Do all RAF Aircraft fly in support of troops on the ground?
With respect Cirrus, I'd sooner rely on the views of my mother in law's cat regarding the air-ground capabilities of the two types than anything over on that forum.
There are a few knowledgeable contributors on there, granted, but the overwhelming majority are people who haven't the first clue beyond what they read in their favourite aviation magazine.
There are a few knowledgeable contributors on there, granted, but the overwhelming majority are people who haven't the first clue beyond what they read in their favourite aviation magazine.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why by implication this thread questions the need for an independent air force. Thought when the Americans decided after Korea to follow our example everyone had learned the lesson from the experience of war.
Air power is necessarily a limited resource because it is expensive. If you have a limited resource and conflicting priorities the management and allocation of that resource had better be independent of the other forces clamouring for support – otherwise he who shouts loudest/wears the highest rank/has the biggest willy wins.
Air power is also complex and requires highly skilled technicians and aviators. If the air elements are competing for spending with the tank or the ship it is unlikely that they will get their appropriate share.
The management of air power is also highly specialised and to do the job successfully requires more than a career shared between maritime and soldiering.
Just a few thoughts.
Air power is necessarily a limited resource because it is expensive. If you have a limited resource and conflicting priorities the management and allocation of that resource had better be independent of the other forces clamouring for support – otherwise he who shouts loudest/wears the highest rank/has the biggest willy wins.
Air power is also complex and requires highly skilled technicians and aviators. If the air elements are competing for spending with the tank or the ship it is unlikely that they will get their appropriate share.
The management of air power is also highly specialised and to do the job successfully requires more than a career shared between maritime and soldiering.
Just a few thoughts.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
A good troll attempt, but the 5-10 year strategy for the RAF lists 12 objectives, only one or two of which involve direct support of "troops on the ground", but Typhoon does get its own mention. How well publicized and relevant is this list outside of High Wycombe I wonder?
- Support current operations
- Maintain and further develop an agile, adaptable and capable expeditionary air power contribution to the UK's overall Defence capability, which takes full account of emerging threats, concepts and technologies
- Improve the accuracy, speed and coherence of our ability to deliver effects across the battlespace by developing and exploiting the UK's network enabled capability
- Introduce Typhoon into operational service and, as swiftly as possible, provide the aircraft with a robust all-weather multi-role capability
- Harmonize our air power capability, concepts and doctrine with those of the US Forces
- Ensure our structures, organization and processes deliver rapid and accurate decision making at the lowest appropriate level
- Provide a World-class flying and ground training system and improve through-life education and training to produce well-motivated, highly trained, agile and adaptable warfighters
- Develop a sustainable manning and personnel strategy that supports the RAF's expeditionary capability and takes account of the prevailing social environment
- Improve the quality of the RAF’s operational, technical and domestic infrastructure
- Optimize investment in the RAF by delivering the outcomes of the Defence Airfield Review, further exploiting the benefits of the Defence Logistic Transformation Process, building a strong relationship with Industry, and eliminating waste and bureaucracy across every strand of RAF activity
- Further enhance the image and reputation of the RAF with the public as a means of maintaining their enduring support and meeting our recruiting requirements
- Improve our people's ability to clearly articulate the contribution that air power - and the RAF - makes to UK Defence
See Magic Mushrooms second post on the link below:
Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > Crab wants end to navy jets
Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > Crab wants end to navy jets
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is so much fun, can't wait for WG13 to truckup.
12 commandments look like justification to me, the Typhoon should have been scrapped and we take the cash to the aircraft storage in USofA. Then buy 100s of CH47 and A10s meaning we could have a truly useful RAF for current ops. Largeing it up in an air supremacy situation makes no sense to most.
The troops are served more and more by the RAF and the air-to-air is minimal, at the moment. What is the point of denying it - that’s what we are told to do. As for SAR - different fish and not even on this planet, by the way there are some SAR crews on detachment that have nothing to do with SAR and are definitely supporting the troops.
I don't think the fact that the RAF support troops mainly will change the fact that the Air staff (Upper) will continue to trump every meeting they go to and constantly whinge that every one is against them. Just get on with it and use your vote (pvr, election etc......) to oust the twits that put us in this madness.
12 commandments look like justification to me, the Typhoon should have been scrapped and we take the cash to the aircraft storage in USofA. Then buy 100s of CH47 and A10s meaning we could have a truly useful RAF for current ops. Largeing it up in an air supremacy situation makes no sense to most.
The troops are served more and more by the RAF and the air-to-air is minimal, at the moment. What is the point of denying it - that’s what we are told to do. As for SAR - different fish and not even on this planet, by the way there are some SAR crews on detachment that have nothing to do with SAR and are definitely supporting the troops.
I don't think the fact that the RAF support troops mainly will change the fact that the Air staff (Upper) will continue to trump every meeting they go to and constantly whinge that every one is against them. Just get on with it and use your vote (pvr, election etc......) to oust the twits that put us in this madness.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not another typhoon debate - no really!
Erm, not to sure about CirrusF's comment - possibly a bit lacking in understanding of airpower theory...
It's all very well having lots of mud-movers if there is no air threat, and we have the luxury of that situation in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. But one day in the not too distant future we might have to go to war in a place where that is not the case. What do we do if we end up having to fight where the opposition has something useful like a bunch of SU-27s, SU-30s or similar? In this type of situation it would not take long for everyone to be saying "thank goodness we bought Typhoon."
Yes it's introduction to service has been long and protracted, and yes it is taking a while to get the A/G capability in place, but we will eventually end up with an aircraft that can perform both roles really quite well.
