother is. He has recently come back from Afghanistan and we had a detailed discussion at the weekend on this very subject, which is partly why I came and asked the question.
I'm meeting him in about an hour and I'll be sure to tell him your dicks bigger than his. I'll see if I can coax him on here so you can tell him why all the shiny jets weren't available when his little pink body was in the sh1t. But thanks for the input.
For those with sensible replies, thank you.
Mad Mark, well done you know I'm no longer serving but my brother is. He has recently come back from Afghanistan and we had a detailed discussion at the weekend on this very subject, which is partly why I came and asked the question.
I'm meeting him in about an hour and I'll be sure to tell him your dicks bigger than his. I'll see if I can coax him on here so you can tell him why all the shiny jets weren't available when his little pink body was in the sh1t. But thanks for the input.
For those with sensible replies, thank you.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voretex
First, you need to find out why there is a belief that more CAS is needed. This is one potential solution to the issue. What could well be needed is some form of kinetic effect that could come from a variety of means - hence joint fires. CAS is but one element.
It is not that the RAF can't push any more ac out there, as far as I can tell none have been requested. So has the Land Chain of command got it so wrong? So, second, you will need to identify why the joint commander hasn't requested any more CAS assets. This could be for a variety of reasons.
One could be (and this is a big could) that there is a blance required for everything. We all know that our LoCs are extremely taut; therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any spare capacity to support extra assets (of whatever hue) in theatre. The 'So What?' is if the Jt Commander needs some more assets he has to lose something elsewhere to compensate. Ergo more CAS means less infantry/RE/Medical/Arty/Avn/Armour/ISTAR (delete as appropriate). It's a tough call; but, this is why CJO is a 3* (currently infantry). He is best place to decide the best force laydown - If he wants more CAS we'll be ready to supply it.
First, you need to find out why there is a belief that more CAS is needed. This is one potential solution to the issue. What could well be needed is some form of kinetic effect that could come from a variety of means - hence joint fires. CAS is but one element.
It is not that the RAF can't push any more ac out there, as far as I can tell none have been requested. So has the Land Chain of command got it so wrong? So, second, you will need to identify why the joint commander hasn't requested any more CAS assets. This could be for a variety of reasons.
One could be (and this is a big could) that there is a blance required for everything. We all know that our LoCs are extremely taut; therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any spare capacity to support extra assets (of whatever hue) in theatre. The 'So What?' is if the Jt Commander needs some more assets he has to lose something elsewhere to compensate. Ergo more CAS means less infantry/RE/Medical/Arty/Avn/Armour/ISTAR (delete as appropriate). It's a tough call; but, this is why CJO is a 3* (currently infantry). He is best place to decide the best force laydown - If he wants more CAS we'll be ready to supply it.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was announced a few months back that a contract had been let with a german company to provide a large quantity of 27mm Mauser ammunition. It was expected that delivery would be in 2008.
Given the price and quantity it worked out at about £18 per round.
I would guess that the ammunition used now is from Tornado stocks.
Given the price and quantity it worked out at about £18 per round.
I would guess that the ammunition used now is from Tornado stocks.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DISBAND THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?
The simple and honest answer to the question at the head of this thread is “no – of course we should not disband the RAF”. Sighs of relief from the light blues.
Good question though, because it makes us look more closely at what each of the three Armed Services does and ask the question, “are all the pegs we currently own or aspire to owning really necessary; can we afford them all; if not, what is higher priority; and is each peg in its correct shaped hole? Please forgive the simplistic imagery!
Those in the forces are in the business of using, or facilitating the use of, armed force in furtherance of our government’s political aims when peaceful means cannot achieve the required result. Control of the government and its restraint from illegal or unwise use of force is not our concern. That is the job of parliament, elected by the people. The Service chiefs must warn and advise, just like the Queen does, but ultimately what the government decides, they have to carry out to the best of their ability.
The use of armed force requires control, to a greater or lesser extent, of the air, the sea and land. How far that control has to extend will vary enormously according to the scope of the particular mission, the threat, geography and many other strategic and operational factors.
It is generally accepted by all major states with a defence capability that control of each element (air, sea, land) is best made the responsibility of a dedicated individual Service. Overall success of any mission, however, is greatly dependant of how each Service interacts, cooperates and communicates with each of the other Services in pursuit of the common aim. None is effective on its own. However, each Service operates in a three dimensional environment and division of responsibility cannot be made as clear-cut as those of the elements themselves. There is significant overlap in all interfaces and pragmatic compromises are required that will contribute to overall efficiency.
