RAF on Radio 4 Now
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kharmael
No, you didn't hit a nerve, and in referring to EX ARMY types, you may well be right. I was probably over the top, but then it does seem silly for other posters to say the army and navy should understand the RAF, but not the other way around (just think how odd it sounds for someone to suggest the paras and marines are similar...One is in the navy and arrives by sea, while the other is in the army and arrives by air (usually air mobile). They are just so different in attitude and ethos
.
I just don't think it helps for anyone to start name calling, as the RAF need to be independent IMHO, and the constant 'we need to be understood, but we aren't going to tell you about us, so you can't understand anyway' (that is a long phrase isn't it) isn't going to promote the RAF!
You may well know the army have a love/hate relationship with the RAF, but when the chips are down, the average squaddie loves the RAF (as they bring them help/water/ love letters/ sweeties and parcels etc), and would not want them to be disbanded..........
So, why do a small minority have to attack the other services, yet admit to knowing nothing about them, in order to make themselves look good.
In real life, all three services should be able to see why the RAF need to exist as an independent service:
A stupidly simplistic example of why this should be is:
For RAF types, just think about your own MT. Who gets the best and newest vehicles to use on det, the folks at the sharp end inc QRA types, or the top desk clerk or office staff?
In a tight situation the army need the most appropriate use of air power, and not see assets just go to the commander who is most senior or shouts loudest!
All commanders would see their need as the most urgent, but it really does need someone at arms length to treat everyone as equals (and especially so when aircraft are in short supply).
If I misuse a quote of yours "No actually Lyneham has 24 Hercules sitting on the pan" now you are talking sense
But maybe they are waiting for spares or to be scrapped and not paras (unless the Wiltshire insurgency kicks off again)!
No, you didn't hit a nerve, and in referring to EX ARMY types, you may well be right. I was probably over the top, but then it does seem silly for other posters to say the army and navy should understand the RAF, but not the other way around (just think how odd it sounds for someone to suggest the paras and marines are similar...One is in the navy and arrives by sea, while the other is in the army and arrives by air (usually air mobile). They are just so different in attitude and ethos
.I just don't think it helps for anyone to start name calling, as the RAF need to be independent IMHO, and the constant 'we need to be understood, but we aren't going to tell you about us, so you can't understand anyway' (that is a long phrase isn't it) isn't going to promote the RAF!
You may well know the army have a love/hate relationship with the RAF, but when the chips are down, the average squaddie loves the RAF (as they bring them help/water/ love letters/ sweeties and parcels etc), and would not want them to be disbanded..........
So, why do a small minority have to attack the other services, yet admit to knowing nothing about them, in order to make themselves look good.
In real life, all three services should be able to see why the RAF need to exist as an independent service:
A stupidly simplistic example of why this should be is:
For RAF types, just think about your own MT. Who gets the best and newest vehicles to use on det, the folks at the sharp end inc QRA types, or the top desk clerk or office staff?
In a tight situation the army need the most appropriate use of air power, and not see assets just go to the commander who is most senior or shouts loudest!
All commanders would see their need as the most urgent, but it really does need someone at arms length to treat everyone as equals (and especially so when aircraft are in short supply).
If I misuse a quote of yours "No actually Lyneham has 24 Hercules sitting on the pan" now you are talking sense
But maybe they are waiting for spares or to be scrapped and not paras (unless the Wiltshire insurgency kicks off again)!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD - I actually agree that a lot of damage was done by the failure to explain the branch to the TG9 SNCO cadre, many of whom ended up resenting the new Ops Os, when the 2 elements should have been working together.
VVHA - You have nobody doing the job? Perhaps if the whole job was tidying up charts and so on, but that is just one small part of the Ops world. It might be possible to have the aircrew do it all - on a small scale, for aircraft with limited range and with a simple tasking chain; but for a complex organisation (like, say, RAF Air Transport) this simply couldn't work. Someone has to organise the tasking, make the arrangements for the loads, crews and dipclears; as the truckie crews are generally rather busy flying today's route and may not therefore be able to think about a task that might happen in 6-8 weeks time, that work is done by other people - getting rid of the job really isn't an option.
VVHA - You have nobody doing the job? Perhaps if the whole job was tidying up charts and so on, but that is just one small part of the Ops world. It might be possible to have the aircrew do it all - on a small scale, for aircraft with limited range and with a simple tasking chain; but for a complex organisation (like, say, RAF Air Transport) this simply couldn't work. Someone has to organise the tasking, make the arrangements for the loads, crews and dipclears; as the truckie crews are generally rather busy flying today's route and may not therefore be able to think about a task that might happen in 6-8 weeks time, that work is done by other people - getting rid of the job really isn't an option.
Last edited by Ron Manager; 19th Aug 2010 at 19:45.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like it: BA Recruitment
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and back to the thread....
There was an interesting piece on Newsnight last night with Sir Clive Loader representing the RAF and Steve Jermy representing the RN. I have to say that although he was a strong advocate of the RAF, Steve Jermy won the debate with his argument that the role that the RAF conducts could be conducted by the other 2 forces.
What worries me is that although both Sir Clive and Steve both stated that " the RAF won't be disbanded", this is the second time in less than a week that this topic has been discussed on the BBC.
Is the RAF really safe? Maybe during the SDSR but what about the next Defence review in 5 years time? Worrying times
Fast forward to about 22:30 for the start of the pieceBBC iPlayer - Newsnight: 19/08/2010
There was an interesting piece on Newsnight last night with Sir Clive Loader representing the RAF and Steve Jermy representing the RN. I have to say that although he was a strong advocate of the RAF, Steve Jermy won the debate with his argument that the role that the RAF conducts could be conducted by the other 2 forces.
