Will the Tories Axe the RAF?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and because the core function of the RAF is air power. The RAF understands air (even when that 'air' is being used to support 'land') and prioritises it.
(a) The RAF do not understand airpower in the battlefield environment. Look at the Dutch, Their Apaches are Airforce owned but Aircrews come from the Army.
(b) They certainly dont understand Airpower in the Maritime environment, if they did they wouldn't keep trying to get the carriers cancelled.
We could save an awful lot of money by:
a. Having flt lts command flights.
b. Having sqn ldrs command squadrons.
c. Having wg cdrs commands wings (stations).
d. Having gp capts command groups.
e. Having air cdres command commands.
f. Having an AVM command the RAF.
What a saving in wages!
a. Having flt lts command flights.
b. Having sqn ldrs command squadrons.
c. Having wg cdrs commands wings (stations).
d. Having gp capts command groups.
e. Having air cdres command commands.
f. Having an AVM command the RAF.
What a saving in wages!
RN 1 : 4.5
RAF 1 : 2.5
Army 1 : 8-ish
Now cut this anyway you want but the Armed forces are well overdue a management clearout where lets face it, would make far greater saving than cutting equipment.
As for cutting the RAF, I cant beleive that practically no one on this forum gets the real problem here. Put simply Cut the Airforce and you will (a) Alienate a lot of potential recruits to the Military (b) Cause mass PvR's at a single stroke and consiquently (c) cause a masive military capability problem.
The RAF MUST survive for the same reasons as the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Corps
PEOPLE!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Odiham
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(a) The RAF do not understand airpower in the battlefield environment. Look at the Dutch, Their Apaches are Airforce owned but Aircrews come from the Army.
(b) They certainly dont understand Airpower in the Maritime environment, if they did they wouldn't keep trying to get the carriers cancelled
WRT point B, as Ex Kipper fleet, I found that the Navy didn't know how to employ the MR2 to exploit it's abilities. For example using us close into the fleet and sending the Merlin further out. Hopefully this situation was solved as before I left ISK there were 1 or 2 Dark blue suits on exchange.
I also have to agree with MGD (not that often!). No disrespect to those who did but I didn't join the Army. I enjoy the RAF life and our 90 year old traditions and are more than happy to work for the Army/Navy but want to remain RAF.
(b) They certainly dont understand Airpower in the Maritime environment, if they did they wouldn't keep trying to get the carriers cancelled
WRT point B, as Ex Kipper fleet, I found that the Navy didn't know how to employ the MR2 to exploit it's abilities. For example using us close into the fleet and sending the Merlin further out. Hopefully this situation was solved as before I left ISK there were 1 or 2 Dark blue suits on exchange.
I also have to agree with MGD (not that often!). No disrespect to those who did but I didn't join the Army. I enjoy the RAF life and our 90 year old traditions and are more than happy to work for the Army/Navy but want to remain RAF.
Allthenick,
Thanks for the astonishingly astute observations and revelations.
Well I’ll be. So the Dutch do their Apaches differently. So what?
Some nations Maritime Patrol aircraft are operated by their Navies, others by Air Forces. Some even have mixed crews. So what?
A desire to cancel the carriers has nothing to do with understanding the ‘maritime environment’. It has to do with understanding the economic environment, and the fact that tough choices need to be made. That some niche capabilities simply can’t be afforded. That while the Army and RAF have been slashed to the bone since the 80’s the Navy has not borne its fair share of the cuts, and now needs to do so, and that the least damaging thing to give up is carrier air.
And expressing that desire is another matter. While I’ve heard plenty of senior Army and Navy officers banging on about how ‘wasteful’ and ‘Cold War’ Typhoon is, I’ve never heard a serving Air Rank bloke publicly criticize the carriers – observing the nicety that you don’t ‘crap’ on your fellow service’s spending priorities in public. Personally I wish they’d grow some testicles and speak out.
So the RAF is more ‘officer heavy’ than the Navy, which is in turn more ‘officer heavy’ than the Army?
How astonishing! The more technologically advanced a force is, the narrower its rank structure ‘pyramid’. What a blooming revelation.
