Should the RAF be scrapped? (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why stop with the RAF? Here's my idea:
- All overseas operations to be conducted by a single combined expeditionary force akin to the US Marines.
- All homeland defence/policing/SAR etc to be conducted by a single homeland defence force, to incorporate police, coastguards etc.
- Maintain a good number of reservists just in case.
Oh, and any equipment that hasn't been used in anger in the past decade should be binned. Anything which has should be added to and replacements planned.
- All overseas operations to be conducted by a single combined expeditionary force akin to the US Marines.
- All homeland defence/policing/SAR etc to be conducted by a single homeland defence force, to incorporate police, coastguards etc.
- Maintain a good number of reservists just in case.
Oh, and any equipment that hasn't been used in anger in the past decade should be binned. Anything which has should be added to and replacements planned.
This was debated back in 2006. Tim Collins admitted that the article was a stunt.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...s-bin-raf.html
Post number 14 by airsound
'Collins is OK after all
Well, for anyone who didn't hear the programme (stand in an orderly line now), that nice Colonel said something rather interesting.
He described his call for RAF abolition as an "unfortunate Irishism", and he said "I don't want to disband the RAF."
He went on to describe his words about abolition as a stunt - a stunt to provoke "dull-minded ministers" into waking up and making the necessary choices - choices to rescue the defence budget from its current crisis.
I for one was very happy to hear him say those words, because I find him an admirable man, and I had been sad to hear his original abolition call.
I notice that You n Yours elected to interview him separately, and not to have him in the phone-in bit.'
TJ
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...s-bin-raf.html
Post number 14 by airsound
'Collins is OK after all
Well, for anyone who didn't hear the programme (stand in an orderly line now), that nice Colonel said something rather interesting.
He described his call for RAF abolition as an "unfortunate Irishism", and he said "I don't want to disband the RAF."
He went on to describe his words about abolition as a stunt - a stunt to provoke "dull-minded ministers" into waking up and making the necessary choices - choices to rescue the defence budget from its current crisis.
I for one was very happy to hear him say those words, because I find him an admirable man, and I had been sad to hear his original abolition call.
I notice that You n Yours elected to interview him separately, and not to have him in the phone-in bit.'
TJ
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What utter tosh!!! Ok I will bite!!
This sort of article just reinforces the fact that each service has no idea how the others work !!
Yes Logies admin and much of the management could easily combine, but specialisations many taking years of training just wouldn’t fit into an army/navy organization. Ask any of the ex army officers flying in the RAF (and there are plenty!) for their opinion on a Army officer pilot career path, after considerable training they only get a single tour productive flying!! They have a massive flat out training system barely coping. Excellent news for NCO aircrew mind!
I heartily agree the RAF could lose more than a few officers who seem to increase in number annually, with little shop floor experience or managerial skills, adding hoop after hoop for each unit to jump through. Having said all that, the idea of having ex SNCO’s and WO’s moving into junior officer posts would be a brilliant idea in the Air Force.
The army have always struggled to keep aircraft serviceable in a reasonable timescale, as they are seen as just another truck. The RAF would need twice as many Techies, Helicopters, Herks and C-17s to achieve the tasking they miraculously achieve using the same methods. The Army tried poaching RAF techies in the mid nineties. Experienced corporals found themselves as petrol pump attendants, what a waste. The reason RAF techies are signed on as long as they are is to keep their priceless maintenance and rectification experience. Civil industry keeps its experience even longer with massive productivity benefits. Even a high flying RAF techie has 9-12 years hands on experience before reaching Sgt, only find himself alongside a 22-23 yr old army equivalent who after a couple of years might find himself fixing trucks !!Modern aircraft are not lynx type tractors! Yes AH is different.(Interesting DCI knocking about for an army avionic techies retention scheme!)
The Harrier experience seems to have been painful for the RAF with a perception that they had to cover for the dark blue types. The joint helicopter and Harrier force looking from the outside seem to work...what really happens!
Tehe back in me hole!!!
This sort of article just reinforces the fact that each service has no idea how the others work !!
Yes Logies admin and much of the management could easily combine, but specialisations many taking years of training just wouldn’t fit into an army/navy organization. Ask any of the ex army officers flying in the RAF (and there are plenty!) for their opinion on a Army officer pilot career path, after considerable training they only get a single tour productive flying!! They have a massive flat out training system barely coping. Excellent news for NCO aircrew mind!