What worries me is that although both Sir Clive and Steve both stated that " the RAF won't be disbanded", this is the second time in less than a week that this topic has been discussed on the BBC.
Is the RAF really safe? Maybe during the SDSR but what about the next Defence review in 5 years time? Worrying times
Fast forward to about 22:30 for the start of the pieceBBC iPlayer - Newsnight: 19/08/2010
Do the airlines have an Ops Supt equivalent for their 'complicated routes' or is it done by computers?
Politically, there is absolutely no appetite to disband the RAF despite what any so called 'experts' may say.
However, if the cuts are so deep that our aircraft numbers shrink markedly then there may come a point where it is just not practical to have a stand alone force dedicated to air.
That comes back to politics again. I am not sure there is the political will to go as far and as deep as is being suggested (not just the military). Judging by recent speeches and leaks I am of the opinion that the coalition may be looking to apply the brakes a little. We are still an easy target and our eyes will water but disbanding a complete Arm of the forces is not, IMHO, on any politicians list.
And we work for politicians, not uniforms.
However, if the cuts are so deep that our aircraft numbers shrink markedly then there may come a point where it is just not practical to have a stand alone force dedicated to air.
That comes back to politics again. I am not sure there is the political will to go as far and as deep as is being suggested (not just the military). Judging by recent speeches and leaks I am of the opinion that the coalition may be looking to apply the brakes a little. We are still an easy target and our eyes will water but disbanding a complete Arm of the forces is not, IMHO, on any politicians list.
And we work for politicians, not uniforms.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thursday's Newsnight debate
Jermy again made the point that since the end of WW2 every enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat by UK forces (Korea, Suez, Falklands) has been shot down by a Royal Navy aircraft (though not necessarily flown by an RN pilot) launched from a carrier. A point Loader (nor anyone else I’ve yet heard) has had an answer to other than waffle! To me this indicates that 1) wars can creep up on us from the most unexpected places and 2) we cannot rely on nice folks near the combat zone lending us an airfield. Thus if we are to remain effective on the world stage we need to stay in the business of fixed wing carrier aviation. Who owns and flies the hardware is a secondary issue. However, hand on heart is the RAF now 100% behind the concept? For I think we must all agree their track record has usually been rather negative in this area and at times positively destructive. Of course we could always retreat to Fortress UK, but somehow I don’t think we will, after all who wants to be the PM of an island version of Belgium, not Cameron for sure!
'If we wish to remain effective on the World stage'.
Whether we wish to or not, the question is 'can we'?. I think not. The British Bulldog is no more and we perhaps need to finally acknowledge that at the political level. We simply do not have the clout, or the financial capability, to offer ourselves up as a major world player.
We are a tiny, bankrupt, over-populated island nation off the northern coast of mainland Europe. The next few decades are going to be about basic survival, never mind flexing our muscles around the globe.
Very, very sad.
Whether we wish to or not, the question is 'can we'?. I think not. The British Bulldog is no more and we perhaps need to finally acknowledge that at the political level. We simply do not have the clout, or the financial capability, to offer ourselves up as a major world player.
We are a tiny, bankrupt, over-populated island nation off the northern coast of mainland Europe. The next few decades are going to be about basic survival, never mind flexing our muscles around the globe.
Very, very sad.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up where we belong
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jermy again made the point that since the end of WW2 every enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat by UK forces (Korea, Suez, Falklands) has been shot down by a Royal Navy aircraft (though not necessarily flown by an RN pilot) launched from a carrier.
Alternatively: Jermy again made the point that we need to be equipped to fight the last conflict and give little thought to future ones.
the role that the RAF conducts could be conducted by the other 2 forces.
However, lets assume all the required manpower was forced to transfer then all it becomes is a uniform swapping exercise. And everyone knows the RAF uniform is the cheapest about - you could therefore say, just as easily, that the roles that the RN and the Army conduct could be conducted by the RAF (just think - instead of the First Sea Lord you would have the First Air Lord!).
If the RAF were to be disbanded it would only be part of all three Services being merged into a UK Defence Force.
And from my experience the one who shouts loudest usually has the most to hide (or lose). Or even is trying to deflect attention from their own inefficiencies (and unnecessary 'luxuries') [perhaps by demanding the disbandment of the RAF.....]
. Lets have a debate similar to the pre-election party leaders debate but use the current Service chiefs and not some cold war dinosaurs trying to protect their wegiment, old ship or out dated aircraft.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wyler
We are a tiny, bankrupt, over-populated island nation off the northern coast of mainland Europe. The next few decades are going to be about basic survival, never mind flexing our muscles around the globe.
There is a principle of "run or be run". Perhaps that appeals to some people; so long as their personal wealth and comfort are assured.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"run or be run"
All of which suggest a 'leaner, productive force' not a bloated under employed (with exceptions) farce (no mini it isn’t)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NUF,
I don't think so. I am sure the point he was making was that all operations since WW2 that have involved air-air combat have been expeditionary in nature and have used the aircraft carrier. It happened that the offensive air came from those carriers and aircraft were shot down.
As a generalisation, for truly effective expeditionary operations that require political freedom for the longest period of time, carrier bourne offensive air is needed. The UK knew that until the RAF saw themselves threatened by it in the '60s, and the US, FR, USSR (now Russia), India, China, