Should the RAF be scrapped? (merged)

[barnstormer1968]

Tourist.
Or, did you mean:
And tha'ts why we have dark blue...

I will now wait for someone to correct the sentence, as it started with 'and'.

I didn't start this!

[Blacksheep]

Lets say we scrap the RAF - and cutting it down to just 200 aircraft (types unspecified) amounts to pretty much that - what do we replace it with?

That is, what assets will be deployed by the Army and what by the Navy? The air wings aboard the new carriers will be what? Certainly not C130s. The Army will kit themselves out with what? Helicopters for sure, but something nice for close support if the Navy's carriers are too far away? Long range transport to get the stuff to the main base in the theatre of operations? Tactical transport to get that stuff to the sharp end? It seems to me that the aircraft requirements are dictated by the operation that they support and eliminating the RAF will do nothing to change that requirement. The Army aren't interested in Air Defence until enemy aircraft appear on the scene. So, cutting the RAF down to the bare bones means removing all flexibility and at the same time tying the Army's hands as regards its operational capability.

So, what's the difference? Eliminating the RAF doesn't alter the strategic requirement at all. If we're going to concentrate on firefighting operations against insurgents in far away places, we might just as well do away with the entire armed forces, contract the job out to the USA and be done with it.

[TheWizard]

Originally Posted by barnstormer1968

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).

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!

BS
Forgive my selective quotation but it was a rather long post.
The two points above deserve to be singled out IMHO.

First of all, I don't know what aspect of the RAF that you have had 'little' exposure to but in 20 odd years of HM Service, I have never noticed people being treated any more poorly in one branch over the other. Having been in a 'joint' environment (granted more Army exposure than Navy) for most of that time I have seen some appalling decisions and treatment on all sides but also some pretty outstanding ones too.

On the second point, what a bizarre analogy??! I think I understand what you are trying to say but first of all, to say the FJ pilot knows 'bugger all' about ground tactics is a bit of a sweeping statement. What would he be doing on the ground in the first place? Pretty much like the guy on the ground knowing bugger all about what the person above in their FJ is doing. If you are suggesting that the FJ could be manned by a fully trained infanteer but not the other way around I would seriously question that, given the specialisation of both jobs and the time involved in training? You may of course mean something completely different??

Why don't we just all work together for a common aim? It seems to have worked in the past. Yes, the cuts are coming but squabbling amongst ourselves (referring to those that are still serving) isn't going to help one bit.
Ah yes, teamwork!

[barnstormer1968]

The Wizard.

Hi, no problem on selective posts. I agree with you on ALL services treating their members badly sometimes, but on the whole I have found that to be a major reason for RAF folks to resist an army life/environment, and not the other way around. Army units tend to move en mass, whereas a lot of RAF folks can move in ones and twos, and so the same unit integrity is not always there IMHO. This thread is after all about if the RAF should be scrapped, not the other services, so I concentrated of RAF views.


As for the FJ pilot analogy, I wasn't trying to say that anyone on the ground could fly the aircraft, but felt that was so obvious it didn't need to be said. I have also never found anyone (army/RN wise, who thought they could simply switch places either). The fact that the pilot does not know ground tactics is very relevant, and that is why he is valued for what he/she does (and is well trained for), and not their tactical ability to simply place weapons for CAS without being asked (whereas a corporal or lance corporal will be making those decisions at the scene). Pilots with previous ground experience (think AAC and USMC tend to have a different evaluation of tactical situations).
As for the pilot being on the ground, that is a reflection on some posters who feel the army are a bit thick, as they would not know what to do with a Chinook, while folks on the ground don't worry if the pilot overhead is not a competent infantryman (different jobs for different folks all on the same side)

Maybe that clears things up a bit.

[vecvechookattack]

A good article from the Telegraph

We clip the wings of the RAF at our peril - Telegraph

[engineer(retard)]

What would concern me about losing the RAF is the priority that would be given to aircraft procurement and support by the other 2 services. I have seen instances of air budgets being chopped or traded by both the Army and RN during programmes to protect their capital assets. Not a poke but the highest ranking AAC or FAA would have trouble garnering support from very senior ranking infantry/cavalry or fishhead bods unless there is an immediate need and there is no pain to their favoured assets, be it capital ships or main battle tanks. Of course, when there is an immediate need it would be too late.

I am not saying that the RAF has always got it right with a historic tendency towards myopia unless it has been fast jet orientated projects. However, in the current round they should still be fighting the air power corner. How much else would be traded away with no RAF?

regards

retard

[orgASMic]

Some fantastically ill-informed comment from the readership follows the Telegraph article. It is rather worrying that so little is know by the public about how much good work the RAF really does on ops.

[Gnd]

Mini,

What I meant is what I said and it was a hit on idiots who think English and grammar are more important than substance, I see you have been found lacking in many of those areas - oops!!!

I do think the RAF would rather run to the drum beat of the Union and not that of the military, that said, I am tarring the RAF with the same brush and wish I could easily extract the operational Rotary from my comments!!

If there are any mistakes in my typing, for your benefit, I DON’T CARE!!!