I heartily agree the RAF could lose more than a few officers who seem to increase in number annually, with little shop floor experience or managerial skills, adding hoop after hoop for each unit to jump through. Having said all that, the idea of having ex SNCO’s and WO’s moving into junior officer posts would be a brilliant idea in the Air Force.
The army have always struggled to keep aircraft serviceable in a reasonable timescale, as they are seen as just another truck. The RAF would need twice as many Techies, Helicopters, Herks and C-17s to achieve the tasking they miraculously achieve using the same methods. The Army tried poaching RAF techies in the mid nineties. Experienced corporals found themselves as petrol pump attendants, what a waste. The reason RAF techies are signed on as long as they are is to keep their priceless maintenance and rectification experience. Civil industry keeps its experience even longer with massive productivity benefits. Even a high flying RAF techie has 9-12 years hands on experience before reaching Sgt, only find himself alongside a 22-23 yr old army equivalent who after a couple of years might find himself fixing trucks !!Modern aircraft are not lynx type tractors! Yes AH is different.(Interesting DCI knocking about for an army avionic techies retention scheme!)
The Harrier experience seems to have been painful for the RAF with a perception that they had to cover for the dark blue types. The joint helicopter and Harrier force looking from the outside seem to work...what really happens!
Tehe back in me hole!!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 83
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A future for the RAF
I am sorry that no Ppruner has yet cared to put his mind to this proposition.
It is clear that the RAF as we know it has lost its strategic function, at present. We have lost the nuclear deterrence role to the RN. Without it we cannot claim to be indispensable in any nation-threatening war. When I was in the service (over thirty years ago, my lad ...) I remember the convention that Air Transport was a strategic function, so the problem has been with us for a long time.
We remain manned as if we were a strategic force and we win bidding wars on that basis for kit (Typhoon and A400) that would not have been bought by an authentic joint procurement procedure. That has been hideously wasteful - expensive boys get expensive toys. The naval carriers are more examples of this same costly service rivalry.
As Deliverance suggests at post #6, the Canadians did not need to abolish the Air Force in order to cut the size of the defence staff. We too must never forget the practical differences between fighting operations in the three environments. There will always need to be a store of doctrine and a class of thinkers for each of them.
There also needs to be a quorum in discussions, at every level of strategic and tactical planning, to ensure that spheres of influence are covered. Representation of the air interests will always be needed, counting equally with other representatives. The simple carve-up and dispersal of the RAF, as proposed by Col Collins and quoted at post #65, is politically unstable as a two-legged stool would be unstable. It would intensify rivalry and usually lead to winner-takes-all. If the RAF contribution is too light at the pinnacle of the current tri-partite organisation (never mind any personal factors), the better arrangement would instead be to widen the representation by co-opting the heads of joint-service interests (Intelligence, Logistics etc).
The natural rightness of the Land/Sea/Air approach to managing defence is a comfort to us old sentimentalists. The young bloods, who must make it work for them, ought to do some lateral thinking before Col Collin’s chums have their way. For a long time there has been a wistful attempt to talk of our working environment as Air-and-Space. Instead of bewailing the loss of the manned warplane and the hopeless cost of space operations, our air strategists should realise how increasingly powerful (increasingly Strategic) air- and space-platforms are becoming. The technology could become our monopoly, while our dominance in the environment of C3I (as I think it is now called !) could make our service once again indispensable to the defence of the nation.
Whether or not our truckies and our fighter jocks will continue to have blue uniforms in their wardrobes – well, that may indeed be in question.
It is clear that the RAF as we know it has lost its strategic function, at present. We have lost the nuclear deterrence role to the RN. Without it we cannot claim to be indispensable in any nation-threatening war. When I was in the service (over thirty years ago, my lad ...) I remember the convention that Air Transport was a strategic function, so the problem has been with us for a long time.
We remain manned as if we were a strategic force and we win bidding wars on that basis for kit (Typhoon and A400) that would not have been bought by an authentic joint procurement procedure. That has been hideously wasteful - expensive boys get expensive toys. The naval carriers are more examples of this same costly service rivalry.
As Deliverance suggests at post #6, the Canadians did not need to abolish the Air Force in order to cut the size of the defence staff. We too must never forget the practical differences between fighting operations in the three environments. There will always need to be a store of doctrine and a class of thinkers for each of them.
There also needs to be a quorum in discussions, at every level of strategic and tactical planning, to ensure that spheres of influence are covered. Representation of the air interests will always be needed, counting equally with other representatives. The simple carve-up and dispersal of the RAF, as proposed by Col Collins and quoted at post #65, is politically unstable as a two-legged stool would be unstable. It would intensify rivalry and usually lead to winner-takes-all. If the RAF contribution is too light at the pinnacle of the current tri-partite organisation (never mind any personal factors), the better arrangement would instead be to widen the representation by co-opting the heads of joint-service interests (Intelligence, Logistics etc).