The responsibility for warfighting in each element is easily rationalised. However, in the support and logistical areas it is more problematic.
The R Navy needs to control the seas, above and below surface, in the area of operations but also needs the means to control limited airspace over its own tactical areas of operation which may often be out of range of land-based assistance. For this the FAA requires its own AD aircraft. It also currently possesses the limited means to fight and take control of land territory, for which it has the R Marines.
The RAF’s main tactical warfighting task is to control airspace within range of whatever land bases are available to it, to secure its own bases and to ensure the freedom to operate of ground and sea forces. It also provides fire support, operational and CAS, to the ground and sea based forces within range. When deployed, its bases are locally secured by its own ground forces, the RAF Regt. It also has major logistical responsibilities for the movement of materiel rapidly over long distances in support of operations.
The Army’s main warfighting task is to defeat enemy ground forces and to take and secure (not the same as hold) territory free from enemy. Unlike the R Navy, the Army will always operate within range of and under air cover provided by one of the other Services so does not require its own AD aircraft. However, the battlefield is three dimensional and the armed helicopter is complementing the tank in providing rapid, flexible and effective direct fire support to ground units in contact. These aircraft are provided through the AAC. It is not sensible to provide CAS fixed wing aircraft organic to the Army because of their infrastructure and basing requirements. However, the availability of VTOL CAS aircraft such as Harrier, which can be deployed well forward, brings that option closer.
Support helicopters are three dimensional, logistic vehicles. As such, their ownership should be based on whom they support. Each Service requires helicopters for its own domestic tasks. However, it makes little sense that logistic helicopters supporting the RN and R Marines should be owned and operated by the RAF just because they fly through the air. Similarly, it makes little sense that those SH that support the Army logistically are owned and operated by the RAF instead of by the Army, as in most other militarily advanced nations.
The effectiveness of our Armed Services is degraded significantly by narrow minded bigotry, inter-Service rivalry, competition, jealousy, envy and misunderstanding, at every level. Empire building and the needs of one’s own unit and Service come before the greater good and effectiveness of the Armed Services and country. I’m sure that most middle and senior ranks of each Service have knowledge and probably experience of this unnecessary and destructive internecine strife and its attendant waste and inefficiency. It is deep rooted and will be difficult to eradicate, but eradicated it must be.
The simple and honest answer to the question at the head of this thread is “no – of course we should not disband the RAF”. Sighs of relief from the light blues.
Good question though, because it makes us look more closely at what each of the three Armed Services does and ask the question, “are all the pegs we currently own or aspire to owning really necessary; can we afford them all; if not, what is higher priority; and is each peg in its correct shaped hole? Please forgive the simplistic imagery!
Those in the forces are in the business of using, or facilitating the use of, armed force in furtherance of our government’s political aims when peaceful means cannot achieve the required result. Control of the government and its restraint from illegal or unwise use of force is not our concern. That is the job of parliament, elected by the people. The Service chiefs must warn and advise, just like the Queen does, but ultimately what the government decides, they have to carry out to the best of their ability.
The use of armed force requires control, to a greater or lesser extent, of the air, the sea and land. How far that control has to extend will vary enormously according to the scope of the particular mission, the threat, geography and many other strategic and operational factors.
It is generally accepted by all major states with a defence capability that control of each element (air, sea, land) is best made the responsibility of a dedicated individual Service. Overall success of any mission, however, is greatly dependant of how each Service interacts, cooperates and communicates with each of the other Services in pursuit of the common aim. None is effective on its own. However, each Service operates in a three dimensional environment and division of responsibility cannot be made as clear-cut as those of the elements themselves. There is significant overlap in all interfaces and pragmatic compromises are required that will contribute to overall efficiency.
The responsibility for warfighting in each element is easily rationalised. However, in the support and logistical areas it is more problematic.
The R Navy needs to control the seas, above and below surface, in the area of operations but also needs the means to control limited airspace over its own tactical areas of operation which may often be out of range of land-based assistance. For this the FAA requires its own AD aircraft. It also currently possesses the limited means to fight and take control of land territory, for which it has the R Marines.
The RAF’s main tactical warfighting task is to control airspace within range of whatever land bases are available to it, to secure its own bases and to ensure the freedom to operate of ground and sea forces. It also provides fire support, operational and CAS, to the ground and sea based forces within range. When deployed, its bases are locally secured by its own ground forces, the RAF Regt. It also has major logistical responsibilities for the movement of materiel rapidly over long distances in support of operations.
