That old chestnut
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That old chestnut
Did anyone else see this in yesterday's DT?
Joined-up military
SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the RAF continuing to exist as a separate service. From the counterproductive bombing of Germany, to its irrelevance during the Falklands Campaign, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
It makes no more sense than the Submarine Service or the Tank Corps declaring themselves to be an independent and separate service.
E.C. Coleman
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.
I should imagine that he thinks that WW2 would have been much shorter without the pesky RAF annoying Jerry!!!
Joined-up military
SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the RAF continuing to exist as a separate service. From the counterproductive bombing of Germany, to its irrelevance during the Falklands Campaign, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
It makes no more sense than the Submarine Service or the Tank Corps declaring themselves to be an independent and separate service.
E.C. Coleman
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.
I should imagine that he thinks that WW2 would have been much shorter without the pesky RAF annoying Jerry!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 74
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should imagine that he thinks that WW2 would have been much shorter without the pesky RAF annoying Jerry!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, such 'logic' seems acceptable when screwing the Fleet Air Arm, scrapping Sea Harriers and forming Joint Force Harrier...the big snag there is the ship drivers with personal ambition don't understand or like aeroplane thingies; helicopters are fine, as they can get one ashore to the party quicker.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes wonder if it's someone's job on the telegraph to generate one of these letters about every 3-6 months. It certainly seems to come around that often. Surely we must be running out of time-expired, retired, ill-informed, low-ranking ex-army and RN officers by now?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turf War
If you look at the history logic would dictate that the RAF can no longer forfill the role that it was set up for under the "Smutts report" of 1917.
However times have moved on and the RAF is now the logical way to provide air power except at the tactical end of battelfield support or in close support of the fleet. I see the status quo as the best way to continue however with shrinking budgets the "lords & masters" are fighting to keep some turf and steal a little turf if they can!
However times have moved on and the RAF is now the logical way to provide air power except at the tactical end of battelfield support or in close support of the fleet. I see the status quo as the best way to continue however with shrinking budgets the "lords & masters" are fighting to keep some turf and steal a little turf if they can!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turf
While I regard what's happening to the Navy with horror, I can't help being reminded by your comments of the ' Two Johns, Bird & Fortune' sketch;
" how many Admirals do we have now ? "
" About 85 "
" and how many ships ? "
" Err, 25..."
" how many Admirals do we have now ? "
" About 85 "
" and how many ships ? "
" Err, 25..."
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
And how many air-rank officers does the RAF have.
How many squadrons?
The RN isn't the only service that is particularly top heavy in the rank structure.
How many squadrons?
The RN isn't the only service that is particularly top heavy in the rank structure.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Let's be honest, you don't have to be a particularly clever troll to come up with a letter like that;
Navy Version - SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the Navy continuing to exist as a separate service. From the failure to prevent the U-Boat campaign from Germany during WW2, to its irrelevance during the Irag and Afghanistan Campaigns, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
A Troll
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.
Army Version - SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the Army continuing to exist as a separate service. From the counterproductive airborne operations at Arnhem during WW2, to its irrelevance enforcing the Iraq No-Fly Zone, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
A Troll
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.
Nothing but classic interservice baiting, the real question is which spaz at the DT is running his agenda by publishing it?
Navy Version - SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the Navy continuing to exist as a separate service. From the failure to prevent the U-Boat campaign from Germany during WW2, to its irrelevance during the Irag and Afghanistan Campaigns, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
A Troll
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.
Army Version - SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the Army continuing to exist as a separate service. From the counterproductive airborne operations at Arnhem during WW2, to its irrelevance enforcing the Iraq No-Fly Zone, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
A Troll
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.
Nothing but classic interservice baiting, the real question is which spaz at the DT is running his agenda by publishing it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that the DT can print the other side of the view point:-
[QUOTE]SIR – The RAF is hardly a "single-weapon service" like the Tank Corps as E C Coleman says (Letters, February 5).
His argument mentions the bombing of Germany. I prefer to consider the Battle of Britain, where if the aircraft had still belonged to the Army-led Royal Flying Corps, not an independent RAF, Fighter Command's aircraft would have been committed to the defence of the British Expeditionary Force in France, as Churchill wished, and even fewer fighters would have been left to defend Britain.
Only Air Chief Marshal Dowding's refusal to commit them, which led to much criticism from the Army, saved enough fighters to win the air battle.
Phil Mobbs
Marlborough, Wiltshire/QUOTE]
I doubt that EC Coleman will be silenced though. Once a Luddite always a Luddite!!
[QUOTE]SIR – The RAF is hardly a "single-weapon service" like the Tank Corps as E C Coleman says (Letters, February 5).