The natural rightness of the Land/Sea/Air approach to managing defence is a comfort to us old sentimentalists. The young bloods, who must make it work for them, ought to do some lateral thinking before Col Collin’s chums have their way. For a long time there has been a wistful attempt to talk of our working environment as Air-and-Space. Instead of bewailing the loss of the manned warplane and the hopeless cost of space operations, our air strategists should realise how increasingly powerful (increasingly Strategic) air- and space-platforms are becoming. The technology could become our monopoly, while our dominance in the environment of C3I (as I think it is now called !) could make our service once again indispensable to the defence of the nation.
Whether or not our truckies and our fighter jocks will continue to have blue uniforms in their wardrobes – well, that may indeed be in question.
No vote from me.
You could equally argue that merging other public services could encourage savings - eg merge MI5, GCHQ, MI6 and HMRC. But it wouldn't work because the diversity of each service is partly what makes them successful. Equally RAF, Army, RN all attract a wider range of recruits than a single purple service would be able to recruit.
You could equally argue that merging other public services could encourage savings - eg merge MI5, GCHQ, MI6 and HMRC. But it wouldn't work because the diversity of each service is partly what makes them successful. Equally RAF, Army, RN all attract a wider range of recruits than a single purple service would be able to recruit.
I wonder if Tim got his (now ex) girlfriend to write this speech; you know the same one who wrote the one he delivered to much aplomb in 2003.
Sorry mate but the cat is now out of the bag and you should take your unwanted rants elsewhere!
LJ
PS I wrote this myself!
Sorry mate but the cat is now out of the bag and you should take your unwanted rants elsewhere!
LJ
PS I wrote this myself!
The Army tried poaching RAF techies in the mid nineties. Experienced corporals found themselves as petrol pump attendants, what a waste. The reason RAF techies are signed on as long as they are is to keep their priceless maintenance and rectification experience.
I would have thought any attempt to do the same this time would get the same response, PVR after PVR, it would be rather embarrassing, after announcing the end of the RAF, but the skills would transfer to the Army/Navy until they could get up to speed with it all. Only to find everyone scrambling to leave!
If I had wanted to join the Army or Navy I would have! But I didn't for several reasons, reasons I suspect that are fairly common amongst the RAF.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vernon99
Well spoken. I have nothing but respect for the Army and Navy, but as a career they would not have been for me. The Armed Forces of the UK are populated entirely by volunteers and the military competes with every other employer to recruit and retain people. Plan A for me was the RAF, Plan B was not a military one. I suspect (with good reason), that a great many people who may be planning to join the RAF would not join the other services if the RAF option was removed.
I tasted a little of army life (just a couple of weeks) when I was on a course and that confirmed my opinion; moreover, the creeping pongo-isation of the RAF was a mjaor factor in my decision to leave - again, I know of many who felt the same way.
By the way, this is nothing to do with a desire to stay in hotels and be home for tea every night - it's a little more cerebral than that. It's to do with the style and ethos of leadership and professionalism. The RAF is different from the Navy, and very different from the Army. Not better or worse, just different.
And for some people, that difference is very, very important.
Well spoken. I have nothing but respect for the Army and Navy, but as a career they would not have been for me. The Armed Forces of the UK are populated entirely by volunteers and the military competes with every other employer to recruit and retain people. Plan A for me was the RAF, Plan B was not a military one. I suspect (with good reason), that a great many people who may be planning to join the RAF would not join the other services if the RAF option was removed.
I tasted a little of army life (just a couple of weeks) when I was on a course and that confirmed my opinion; moreover, the creeping pongo-isation of the RAF was a mjaor factor in my decision to leave - again, I know of many who felt the same way.
By the way, this is nothing to do with a desire to stay in hotels and be home for tea every night - it's a little more cerebral than that. It's to do with the style and ethos of leadership and professionalism. The RAF is different from the Navy, and very different from the Army. Not better or worse, just different.
And for some people, that difference is very, very important.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, if a bit I'll informed, opinion piece by Quentin Letts re:the Radio Four Documentary in this weeks Radio Times(14 -20 Aug).
Apparently Spitfires would be more useful than "too fast" Typhoons in Afghanistan.....
(Nice contempory colour photo of a 54 Sqn Spit, though.)
Apparently Spitfires would be more useful than "too fast" Typhoons in Afghanistan.....