And the fact that the RAF now has relatively few other ranks? After all the privatization of all the other-rank intensive activity areas like MT, engineering, etc. Well colour me astonished!
And you think that trimming a few senior officers will “make far greater saving than cutting equipment”? You’re deluded.
Thanks for the astonishingly astute observations and revelations.
Well I’ll be. So the Dutch do their Apaches differently. So what?
Some nations Maritime Patrol aircraft are operated by their Navies, others by Air Forces. Some even have mixed crews. So what?
They certainly dont understand Airpower in the Maritime environment, if they did they wouldn't keep trying to get the carriers cancelled.
And expressing that desire is another matter. While I’ve heard plenty of senior Army and Navy officers banging on about how ‘wasteful’ and ‘Cold War’ Typhoon is, I’ve never heard a serving Air Rank bloke publicly criticize the carriers – observing the nicety that you don’t ‘crap’ on your fellow service’s spending priorities in public. Personally I wish they’d grow some testicles and speak out.
So the RAF is more ‘officer heavy’ than the Navy, which is in turn more ‘officer heavy’ than the Army?
How astonishing! The more technologically advanced a force is, the narrower its rank structure ‘pyramid’. What a blooming revelation.
And the fact that the RAF now has relatively few other ranks? After all the privatization of all the other-rank intensive activity areas like MT, engineering, etc. Well colour me astonished!
And you think that trimming a few senior officers will “make far greater saving than cutting equipment”? You’re deluded.
Althenick
The trouble with statistics is they can be driven to suit any argument. For instance, if you were to look at the ratio of 1* officers and above to, firstly, the officer corps of their Service and secondly their total Service manning you get some surprising results.
Army (255 x 1* and above; 14510 officers / 91950 OR) = 1:57 and 1:417
RN (126 x 1* and above; 7410 officers / 30930 OR) = 1:59 and 1:304
RAF (126 x 1* and above; 9770 officers / 33800 OR) = 1:78 and 1:345.
So in terms of the really top heavy Service it would appear to be the RN. Which, I must admit, I found surprising.
And 95% of Manchester United supporters have never been to Old Trafford (or indeed live in Manchester). It's true - a statistician told me! Or was it an old Guinness advert?
The trouble with statistics is they can be driven to suit any argument. For instance, if you were to look at the ratio of 1* officers and above to, firstly, the officer corps of their Service and secondly their total Service manning you get some surprising results.
Army (255 x 1* and above; 14510 officers / 91950 OR) = 1:57 and 1:417
RN (126 x 1* and above; 7410 officers / 30930 OR) = 1:59 and 1:304
RAF (126 x 1* and above; 9770 officers / 33800 OR) = 1:78 and 1:345.
So in terms of the really top heavy Service it would appear to be the RN. Which, I must admit, I found surprising.
And 95% of Manchester United supporters have never been to Old Trafford (or indeed live in Manchester). It's true - a statistician told me! Or was it an old Guinness advert?
Jacko
I think that the RN has taken its fair share of cuts; numerous FF/DDs until its below the level recommended in SDR (21 vice 32); only 9 SSNs in service vice 17 a few years ago; 4 x SSKs sold to Canada as a savings measure; SHAR taken out of service early as a savings measure; the MCM forces decimated; closure of several shore bases.
In addition the Naval procurement programme has been hit: only 3 Astutes ordered so far, only 6 T45s vice the 8 required; the MARS ships not yet ordered; MK2 Merlin never ordered.
A competition of this sort is not really helpful, but continually going on about how the RAF has been cut but the RN hasn't is just plain wrong. Still, no one expects Journos to deal in facts.
The key to the future is to define the commitments that are essential & then fund them. If we can't afford those commiments then we have to knock off thoses that are less essential.
I think that the RN has taken its fair share of cuts; numerous FF/DDs until its below the level recommended in SDR (21 vice 32); only 9 SSNs in service vice 17 a few years ago; 4 x SSKs sold to Canada as a savings measure; SHAR taken out of service early as a savings measure; the MCM forces decimated; closure of several shore bases.