His argument mentions the bombing of Germany. I prefer to consider the Battle of Britain, where if the aircraft had still belonged to the Army-led Royal Flying Corps, not an independent RAF, Fighter Command's aircraft would have been committed to the defence of the British Expeditionary Force in France, as Churchill wished, and even fewer fighters would have been left to defend Britain.
Only Air Chief Marshal Dowding's refusal to commit them, which led to much criticism from the Army, saved enough fighters to win the air battle.
Phil Mobbs
Marlborough, Wiltshire/QUOTE]
I doubt that EC Coleman will be silenced though. Once a Luddite always a Luddite!!
Lieut E C Coleman RN Ret’d FRGS
Author of the book 'The Royal Navy in Lincolnshire'
'About the Author
E.C. Coleman was born in 1943 and entered the Royal navy as a Junior 2nd Class. Thirty-six years later, having seen the world from the decks of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, he retired. During the 1990s he mounted three arctic expeditions in search of evidence of the fate of Franklin and his 1848 expedition to find the North West Passage.'
Author of the book 'The Royal Navy in Lincolnshire'
'About the Author
E.C. Coleman was born in 1943 and entered the Royal navy as a Junior 2nd Class. Thirty-six years later, having seen the world from the decks of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, he retired. During the 1990s he mounted three arctic expeditions in search of evidence of the fate of Franklin and his 1848 expedition to find the North West Passage.'
RAF in Plymouth - Mountbatten?
I also noticed this letter which was published in a reponse to the one from Admiral Coleman
Future of the RAF
I've re-read this three or four times now and I don't understand what he is trying to say. Anyone else get it?
I also noticed this letter which was published in a reponse to the one from Admiral Coleman
Future of the RAF
SIR – EC Coleman (Letters, February 5) believes that the rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff illustrates the absurdity of the RAF continuing to exist as a separate service.
He cites the “counter-productive” bombing of Germany. I wonder whether he would have been of the same opinion after Dunkirk. Future wars should not be fought with the weapons or strategies of the last, but it is surely dangerous to misinterpret their effectiveness.
Unmanned guided missiles, capable of spanning seas, continents and the air may, perhaps, bring about drastic changes.
Harold Norcross
Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire
He cites the “counter-productive” bombing of Germany. I wonder whether he would have been of the same opinion after Dunkirk. Future wars should not be fought with the weapons or strategies of the last, but it is surely dangerous to misinterpret their effectiveness.
Unmanned guided missiles, capable of spanning seas, continents and the air may, perhaps, bring about drastic changes.
Harold Norcross
Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I believe he is saying something like:
Weapons for the last war may not be effective in this one. (eg tanks not used much in AFG)
However, this does not mean that a tank is ineffective. It could still ruin your afternoon.
And the bit about the missiles, I'm guessing, is that they transcend physical limitations on certain weapon platforms. Eg no sea in the desert, RN not much use with ships. Tomahawk though doesn't care too much about what it overflies, so the RN do have a part to play.
Weapons for the last war may not be effective in this one. (eg tanks not used much in AFG)
However, this does not mean that a tank is ineffective. It could still ruin your afternoon.
And the bit about the missiles, I'm guessing, is that they transcend physical limitations on certain weapon platforms. Eg no sea in the desert, RN not much use with ships. Tomahawk though doesn't care too much about what it overflies, so the RN do have a part to play.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An End to the RAF
Interesting letter replying to the Coleman Letter from an RAF Wg Cdr no less. Seems not all Crabs are blind to the realities.
Ministers do not embrace the 'moral decisions' that they expect of bankers - Telegraph
An end to the RAF
SIR – I agree with E C Coleman (Letters, February 5) that the time has come to have a serious discussion as to the efficacy of an independent RAF.
There can be no denying that air power is vital to success on the battlefield, but the now meagre capability offered by the RAF is expensive and relatively ineffective. The operational inventory of aircraft from which ordnance may be fired or dropped is less than 300. Those few assets could well be reassigned to the other two services with no reduction in capability.
Indeed, letting the Army own and operate all helicopters, close air support and tactical transport aircraft, with the Royal Navy responsible for air defence and deeper offensive operations, could, for financial reasons alone, increase capability.
At the end of the Second World War the RAF had around one million personnel and operated over 21,000 aircraft. Now in the 21st century, with around 41,400 people, and operational aircraft actually available on the day close to a mere 150, it is time to think again.
Wg Cdr J J E Parr (Retd)
Suckley, Worcestershire
Ministers do not embrace the 'moral decisions' that they expect of bankers - Telegraph
An end to the RAF
SIR – I agree with E C Coleman (Letters, February 5) that the time has come to have a serious discussion as to the efficacy of an independent RAF.