(Nice contempory colour photo of a 54 Sqn Spit, though.)
I very much find myself in violent agreement with Vernon99. I was determined from a young age that I wanted to be in the Forces, and whilst growing up I loved the idea of flying, that my family has an army background meant that I did briefly consider it too.
But based on numerous factors, most notably that the RAF was the most likely place I could do what I really wanted to do, coupled with the fact that I really didn't want to spend months on end locked in a tin can bobbing up and down in some desolate bit of ocean or that personally I really didn't believe that the Army's view of shouting at people coupled with blind obedience and a parochial bordering on arrogant view of the way things should be done really fitted in with a fairly independent minded, thoughtful / academic streak.
And I suspect there are many in the RAF who signed up for the Light Blue option based on similar criteria. So any forced transfers to either of the other Services would certainly result in me and many of my colleagues looking elsewhere. And that view was even with an un-solicited approach from the Army in my back pocket with the likely guarantee of promotion. So to say scrap the RAF and shuffle people around without any regard whatsoever for their own aspirations, ambitions, fears and concerns, would frankly be the height of arrogance and poor personnel management; but as we have come to expect that from the MOD and various Manning organisations over the years, we shouldn't be surprised if it happens.
But with the way things are going, I suspect that we are almost at the point in time that we have to seriously look at how we do things if we are to fend off the unwelcome advances of the politicians and senior officers from our sister Services. Maybe, just maybe, now is the time to decouple the concept of air power from relatively narrow confines of aircraft and aircrew, and broaden out into space and cyber warfare in very much the same way that the US has started to do. There is no way we can compete with them on that front, but the UK has a small but first rate satellite industry, we are one of the leading players -again in a niche way - in all things technical / sneaky-beaky, so lets start thinking about how we can use the aerial environment and space to better support Defence of the UK and our broader national objectives. And let's do it now before yet another bloody gunner comes along and tries to corner it for the Army with some bizarre reasoning about how only the Army can truly understand what is required.
That said, if the other Services object to the bill for Typhoon and JSF, I think we might have our work cut out trying to push through the bill for cyber / space warfare capabilities.
But based on numerous factors, most notably that the RAF was the most likely place I could do what I really wanted to do, coupled with the fact that I really didn't want to spend months on end locked in a tin can bobbing up and down in some desolate bit of ocean or that personally I really didn't believe that the Army's view of shouting at people coupled with blind obedience and a parochial bordering on arrogant view of the way things should be done really fitted in with a fairly independent minded, thoughtful / academic streak.
And I suspect there are many in the RAF who signed up for the Light Blue option based on similar criteria. So any forced transfers to either of the other Services would certainly result in me and many of my colleagues looking elsewhere. And that view was even with an un-solicited approach from the Army in my back pocket with the likely guarantee of promotion. So to say scrap the RAF and shuffle people around without any regard whatsoever for their own aspirations, ambitions, fears and concerns, would frankly be the height of arrogance and poor personnel management; but as we have come to expect that from the MOD and various Manning organisations over the years, we shouldn't be surprised if it happens.
But with the way things are going, I suspect that we are almost at the point in time that we have to seriously look at how we do things if we are to fend off the unwelcome advances of the politicians and senior officers from our sister Services. Maybe, just maybe, now is the time to decouple the concept of air power from relatively narrow confines of aircraft and aircrew, and broaden out into space and cyber warfare in very much the same way that the US has started to do. There is no way we can compete with them on that front, but the UK has a small but first rate satellite industry, we are one of the leading players -again in a niche way - in all things technical / sneaky-beaky, so lets start thinking about how we can use the aerial environment and space to better support Defence of the UK and our broader national objectives. And let's do it now before yet another bloody gunner comes along and tries to corner it for the Army with some bizarre reasoning about how only the Army can truly understand what is required.
That said, if the other Services object to the bill for Typhoon and JSF, I think we might have our work cut out trying to push through the bill for cyber / space warfare capabilities.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me the only time the RAF are good at being defensive is when people talk about binning them, the rest of the time they are looking for union rights not to be military?
It seems to me the only time the RAF are good at being defensive is when people talk about binning them, the rest of the time they are looking for union rights not to be military?
You may wish to reconsider either the content or your use of grammar and repost.
That's why the Army has the light blue.
Your welcome.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading many posts on this thread, I am losing touch of why a lot of posters think the RAF should not be scrapped.
My own view is that it is essential, as there will never be enough RAF assets to do all the tasks asked of it by the army and RN, so its independence stops assets being sent to groups with the highest ranking officers from the other two services.