In addition the Naval procurement programme has been hit: only 3 Astutes ordered so far, only 6 T45s vice the 8 required; the MARS ships not yet ordered; MK2 Merlin never ordered.
A competition of this sort is not really helpful, but continually going on about how the RAF has been cut but the RN hasn't is just plain wrong. Still, no one expects Journos to deal in facts.
The key to the future is to define the commitments that are essential & then fund them. If we can't afford those commiments then we have to knock off thoses that are less essential.
Last edited by andyy; 23rd Sep 2009 at 09:09.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Odiham
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doubledolphin. Yes the RAF is only 90 years old but if we needed to have old traditions I'm sure we could employ some Druids. Afterall they've been around since before even the Navy
"The Navy has Tradition, the Army has Custom and the RAF has Dirty Little Habits."
oh ho ho ho.
Let's go back to sail and cavalry. Cos it's tradition that's important.
oh ho ho ho.
Let's go back to sail and cavalry. Cos it's tradition that's important.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Essex
Age: 39
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw on interview on C4 news with an Afghan refugee last night who was holding out in the "Jungle" camp for asylum in Britain.
The reporter asked him "Why do you not want to seek asylum in France?"
He replied "Because Britain offer so much more to refugees." That about concludes why the demise of our country is so apparent.
The Social security Budget is roughly 169 billion per year. There are so so many people living off welfare. It is disgusting.
Half that amount, only offer support to people born in the UK. Kill jobseekers allowance after 6 months. If people cant/wont find work then that is there problem and not the taxing paying workers population.
I have experience working in social care and the amount of people who cannot raise their children correctly due to what I put down to a lack of education and willingness to put their hand out is insane.
70 billion cuts could be redistributed into EDUCATION, TRANSPORT, DEFENCE, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION. Thus creating more jobs and further monetary regeneration.
I read a report that stated for every 100 million invested in Defence 221 million would be returned.
I wonder how much is returned for every 100 million invested in Social Security.
The reporter asked him "Why do you not want to seek asylum in France?"
He replied "Because Britain offer so much more to refugees." That about concludes why the demise of our country is so apparent.
The Social security Budget is roughly 169 billion per year. There are so so many people living off welfare. It is disgusting.
Half that amount, only offer support to people born in the UK. Kill jobseekers allowance after 6 months. If people cant/wont find work then that is there problem and not the taxing paying workers population.
I have experience working in social care and the amount of people who cannot raise their children correctly due to what I put down to a lack of education and willingness to put their hand out is insane.
70 billion cuts could be redistributed into EDUCATION, TRANSPORT, DEFENCE, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION. Thus creating more jobs and further monetary regeneration.
I read a report that stated for every 100 million invested in Defence 221 million would be returned.
I wonder how much is returned for every 100 million invested in Social Security.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jordanpolijo
Do you work for the BNP? I mean this quite seriously - you appear to be obsessed with immigration and seem to assume that "getting tough" with immigrants will solve the budgetary crisis.
Well, it won't. Even if we spent no money on social welfare - no pensions, no unemployment benefit, no child benefit, no disability living allowance, etc etc, we'd save £150bn p.a.; still leaving a gap of at least £25bn p.a.. And we're not going to let pensioners starve in the streets.
The Tories (optimistically and vaugely) talk of saving £10bn of the £150bn of social welfare spending: which means £1000 from each of 10 million people per annum. Not sure that that's going to happen - let along £150bn.
And honestly, the amount spent on asylum seekers - some of whom are fleeing persecution, some of whom are not - is a tiny proportion of this £150bn. So please stop banging on about it - it's not a solution.
You may have read the figures in the Defence Industry Council (DIC) report launched at the time of DSEI which called for stimulus spending on defence. If you've not, you can read it here: Defence Matters Featured Article . The problem is that the DIC report is based on an Oxford Economics report (getdoc/937eb883-56a8-49cf-bc37-16bbca787e3d/Oxford-Economics-report.aspx) which actually shows that the margin benefit of public investment is in the pharmaceutical industry or the construction industry.
So please get your facts right, and spare me the anti-immigrant rants.