[fly_surfbeach]

Disband the AAC along with the FAA and reassign all the Air assets to the RAF.
Disband the RAF regiment and merge these people with a force protection equivalent of the Army. Finally the Royal Marines should become a specialist branch of the Army.
LAND, AIR & SEA

[SCAFITE]

Get Rid of the RAF

I am really please I am well out of the RAF (left in 2002) and the current serving RAF folk of whatever Branch or Trade must be feeling lower than the snakes belly. Opinions from both within Army and the general population is that the RAF are doing or have done F**K all in both Iraq and more recent in Afghanistan. So moral of the RAF must be awful, having to go to work doing whatever you do and trying your best to complete your task while thinking most folk think we are nothing but Civilians in uniform and not worth the **** on their shoes.

We all know the front line infantryman doing what he does need applauding, but without the effective support from both service personnel and MoD Civilians they would wither on the vine. Also when you serving RAF folk get out into the big bad world you will be the first to get a job, so F**k them all and go with the flow, and let the Army do it themselves.

So to finish off with a horrible tale, during the 1980s I was coming back over the pond in a VC10 having left a snow covered Gander Airport when the Captain ordered food to be stopped being served and all Pax strap themselves in. After a good while normal service resumed, but unknown to us Pax a Contracted scruffy airliner full of US Paratroops coming back from a hard six month tour in the Middle East had crashed after taking off from Gander sometime after we had left. (No one survived) The inquiry that followed was the airliner was badly serviced and the contractor did not give 2 hoots. So if you are in the Army and think the RAF is just a bunch of overpaid fat layabouts who live the life of Riley, it is those layabouts who keep your aircraft fit for purpose bringing you home after a hard tour, as safe as possible. When you get rid of the RAF that’s what you have got to look forward to. If you dont think someting like the Gander incident will never happen again we are in the middle of a period of pinch and shortage of money and corners will be cut if they can be in the commercial world.

[airborne_artist]

The inquiry that followed was the airliner was badly serviced and the contractor did not give 2 hoots.

The conspiracy theories surrounding that crash could fill a hangar or two. The official line pointed at icing up of the DC-8, in fact, but others have suggested there were IEDs on board the aircraft.

Wiki page

[SCAFITE]

Gander Crash

No one will ever know but it did happen and a lot of Troopers lost their lives. And after the incident there was a huge clamp down on using contracted aircraft to move troops in and out of operational areas by the US Military.

The point I am making is the RAF have a very good record concidering the amount of hours flown and the age of the aircraft and that as been sorted with dedicated RAF Personnel whom whatever the trade have flight safety first and formost.

[minigundiplomat]

Gnd,

If there are any mistakes in my typing, for your benefit, I DON’T CARE!!!

To be fair, neither do I. However, if everyone is arguing about grammar and spelling, they aren't writing cases to get rid of the RAF.

Anyway, talk to my union rep in future........................

[Kengineer-130]

From a secret Wilts airbase that won't be open for much longer, it seems the process of scrapping the RAF started a long time ago .... Lets just say from what I have seen, morale is at an all time low, and a lot of dedicated servicemen are almost happy to be leaving at the end of thier engagement. With it goes years of experience and knowledge, which will be very hard to replace. As it stands the RAF is doing a pretty good job of scrapping itself by treating it's troops so badly

[vernon99]

Lets just say from what I have seen, morale is at an all time low, and a lot of dedicated servicemen are almost happy to be leaving at the end of thier engagement. With it goes years of experience and knowledge, which will be very hard to replace. As it stands the RAF is doing a pretty good job of scrapping itself by treating it's troops so badly

This is the problem, assuming they "get rid" of the RAF, there will be a lot of those blue suits almost at the end of their engagements, presumably they will leave, no point doing some conversion course for 6 months if you only have 12 months remaining. Also as I and others have already said many will not want to go Army or fly Navy, presumably they will take redundancy.

So just how much manpower will be left after that? and what percentage of that manpower will be at all interested in doing other things green/dark blue?

IMO there will be very few skilled people left, all those with skills will go elsewhere.

What skills and experience will the Army and Navy have to fill the gap left by the demise of the RAF? How big a gap will there be before the remaining services can do all the jobs currently done by the RAF? How many accidents will occur due to senior management having no idea or simple skills shortages. Would you be happy to fly in an aircraft where the engineer who signs it off was on gate guard last night, and has not had proper rest?

[chinook240]

What's The Point Of.... The RAF? - Radio 4

This should be interesting: BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - What's the Point of ..., Series 3, The RAF

Quentin Letts returns with another series offering a witty and thought-provoking look at some of Britain's cherished insitutions. Over the next four weeks he casts a quizzical eye over Marylebone cricket club, the public library, the Kennel Club - and the RAF.

Historian Max Hastings, War correspondent Sam Kiley, former defence secretary Geoff Hoon and retired Colonel Tim Collins are among those who join Quentin to ask the question, What is the point of the RAF?

Nice and unbiased...no one from the RAF then!

[Torque Tonight]

Great to read the Col Tim 'nice but dim' Collins will crawling out from beneath his rock for this one, no doubt motivated by an appearance fee and an opportunity to put the boot into the RAF again. A chap with less understanding of air power than your average girl guide but a somewhat great reliance on it.

[tommee_hawk]

See here.....

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-scrapped.html

[glad rag]

Yep F*** it go ahead disband the whole lot.

GO ON THEN.

[SirToppamHat]

All over the country, events are being held to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain...

But not at my Unit, where there is not enough money in the pot to celebrate the exploits of the few, or even cut the grass so that the rugby players share the soccer pitch (including the posts).

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

Who commissions these programmes?

STH