The Army’s main warfighting task is to defeat enemy ground forces and to take and secure (not the same as hold) territory free from enemy. Unlike the R Navy, the Army will always operate within range of and under air cover provided by one of the other Services so does not require its own AD aircraft. However, the battlefield is three dimensional and the armed helicopter is complementing the tank in providing rapid, flexible and effective direct fire support to ground units in contact. These aircraft are provided through the AAC. It is not sensible to provide CAS fixed wing aircraft organic to the Army because of their infrastructure and basing requirements. However, the availability of VTOL CAS aircraft such as Harrier, which can be deployed well forward, brings that option closer.
Support helicopters are three dimensional, logistic vehicles. As such, their ownership should be based on whom they support. Each Service requires helicopters for its own domestic tasks. However, it makes little sense that logistic helicopters supporting the RN and R Marines should be owned and operated by the RAF just because they fly through the air. Similarly, it makes little sense that those SH that support the Army logistically are owned and operated by the RAF instead of by the Army, as in most other militarily advanced nations.
The effectiveness of our Armed Services is degraded significantly by narrow minded bigotry, inter-Service rivalry, competition, jealousy, envy and misunderstanding, at every level. Empire building and the needs of one’s own unit and Service come before the greater good and effectiveness of the Armed Services and country. I’m sure that most middle and senior ranks of each Service have knowledge and probably experience of this unnecessary and destructive internecine strife and its attendant waste and inefficiency. It is deep rooted and will be difficult to eradicate, but eradicated it must be.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never read such
cr
p in all my life..........
Listen, when I want a Lt Cdr's opinion on the 'Disbandment of the RAF', I'll give it to him.
Speechless!!!!
three dimensional
p in all my life..........Listen, when I want a Lt Cdr's opinion on the 'Disbandment of the RAF', I'll give it to him.
Good question though, because it makes us look more closely at what each of the three Armed Services does
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF’s main tactical warfighting task is to control airspace within range of whatever land bases are available to it, to secure its own bases and to ensure the freedom to operate of ground and sea forces. It also provides fire support, operational and CAS, to the ground and sea based forces within range. When deployed, its bases are locally secured by its own ground forces, the RAF Regt. It also has major logistical responsibilities for the movement of materiel rapidly over long distances in support of operations.
Originally Posted by vecvechookattack
So, therefore we can disband the RAF and those roles can be conducted by the RN and the Army.
So that after the RN and Army have fought each other to a standstill over ownership of multi-role assets we can have an inquiry (perhaps asking a South African general if he'd like to head it up) to solve the problem by creating a third service which apportions the air assets appropriately and removes duplication from the chain of command, eh, vecvec?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, therefore we can disband the RAF and those roles can be conducted by the RN and the Army.
a South African general
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Everyone is discussing the future of, or justification for, having a RAF as if it were an inanimate object dealing only in effective hardware deployment.
The RAF is manned by people who specifically decided they wanted a military career in the RAF whether it be flying or otherwise. There is enough concern re. manning levels in the RAF as it is. Does any one really believe that the majority of these people would happily transfer to the RN or Army?
The RAF is manned by people who specifically decided they wanted a military career in the RAF whether it be flying or otherwise. There is enough concern re. manning levels in the RAF as it is. Does any one really believe that the majority of these people would happily transfer to the RN or Army?
But there is more than one RAF, go onto the RAF website, click on current ops then either Afghanistan or Iraq...............how far down do you have to scroll to find out that there are 'also' some SH in theatre.
Actually, you currently get the impression that the RAF is all about SH. I've gone to www.raf.mod.uk only to discover that the webmasters appear to have merged the service website with the Benson station site...
Edit - It's back working properly now.
Edit - It's back working properly now.
Last edited by Archimedes; 19th Dec 2007 at 22:07.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF is manned by people who specifically decided they wanted a military career
PT anyone? (There, that should que another 200 entries onto this thread).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Why not disband all 3 forces, pull all out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and send in the politicians,makes sense to me 
We just need to concentrate on disbanding the politicians now.
How about a nice coup..!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
goudie
"Does any one really believe that the majority of these people would happily transfer to the RN or Army?"
I think people would stay in for their pensions. Just like they are now
"Does any one really believe that the majority of these people would happily transfer to the RN or Army?"
I think people would stay in for their pensions. Just like they are now