S41
Do you work for the BNP? I mean this quite seriously - you appear to be obsessed with immigration and seem to assume that "getting tough" with immigrants will solve the budgetary crisis.
Well, it won't. Even if we spent no money on social welfare - no pensions, no unemployment benefit, no child benefit, no disability living allowance, etc etc, we'd save £150bn p.a.; still leaving a gap of at least £25bn p.a.. And we're not going to let pensioners starve in the streets.
The Tories (optimistically and vaugely) talk of saving £10bn of the £150bn of social welfare spending: which means £1000 from each of 10 million people per annum. Not sure that that's going to happen - let along £150bn.
And honestly, the amount spent on asylum seekers - some of whom are fleeing persecution, some of whom are not - is a tiny proportion of this £150bn. So please stop banging on about it - it's not a solution.
You may have read the figures in the Defence Industry Council (DIC) report launched at the time of DSEI which called for stimulus spending on defence. If you've not, you can read it here: Defence Matters Featured Article . The problem is that the DIC report is based on an Oxford Economics report (getdoc/937eb883-56a8-49cf-bc37-16bbca787e3d/Oxford-Economics-report.aspx) which actually shows that the margin benefit of public investment is in the pharmaceutical industry or the construction industry.
So please get your facts right, and spare me the anti-immigrant rants.
S41
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Essex
Age: 39
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im am fully aware of this report.
Did I not make reference to what it was concluding in my post?
Not anti-immigrant just anti piss-take.
I see the piss takes everyday through my own eyes.
P.S: When was the last time you drove through Tottenham or Seven Sisters.
lol
Did I not make reference to what it was concluding in my post?
Not anti-immigrant just anti piss-take.
I see the piss takes everyday through my own eyes.
P.S: When was the last time you drove through Tottenham or Seven Sisters.
lol
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Immigration has been the greatest disaster for this country in a 1000 years - it's nothing less than an invasion and weak politicians and do-gooders have allowed it to happen."
Oh for goodness sake. Since 1009? So since before the Norman invasion? Right.....
Hands up all those who are pure-bred Celts or Anglo-Saxons and have no Norman or any other DNA? Good. You lot can run the country and the rest of us will leave looking for somewhere else - preferably more tolerant - to live.
Good grief! There are doubtless some taking advantage of the system, but they include lots of white people who presumably fit your definition of "Brits" whether or not they can trace their heritage to 1009? And are you going to try and tell me that you denigrate the achievements and work ethic of our non-white service colleagues? If so, shame on you!
S41
Oh for goodness sake. Since 1009? So since before the Norman invasion? Right.....
Hands up all those who are pure-bred Celts or Anglo-Saxons and have no Norman or any other DNA? Good. You lot can run the country and the rest of us will leave looking for somewhere else - preferably more tolerant - to live.
Good grief! There are doubtless some taking advantage of the system, but they include lots of white people who presumably fit your definition of "Brits" whether or not they can trace their heritage to 1009? And are you going to try and tell me that you denigrate the achievements and work ethic of our non-white service colleagues? If so, shame on you!
S41
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Essex
Age: 39
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was not refering to ethnicity but country of origin, mentality and reason for travelling to our shores.
Like I said earlier. My opinion is that cutting freeloa
ding would free up ALOT of money that could be used to indirectly create more money, jobs and oppurtunity especially when its put into education which will give our young better futures and will help to eradicate those social problems that correlate to low-income and poor education.
Defence, Transport and Science are also key areas that this extra money can be put into to creat more wealth further down the line.
Oh and dot let me get started on the 25Billion we lose to people channeling funds into offshore trust funds. That covers the 25Billion deficate you spoke of.
I can only comment in what I have first hand experience of.
Like I said earlier. My opinion is that cutting freeloa
ding would free up ALOT of money that could be used to indirectly create more money, jobs and oppurtunity especially when its put into education which will give our young better futures and will help to eradicate those social problems that correlate to low-income and poor education.
Defence, Transport and Science are also key areas that this extra money can be put into to creat more wealth further down the line.
Oh and dot let me get started on the 25Billion we lose to people channeling funds into offshore trust funds. That covers the 25Billion deficate you spoke of.