On the other hand, and coming from a green background, I am tending to think that in order to justify itself, some light blue posters seem to want to 'put down' the ability of the other services, which really is of no help.
I can understand why some posters joined the RAF, and what may have appealed about its lifestyle to them. A post above refers to not liking the idea of being shouted at and blind obedience. I have to say that bears no resemblance to the modern British army I know (after recruit training), and possibly shows no understanding of the army in reality.
Another favourite I often hear is the the army could not fly the Chinook as they would simply treat them as trucks!
Now, with my limited knowledge, a Chinook is a transport helicopter, and its job is to move material and personnel.
A truck does that too, that is true, but do most RAF types really think army lads/girls just jump into any old truck and just drive it anywhere, regardless of danger? Or, do you really know the truck will have been serviced, and checked before the journey. the route will have been planned and agreed. Any timings, speed and fuel needs will have been worked out. The safest route and time of route will have been chosen to avoid losses, or enemy contact.
I also get the feeling that many (but certainly not a majority) of light blue types will just say the army don't understand how to fly and operate helicopters........Does that apply to the various armies that operated types like the Chinook for many years in peace and combat, long before the RAF received them?
At the end of the day, all three services are very different in tradition and lifestyle. From the little I have seen, the RAF actually treat there members very poorly at times, and can have much less camaraderie than the other two services (due to your way of working and lack of ability to keep personnel together).
IMHO the RAF are very good at what they do, and that is what they should concentrate on. It serves no positive purpose to be boasting that the army would not be able to do the same job (as this already happens in other countries), and do not understand RAF ways.
Army folks on the ground in a hot spot already know the FJ pilot above them knows bugger all about ground tactics , and would most likely be more of as danger than a help if he were on the ground with them, BUT that does not matter! If they call for help, the FJ pilot will come to help them, and use HIS/HER skills in the way they request. He/she may well save their life on the day, even though he/she could not hep on the ground.........Some folks call this teamwork!
For a long time defence cuts have shifted mind-sets as to who the enemy actually are. They are the ones 'on the other side' not hard working folks in light or dark blue or green!
*If anyone chooses to add career politicians to the 'not always on our side' list, I may agree with you
My own view is that it is essential, as there will never be enough RAF assets to do all the tasks asked of it by the army and RN, so its independence stops assets being sent to groups with the highest ranking officers from the other two services.
On the other hand, and coming from a green background, I am tending to think that in order to justify itself, some light blue posters seem to want to 'put down' the ability of the other services, which really is of no help.
I can understand why some posters joined the RAF, and what may have appealed about its lifestyle to them. A post above refers to not liking the idea of being shouted at and blind obedience. I have to say that bears no resemblance to the modern British army I know (after recruit training), and possibly shows no understanding of the army in reality.
Another favourite I often hear is the the army could not fly the Chinook as they would simply treat them as trucks!
Now, with my limited knowledge, a Chinook is a transport helicopter, and its job is to move material and personnel.
A truck does that too, that is true, but do most RAF types really think army lads/girls just jump into any old truck and just drive it anywhere, regardless of danger? Or, do you really know the truck will have been serviced, and checked before the journey. the route will have been planned and agreed. Any timings, speed and fuel needs will have been worked out. The safest route and time of route will have been chosen to avoid losses, or enemy contact.
I also get the feeling that many (but certainly not a majority) of light blue types will just say the army don't understand how to fly and operate helicopters........Does that apply to the various armies that operated types like the Chinook for many years in peace and combat, long before the RAF received them?
At the end of the day, all three services are very different in tradition and lifestyle. From the little I have seen, the RAF actually treat there members very poorly at times, and can have much less camaraderie than the other two services (due to your way of working and lack of ability to keep personnel together).
IMHO the RAF are very good at what they do, and that is what they should concentrate on. It serves no positive purpose to be boasting that the army would not be able to do the same job (as this already happens in other countries), and do not understand RAF ways.
Army folks on the ground in a hot spot already know the FJ pilot above them knows bugger all about ground tactics , and would most likely be more of as danger than a help if he were on the ground with them, BUT that does not matter! If they call for help, the FJ pilot will come to help them, and use HIS/HER skills in the way they request. He/she may well save their life on the day, even though he/she could not hep on the ground.........Some folks call this teamwork!
For a long time defence cuts have shifted mind-sets as to who the enemy actually are. They are the ones 'on the other side' not hard working folks in light or dark blue or green!
*If anyone chooses to add career politicians to the 'not always on our side' list, I may agree with you