My thinking is don't ever relegate Air Defence to second place, because although it is not needed much at the moment, one day it might be. It's a bit like a reserve parachute; you hope you will never need it but if you do you will be absolutely stuffed without it....
It's all very well having lots of mud-movers if there is no air threat, and we have the luxury of that situation in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. But one day in the not too distant future we might have to go to war in a place where that is not the case. What do we do if we end up having to fight where the opposition has something useful like a bunch of SU-27s, SU-30s or similar? In this type of situation it would not take long for everyone to be saying "thank goodness we bought Typhoon."
Yes it's introduction to service has been long and protracted, and yes it is taking a while to get the A/G capability in place, but we will eventually end up with an aircraft that can perform both roles really quite well.
My thinking is don't ever relegate Air Defence to second place, because although it is not needed much at the moment, one day it might be. It's a bit like a reserve parachute; you hope you will never need it but if you do you will be absolutely stuffed without it....
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twos's in, that reads like some sort of random management speak mission statement from some random corporate organisation. It says a lot but doesn't actually mean anything.
Anyway, seeings how gnd graciously asked for my input, I shall willingly oblige.
Offensive:
Harrier - Direct support to the Army
Tornado GR4 - Direct support to the Army
Defensive:
E3D - indirect/direct support to the Army
Tornado F3 - Poorly defending Hull
Typhoon - Airshows/Poorly defending Hull
Recce/MRA:
Nimrod - Indirect/Direct support to the Army
Tornado GR4 - Direct support to the Army
Sentinel - Direct support to the Army
King Air - Direct support to the Army
Transport:
C17 - Direct support to the Army
Hercules - Direct support to the Army
Tristar - Direct support to the Army
VC10 - Direct support to the Army
Smaller Transport:
BAe 125 - Shiny aircraft
BAe 146 - Shiny aircraft
Agusta 109 - Shiny aircraft
Helicopters:
Puma -Direct support to the Army
Merlin - Direct support to the Army
Chinook - Direct support to the Army
Seaking - SAR soon to be privatised
UAV:
Reaper - Direct support to the Army
Training Aircraft:
Hawk - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Dominie - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Firefly - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Griffin - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
King Air - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Tucano - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Squirrel - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Vigilant - Summer camps ATC
Viking - Summer camps ATC
So the roles of the RAF can be summarised as follows; Giving direct support to the British Army, training aircrew to fly in direct support to the British Army, flying at airshows, poorly defending Hull and providing aircraft to support ATC summer Camps.
Anyway, seeings how gnd graciously asked for my input, I shall willingly oblige.
Offensive:
Harrier - Direct support to the Army
Tornado GR4 - Direct support to the Army
Defensive:
E3D - indirect/direct support to the Army
Tornado F3 - Poorly defending Hull
Typhoon - Airshows/Poorly defending Hull
Recce/MRA:
Nimrod - Indirect/Direct support to the Army
Tornado GR4 - Direct support to the Army
Sentinel - Direct support to the Army
King Air - Direct support to the Army
Transport:
C17 - Direct support to the Army
Hercules - Direct support to the Army
Tristar - Direct support to the Army
VC10 - Direct support to the Army
Smaller Transport:
BAe 125 - Shiny aircraft
BAe 146 - Shiny aircraft
Agusta 109 - Shiny aircraft
Helicopters:
Puma -Direct support to the Army
Merlin - Direct support to the Army
Chinook - Direct support to the Army
Seaking - SAR soon to be privatised
UAV:
Reaper - Direct support to the Army
Training Aircraft:
Hawk - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Dominie - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Firefly - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Griffin - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
King Air - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Tucano - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Squirrel - Training aircrew for direct support to the Army
Vigilant - Summer camps ATC
Viking - Summer camps ATC
So the roles of the RAF can be summarised as follows; Giving direct support to the British Army, training aircrew to fly in direct support to the British Army, flying at airshows, poorly defending Hull and providing aircraft to support ATC summer Camps.
wg13 dummy: I could go into specifics, but I'd be wasting your time and mine.
I'll just state: You're a cock, and you have no idea of aircraft missions.
BAe146: "Shiny aircraft."
What on EARTH does that mean?
I'll just state: You're a cock, and you have no idea of aircraft missions.
BAe146: "Shiny aircraft."
What on EARTH does that mean?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laarbruch72;
I can see I'm dealing with the brains of the outfit here then.
Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list?
wg13 dummy: I could go into specifics, but I'd be wasting your time and mine.
I'll just state: You're a cock.
I'll just state: You're a cock.
Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laarbruch72, I see you've edited your post.
Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list? Is there anything on there that isn't true?
Err, it means that the BAe 146 is an aircraft that is rather shiny. Unless of course you think it has a role other than flying around being shiny?
Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list? Is there anything on there that isn't true?
BAe146: "Shiny aircraft."
What on EARTH does that mean?
What on EARTH does that mean?
Would you care to disprove or disagree with my list?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southern UK
Age: 64
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still around but have been away from a keyboard.
As WG13 has said, the RAF do directly or indirectly support the Army.
Perhaps it is time for a re branding of the RAF. RFC comes to mind.
As WG13 has said, the RAF do directly or indirectly support the Army.
Perhaps it is time for a re branding of the RAF. RFC comes to mind.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can so many people have no idea...
Please let this thread die, too many people have spouted such utter crap about modern warfare I feel like crying....Anyone who is currently 'in the Business' of defence knows how things are done and how the UK PLC goes about it. If you don't, go to the pub and have a pint! Far more fun!