I can only comment in what I have first hand experience of.
I can only comment in what I have first hand experience of.
There are, of course, some problems with some sections of the immigrant community and there are doubtless some immigrants who come here for an easy ride, and who refuse to integrate and contribute. But there are just as many (if not more) white Brits who sponge off our society, and who are just as unwilling to participate.
In general, I'd suggest to you that most immigrants who come here do so to better their lot and that of their families, and are prepared to work hard (and in doing so, help UK plc immeasurably) in the process. We have gained a great deal by becoming more diverse and more multi-ethnic.
If there's a section of UK society we'd be better off without, it's the knuckle dragging racists, xenophobes and demi-fascists who object to immigration.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shrewsbury
Age: 59
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Business News, Market and Financial News | Times Online Business
No need to worry, HMG generously borrowing about 6K a sec (difficult to tell the counter is moving so quickly) or 21M an hour. No snags funding the RAF from that.
No need to worry, HMG generously borrowing about 6K a sec (difficult to tell the counter is moving so quickly) or 21M an hour. No snags funding the RAF from that.
S41 and Jackonicko,
Top posts guys!
jordanpolonijo,
Do you have ANY idea just how thoroughly unpleasant and degrading it is trying to eke out an existence in one of the most expensive countries in the world on benefits?
No, I don't suppose that you do.
Do you have ANY idea just how difficult it is to even GET benefits as an immigrant to the UK?
No, I don't suppose that you do.
Do you realise that the non indigenous element of the 61 million people in the UK amounts to just over 8% of the population.
papajuliet,
Your post about immigration and 1000 years has to be THE most ignorant and inaccurate post that I have EVER seen on pprune.
Top posts guys!
jordanpolonijo,
Do you have ANY idea just how thoroughly unpleasant and degrading it is trying to eke out an existence in one of the most expensive countries in the world on benefits?
No, I don't suppose that you do.
Do you have ANY idea just how difficult it is to even GET benefits as an immigrant to the UK?
No, I don't suppose that you do.
Do you realise that the non indigenous element of the 61 million people in the UK amounts to just over 8% of the population.
papajuliet,
Your post about immigration and 1000 years has to be THE most ignorant and inaccurate post that I have EVER seen on pprune.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's a section of UK society we'd be better off without, it's the knuckle dragging racists, xenophobes and demi-fascists who object to immigration.
Anyway, ignoring the knuckle draggers for a moment...
I'll have a Quarterpounder meal with a Coke please. All these Whoppers - it must be Burger King!
Jacko, I'm not picking on you but you perhaps ought to try a little more research, or perhaps you thought being pedantic a good tactic?
The Japanese are an island nation dependent on sea trade and exist without carriers and a blue water Navy, and so could we.
Officially Japan doesn't have a Navy, as Article 9 of the post WW2 constitution doesn't permit armed forces. However, the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force is a Blue Water Navy in all but name. They have over fifty frigates and destroyers, something like sixteen submarines (why they don't have SSNs is beyond me as Japan has a major nuclear power programme), large numbers of minehunters, some amphibious forces, and guess what, new helicopter destroyers (sic) that seem strangely carrier like. Japan is of course due to get the F35.
More on the JMSDF here.
But we should now let the Admirals finally take their fair share of the pain.
You mean they haven't already? None under the 1981 Nott cuts, none in the rest of the 80s, none under Options for Change or other Tory cuts, none under the 1998 SDR or the 2004 SDR New Chapter? If there have been no cuts, then why did commiting HMS Northumberland to anti piracy operations off Somalia last year result in no frigate/destroyer in the vicinity of the Falklands for several months? Why are many ships deploying for six months or more per year for three or four years in a row?
Statistics are terribly dull, but these ones (from 1975 to 2000) may be of interest.
Let's consider three sets of numbers, those of SSN/SSKs (ie non ballistic missile submarines), frigates/destroyers, and Mine Counter Measures Vessels. In 1990 the RN had 29 Patrol/Fleet Submarines, now we're down to eight. In 1990 we had 49 frigates and destroyers, in a few weeks this will be down to 23. In 1990 we had a massive 41 MCMV's of various types, now we have just 16.
