CDS to go early
ZuluMike,
I think that is the problem, the news is all army this, army that, what air documentaries there have been have shown either SH or casevac, it might well be that fast jet ops do not make for good documentaries, no more gunsight video showing jets mowing down lines of Taliban at 1000 yards, tally ho. Back to the mess for tea and medals. The RAF are losing the propaganda war, not sure how they could turn it around though.
I think that is the problem, the news is all army this, army that, what air documentaries there have been have shown either SH or casevac, it might well be that fast jet ops do not make for good documentaries, no more gunsight video showing jets mowing down lines of Taliban at 1000 yards, tally ho. Back to the mess for tea and medals. The RAF are losing the propaganda war, not sure how they could turn it around though.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are all correct to be nervous as to what the future holds for the RAF, what with the loss of a light blue CDS just as the cuts are being planned, but don't lump the RN in with you guys. Army and Navy have always looked after each other just fine thank you, and I don't think this one will be any different.
The RN outlook is very positive at the moment, more than happy to have a pongo CDS
The RN outlook is very positive at the moment, more than happy to have a pongo CDS
Vernon 99,
The news isn't all,
"army this, army that, what air documentaries there have been have shown either SH or casevac".
SH and casevac functions are being done predominantly by RAF crews and aircraft. The RAF are losing the propaganda war because they are still fast jet centric with little love for the 'ginger bastard sons of the RAF', the SH crews. If you think i'm being over the top have a look at the RAF website's Operational Update sometime, you will find no mention of the RAF SH assets working their arses off. Even though the 32 Sqn get mentions!
Fast jet mates are going to have to accept that the days of large fleets of role specific aircraft: Recce,interceptor,ground attack, etc, are over. We as a country cannot afford it. The airforce needs to adopt the use of 1 type of jet to fit the vast majority of their needs, just like the USN use the F-18 E/F for theirs.
I believe that fast jets are essential for the UK military but they need to be jack of all trades aircraft, with the associated reuction in capability associated with that. The airforce also needs to publicise what it does better, especially its role in Afghanistan because if we don't we're going to miss out in a big way compared with the army and navy.
ww
The news isn't all,
"army this, army that, what air documentaries there have been have shown either SH or casevac".
SH and casevac functions are being done predominantly by RAF crews and aircraft. The RAF are losing the propaganda war because they are still fast jet centric with little love for the 'ginger bastard sons of the RAF', the SH crews. If you think i'm being over the top have a look at the RAF website's Operational Update sometime, you will find no mention of the RAF SH assets working their arses off. Even though the 32 Sqn get mentions!
Fast jet mates are going to have to accept that the days of large fleets of role specific aircraft: Recce,interceptor,ground attack, etc, are over. We as a country cannot afford it. The airforce needs to adopt the use of 1 type of jet to fit the vast majority of their needs, just like the USN use the F-18 E/F for theirs.
I believe that fast jets are essential for the UK military but they need to be jack of all trades aircraft, with the associated reuction in capability associated with that. The airforce also needs to publicise what it does better, especially its role in Afghanistan because if we don't we're going to miss out in a big way compared with the army and navy.
ww
WW
That is exactly what I mean, there is little or no propaganda about the role the fast jets are playing either at home with air defence or in theatre, I suspect the public think all they do is airshows(might be right considering some of the threads on here about hours flown
).
I think you are right about selecting one aircraft to do all roles, ok it might not be the best at each, but only needing one set of spares, one training programme, should allow us to have more, but need less of the expensive things like aircrew. You can have a common pool of aircrew type rated for what ever it is, and then rotate them through various roles. Come back from mud moving on the frontline to UK air defence(should be more mundane and allow time with family etc).
I know that there is some publicity about SH, but then again just how many people if stopped and asked could answer correctly, who the chaps in green are? Arguably could you take the same approach there, and only have one helicopter type? Is there enough reason for wokka and the eurothing(ok navy like it) Should RAF operate a larger fleet of Chinook, all at the same mod state, likewise the navy operate one helicopter type. Sure it might be wasteful(and not as comfortable) to move some bigwig by Wokka, but surely the longterm savings are greater. Again from a crew perspective you should need fewer aircrew, but as they are all of the same ilk, less time would be spent in theatre.
That is exactly what I mean, there is little or no propaganda about the role the fast jets are playing either at home with air defence or in theatre, I suspect the public think all they do is airshows(might be right considering some of the threads on here about hours flown
). I think you are right about selecting one aircraft to do all roles, ok it might not be the best at each, but only needing one set of spares, one training programme, should allow us to have more, but need less of the expensive things like aircrew. You can have a common pool of aircrew type rated for what ever it is, and then rotate them through various roles. Come back from mud moving on the frontline to UK air defence(should be more mundane and allow time with family etc).