There can be no denying that air power is vital to success on the battlefield, but the now meagre capability offered by the RAF is expensive and relatively ineffective. The operational inventory of aircraft from which ordnance may be fired or dropped is less than 300. Those few assets could well be reassigned to the other two services with no reduction in capability.
Indeed, letting the Army own and operate all helicopters, close air support and tactical transport aircraft, with the Royal Navy responsible for air defence and deeper offensive operations, could, for financial reasons alone, increase capability.
At the end of the Second World War the RAF had around one million personnel and operated over 21,000 aircraft. Now in the 21st century, with around 41,400 people, and operational aircraft actually available on the day close to a mere 150, it is time to think again.
Wg Cdr J J E Parr (Retd)
Suckley, Worcestershire
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad that the good Wg Cdr Parr is retired, with officers like him the RAF would be in dire staits. You could apply the same analogy to the RM, AAC FAA or the RN. What we need is consistant support for all our Armed services both financial and political.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Those few assets could well be reassigned to the other two services with no reduction in capability.
Now what about Nimrod. Is it a maritime surveillance or ISTAR platform? Perhaps its both. Who's toy box should it be in? Will the Army contribute to the upkeeping of the ISTAR capability if its in RN hands and will the RN be interested in 'its' crews training on those systems? Hmmm, perhaps they'll just bin the ISTAR bit of Nimrod, dumb it down to being just a maritime asset and the Army can buy something else. That sounds like a cost saving right there.
The old chestnut, it certainly seems to come around more often than it used to.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
m+m
"You could apply the same analogy to the RM, AAC FAA or the RN"
No, you can't.
He is saying that a separate service is unjustifiable for such a small number of aircraft and nothing else. Essentially the RAF is a one trick pony. You fly aircraft. end of dit.
The RN has aircraft (FAA), soldiers (RM), ships, submarines, divers
The Army has aircraft (AAC), soldiers, boats, combat engineers etc
The RM, FAA, and AAC are not Armed Services. They are parts of Services.
His entire point is that you cannot apply the same analogy to the RN and Army because we have many capabilities.
(and don't even try to call the Rocks a capability, before someone tries to......
)
"You could apply the same analogy to the RM, AAC FAA or the RN"
No, you can't.
He is saying that a separate service is unjustifiable for such a small number of aircraft and nothing else. Essentially the RAF is a one trick pony. You fly aircraft. end of dit.
The RN has aircraft (FAA), soldiers (RM), ships, submarines, divers
The Army has aircraft (AAC), soldiers, boats, combat engineers etc
The RM, FAA, and AAC are not Armed Services. They are parts of Services.
His entire point is that you cannot apply the same analogy to the RN and Army because we have many capabilities.
(and don't even try to call the Rocks a capability, before someone tries to......
)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THS.
"Now what about Nimrod. Is it a maritime surveillance or ISTAR platform? Perhaps its both. Who's toy box should it be in? Will the Army contribute to the upkeeping of the ISTAR capability if its in RN hands and will the RN be interested in 'its' crews training on those systems? Hmmm, perhaps they'll just bin the ISTAR bit of Nimrod, dumb it down to being just a maritime asset and the Army can buy something else. That sounds like a cost saving right there."
This is just the point. Both the Army and RN need ISTAR, so of course we would contribute. We have land assets (RM) that it would support. More than 50% of the personnel in Afghanistan are RN this year.
Because we are services with many aspects, we understand the need for funding various elements of the war machine.
Unlike, I have to say the RAF, which is so fast jet centric that we have hundreds of modern Typhoon and about 12 chinook.
Not only that, but you may notice that the RN and Army tend to cooperate reasonably well when it comes to territorial disputes re ownership of assets. ie 847 flying Army helicopters.
"Now what about Nimrod. Is it a maritime surveillance or ISTAR platform? Perhaps its both. Who's toy box should it be in? Will the Army contribute to the upkeeping of the ISTAR capability if its in RN hands and will the RN be interested in 'its' crews training on those systems? Hmmm, perhaps they'll just bin the ISTAR bit of Nimrod, dumb it down to being just a maritime asset and the Army can buy something else. That sounds like a cost saving right there."
This is just the point. Both the Army and RN need ISTAR, so of course we would contribute. We have land assets (RM) that it would support. More than 50% of the personnel in Afghanistan are RN this year.
Because we are services with many aspects, we understand the need for funding various elements of the war machine.
Unlike, I have to say the RAF, which is so fast jet centric that we have hundreds of modern Typhoon and about 12 chinook.
Not only that, but you may notice that the RN and Army tend to cooperate reasonably well when it comes to territorial disputes re ownership of assets. ie 847 flying Army helicopters.