Both of the above are facts, not opinions. I could go on......
You mention Sierra Leone, but where fast jets really needed? What was needed was troops, helicopters, logistics, and command facilities. The Jags would have struggled to deliver them, but sending a CVS, a LPH and a couple of frigates provided them all. Additionally the frigates had the potential to shell the rebels, and the presence of big grey ships off the coast concentrates minds. As for the delay, I think Illustrious (with Sea Harriers etc) had to wait for Ocean (with Bootnecks and Junglies - but built to civillian standards with cheap propulsion) to catch up.
[CHEAP SHOT WARNING]
Incidentally, you once wrote:
Why are we closing airfields when there are still Army (and RAF and even RN shore-based) units based at places without a runway? If we need to draw down, any infantry battalion should be based at a modern airfield, whose runways, lighting and tower should be kept operational. Aldershot? Close it and sell the land!
You suggested it here. What was that about pursuing your own agenda at the expense of wider military capbilities?
The idea that the RAF could or should be disbanded is clearly idiotic, but many of the suggestions here are also clearly from the "Ignore the facts and hope for the best" school of thought.
I'll have a Quarterpounder meal with a Coke please. All these Whoppers - it must be Burger King!
Jacko, I'm not picking on you but you perhaps ought to try a little more research, or perhaps you thought being pedantic a good tactic?
The Japanese are an island nation dependent on sea trade and exist without carriers and a blue water Navy, and so could we.
Officially Japan doesn't have a Navy, as Article 9 of the post WW2 constitution doesn't permit armed forces. However, the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force is a Blue Water Navy in all but name. They have over fifty frigates and destroyers, something like sixteen submarines (why they don't have SSNs is beyond me as Japan has a major nuclear power programme), large numbers of minehunters, some amphibious forces, and guess what, new helicopter destroyers (sic) that seem strangely carrier like. Japan is of course due to get the F35.
More on the JMSDF here.
But we should now let the Admirals finally take their fair share of the pain.
You mean they haven't already? None under the 1981 Nott cuts, none in the rest of the 80s, none under Options for Change or other Tory cuts, none under the 1998 SDR or the 2004 SDR New Chapter? If there have been no cuts, then why did commiting HMS Northumberland to anti piracy operations off Somalia last year result in no frigate/destroyer in the vicinity of the Falklands for several months? Why are many ships deploying for six months or more per year for three or four years in a row?
Statistics are terribly dull, but these ones (from 1975 to 2000) may be of interest.
Let's consider three sets of numbers, those of SSN/SSKs (ie non ballistic missile submarines), frigates/destroyers, and Mine Counter Measures Vessels. In 1990 the RN had 29 Patrol/Fleet Submarines, now we're down to eight. In 1990 we had 49 frigates and destroyers, in a few weeks this will be down to 23. In 1990 we had a massive 41 MCMV's of various types, now we have just 16.
Both of the above are facts, not opinions. I could go on......
You mention Sierra Leone, but where fast jets really needed? What was needed was troops, helicopters, logistics, and command facilities. The Jags would have struggled to deliver them, but sending a CVS, a LPH and a couple of frigates provided them all. Additionally the frigates had the potential to shell the rebels, and the presence of big grey ships off the coast concentrates minds. As for the delay, I think Illustrious (with Sea Harriers etc) had to wait for Ocean (with Bootnecks and Junglies - but built to civillian standards with cheap propulsion) to catch up.
[CHEAP SHOT WARNING]
Incidentally, you once wrote:
Why are we closing airfields when there are still Army (and RAF and even RN shore-based) units based at places without a runway? If we need to draw down, any infantry battalion should be based at a modern airfield, whose runways, lighting and tower should be kept operational. Aldershot? Close it and sell the land!
You suggested it here. What was that about pursuing your own agenda at the expense of wider military capbilities?
The idea that the RAF could or should be disbanded is clearly idiotic, but many of the suggestions here are also clearly from the "Ignore the facts and hope for the best" school of thought.