I know that there is some publicity about SH, but then again just how many people if stopped and asked could answer correctly, who the chaps in green are? Arguably could you take the same approach there, and only have one helicopter type? Is there enough reason for wokka and the eurothing(ok navy like it) Should RAF operate a larger fleet of Chinook, all at the same mod state, likewise the navy operate one helicopter type. Sure it might be wasteful(and not as comfortable) to move some bigwig by Wokka, but surely the longterm savings are greater. Again from a crew perspective you should need fewer aircrew, but as they are all of the same ilk, less time would be spent in theatre.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's not an Air Force
So, we would just have Typhoon for FJ, swing roled to fit everything, specialised for nothing?
The RAF's SH capability could be flown entirely by the Army, no reason why not. Our UAVs (or whatever they're called this week) can certainly be flown by any service or even civilian, doesn't even need to be aircrew (and in many parts of the world isn't). The Army already fly their own.
The Army can take over airfield defence from the RAF Regt. SAR is already being civilianised. Obviously, the RN would take over the CVS-borne jet. Can't get rid of that jet or you'd have to get rid of the CVS.
So the RAF would be a (small, often civilian-contracted) AT fleet and Typhoon. When we're home from Afghanistan we won't need so much AT anyway. The Typhoon would not be optimised for any role but OK at most things - but we will have so few airframes you'd struggle to put more than 6 jets anywhere for anything. Fine, if you're happy with a fourth-rate air force and don't really expect them to do anything much. We would be a bit like Greece, but with a much better (second-rate) Navy and Army.
The other European countries turn up at Air exercises with their OK capability, put up a reasonable performance, are embarrassed by the Americans' ubiquity. They have some of the add-ons to their (often) F16s that make them a bit more EW-specialised, or a bit more A-G specialised or a bit more AD specialised. Few can get a look in on CAS. But talk to the pilots and they're happy - they know they're not going anywhere to do anything! Who, apart from us, contributed a meaningful FJ presence to Afghanistan? The French supported their own troops exclusively. The Germans remained based in the safe area and did some medium-level recce (nowhere near the capability of our dedicated recce capability, DJRP and RAPTOR). There were some Dutch F-16 doing a bit (but not much kinetic).
If we were to have troops on the ground anywhere, they would be supported by US air power. So we can't send our awesome Army anywhere the US aren't going to be with us and agree to support us. Unless you can get a handful of (no doubt exclusively RN) F-35s on the CVS in range with any meaningful payload/AAR (again, would probably have to be US AAR). The bigger picture is that a less-capable air force directly means a less-deployable, less independent and less capable Army.
With the above picture, we wouldn't even need 25,000 people. Without the aircraft, we can get rid of bases, support staff, adminers, ops people etc etc. Most of the people at DE&S... Again, fine if you're happy with an air force that does TLP and every other Flag and doesn't show up for conflicts like Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Bosnia. Do we have a foreign policy to match such limited aspirations? Doesn't seem to fit with our perception of our role in the world, but suits me!
The RAF's SH capability could be flown entirely by the Army, no reason why not. Our UAVs (or whatever they're called this week) can certainly be flown by any service or even civilian, doesn't even need to be aircrew (and in many parts of the world isn't). The Army already fly their own.
The Army can take over airfield defence from the RAF Regt. SAR is already being civilianised. Obviously, the RN would take over the CVS-borne jet. Can't get rid of that jet or you'd have to get rid of the CVS.
So the RAF would be a (small, often civilian-contracted) AT fleet and Typhoon. When we're home from Afghanistan we won't need so much AT anyway. The Typhoon would not be optimised for any role but OK at most things - but we will have so few airframes you'd struggle to put more than 6 jets anywhere for anything. Fine, if you're happy with a fourth-rate air force and don't really expect them to do anything much. We would be a bit like Greece, but with a much better (second-rate) Navy and Army.
The other European countries turn up at Air exercises with their OK capability, put up a reasonable performance, are embarrassed by the Americans' ubiquity. They have some of the add-ons to their (often) F16s that make them a bit more EW-specialised, or a bit more A-G specialised or a bit more AD specialised. Few can get a look in on CAS. But talk to the pilots and they're happy - they know they're not going anywhere to do anything! Who, apart from us, contributed a meaningful FJ presence to Afghanistan? The French supported their own troops exclusively. The Germans remained based in the safe area and did some medium-level recce (nowhere near the capability of our dedicated recce capability, DJRP and RAPTOR). There were some Dutch F-16 doing a bit (but not much kinetic).
If we were to have troops on the ground anywhere, they would be supported by US air power. So we can't send our awesome Army anywhere the US aren't going to be with us and agree to support us. Unless you can get a handful of (no doubt exclusively RN) F-35s on the CVS in range with any meaningful payload/AAR (again, would probably have to be US AAR). The bigger picture is that a less-capable air force directly means a less-deployable, less independent and less capable Army.
With the above picture, we wouldn't even need 25,000 people. Without the aircraft, we can get rid of bases, support staff, adminers, ops people etc etc. Most of the people at DE&S... Again, fine if you're happy with an air force that does TLP and every other Flag and doesn't show up for conflicts like Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Bosnia. Do we have a foreign policy to match such limited aspirations? Doesn't seem to fit with our perception of our role in the world, but suits me!
Last edited by ZuluMike; 15th Jun 2010 at 12:53. Reason: punctuation crime
ZuluMike
That is exactly where we are headed IMHO. UK Defence Force as soon as they can get us out of Afghanistan. There is no appetite to get involved in another conflict like that and I doubt whether Parliament would ever vote for it again. Our doctrine is already based on us acting like a mosquito on the American rump - token effort, nothing else.
There will be more civilianisation, more FTRS and more 'outsourcing' to industry for certain training. Regular strength will shrink way beyond 25000 in the RAF and may hit 15000 within 10 years.
I doubt whether Messes will survive and, with the closing of Stations, we will see limited service accom; what is there will be charged at market rates. Much less movement ( there will be nowhere to go) means no need to send kiddies to Boarding School etc etc. Home to duty and the like? Forget it, if you choose to live 100 miles away, your problem.
I fully expect the other services to take similar hits although the Army may well get a (very) short period of growth for all Afghan related kit.
Sadly, now we are nothing more than a tiny Island (bankrupt) Nation off the Northern Coast of mainland Europe.
It is just a shame the politicians have not got the balls to come out and say it.
I really hope I am proved wrong, really...really .
There will be more civilianisation, more FTRS and more 'outsourcing' to industry for certain training. Regular strength will shrink way beyond 25000 in the RAF and may hit 15000 within 10 years.
I doubt whether Messes will survive and, with the closing of Stations, we will see limited service accom; what is there will be charged at market rates. Much less movement ( there will be nowhere to go) means no need to send kiddies to Boarding School etc etc. Home to duty and the like? Forget it, if you choose to live 100 miles away, your problem.
I fully expect the other services to take similar hits although the Army may well get a (very) short period of growth for all Afghan related kit.
Sadly, now we are nothing more than a tiny Island (bankrupt) Nation off the Northern Coast of mainland Europe.
It is just a shame the politicians have not got the balls to come out and say it.
I really hope I am proved wrong, really...really .
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wyler,
I fear you are spot on. Sat in a room with AOBM a while back whilst he sat and told us what to expect over the next 15 years or so. Not good listening.
Sitting at work a little later I opened my bag, took out that job offer, logged onto JPA and applied for early termination. No arguments, no welfare chats, just a message in my workflow a few days later offering me an exit date.
For those of you staying in or perhaps even looking to join, good luck and stay safe. The hierarchy are powerless to do anything about the upcoming cuts and the RAF is about to become a none effective branch of the Armed Forces, despite the excellent people who work tirelessly to see things through.
CDS and his chiefs are nothing more than yes men. SoS for Defence is talking about changing that however, you have to ask yourselves why? Simple. In 5 years or so, we will be unable to sustain Herrick & the politicians will start to pull us out on the 'advice' of the chiefs who have been encouraged to tell the truth. Just my humble opinion of course!
I fear you are spot on. Sat in a room with AOBM a while back whilst he sat and told us what to expect over the next 15 years or so. Not good listening.
Sitting at work a little later I opened my bag, took out that job offer, logged onto JPA and applied for early termination. No arguments, no welfare chats, just a message in my workflow a few days later offering me an exit date.
For those of you staying in or perhaps even looking to join, good luck and stay safe. The hierarchy are powerless to do anything about the upcoming cuts and the RAF is about to become a none effective branch of the Armed Forces, despite the excellent people who work tirelessly to see things through.
CDS and his chiefs are nothing more than yes men. SoS for Defence is talking about changing that however, you have to ask yourselves why? Simple. In 5 years or so, we will be unable to sustain Herrick & the politicians will start to pull us out on the 'advice' of the chiefs who have been encouraged to tell the truth. Just my humble opinion of course!
How can you justify keeping an airfield open for 9 aircraft? Logic would dictate that you either need to move more aircraft in from elsewhere (start a "Reds to Kinloss" rumour anyone?) and close where those aircraft came from, or close Kinloss itself.....
The one showstopper is that closing an airfield is costly in the short term, costs are only re-couped over 5+ years. So if you are actually trying to save money then closing bases sometimes isn't really an option!
The one showstopper is that closing an airfield is costly in the short term, costs are only re-couped over 5+ years. So if you are actually trying to save money then closing bases sometimes isn't really an option!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Rather than close the major bases whether they are air or otherwise would it not make more sense to incorporate smaler nearby units into them - eg:TA, RNR, etc. For example, I never understood why there was a TA unit less than a mile from RM Condor.
closing an airfield is costly in the short term, costs are only re-couped over 5+ years
In the short term you've got savings in civilian staff (slightly offset by redundancy payments), utilities, maintenance of the airfield and airfield services etc. In the long term you may get some cash if you can sell the real estate and buildings (HMP Kinloss anyone?).
do you think this will spell the end of Lossie and Kinloss
. Unless JSF gets binned of course ....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descend to What Height?!? : Don't forget that Air Officer Battlespace Management, whilst being an old FC himself, is also head of the Air Tragic as well as ABM (read FC).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cokecan where are you?
I was rather hoping cokecan would come back after I responded to his claim:
the RAF fast jet capability has been the least used part of its fleet for the last 20 years,
knows how many wars since 1991 have shown that the RAF's greatest contribution has been AT SH and ISTAR, yet those capabilities continually get the hind tit in terms of both cash and service priority, in contrast to the rarely used fast jets.
and that by turning up with fast jets we turn up with nothing much useful.
Also: cokecan claimed that we had made changes in some way by fielding RAPTOR - can you shed more light on what you meant by that? We were always planning on fielding RAPTOR, it's just that it didn't work for 4 years so we couldn't send it to Iraq.
Come on then: we provided fast jets for GW1, TELIC, Kosovo, Bosnia, Siera Leone and HERRICK (+ over a decade of no-fly zone enforcement in north and south iraq) but you seem to be saying that fast air has not been much use since 1991.
And by the way, we spent 2 years (since 2004) with fast jets dropping bombs in CAS in Afghanistan before the UK's green army turned up in 2006. We were also providing fast tactical recce with the same jets. The US and (separately) NATO asked the UK to provide CAS and tactical recce. What would you suggest we sent? A Tri-star perhaps? A chinook for the americans that already had more helicopters than they wanted?
No, we don't publicise all the uses of fast air since 1991. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that you are ignorant of it.
the RAF fast jet capability has been the least used part of its fleet for the last 20 years,
knows how many wars since 1991 have shown that the RAF's greatest contribution has been AT SH and ISTAR, yet those capabilities continually get the hind tit in terms of both cash and service priority, in contrast to the rarely used fast jets.and that by turning up with fast jets we turn up with nothing much useful.
Also: cokecan claimed that we had made changes in some way by fielding RAPTOR - can you shed more light on what you meant by that? We were always planning on fielding RAPTOR, it's just that it didn't work for 4 years so we couldn't send it to Iraq.
Come on then: we provided fast jets for GW1, TELIC, Kosovo, Bosnia, Siera Leone and HERRICK (+ over a decade of no-fly zone enforcement in north and south iraq) but you seem to be saying that fast air has not been much use since 1991.
And by the way, we spent 2 years (since 2004) with fast jets dropping bombs in CAS in Afghanistan before the UK's green army turned up in 2006. We were also providing fast tactical recce with the same jets. The US and (separately) NATO asked the UK to provide CAS and tactical recce. What would you suggest we sent? A Tri-star perhaps? A chinook for the americans that already had more helicopters than they wanted?
No, we don't publicise all the uses of fast air since 1991. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that you are ignorant of it.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Gibraltar
Age: 58
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And by the way, we spent 2 years (since 2004) with fast jets dropping bombs in CAS in Afghanistan before the UK's green army turned up in 2006.
I think you'll find the British Army has been operating out there nonstop since 2001!
I think you'll find the British Army has been operating out there nonstop since 2001!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris: fair point. What I should have said was green army (in which I include Royal Marines) in need of CAS. The PRT at Masar-e Sharif never truly needed CAS after the initial stages, so no/little requirement for fast air support.
Had they been sent to Helmand or Kandahar instead of Masar in 2001 then they would have been crying out for fast jets for CAS, as they were when they did in 2006.
Had they been sent to Helmand or Kandahar instead of Masar in 2001 then they would have been crying out for fast jets for CAS, as they were when they did in 2006.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that Sir Jock's replacement will be made this week. My money is on David Richards who as a Brigadier was one of the most charismatic and formidable leaders I have ever had the honour to work with.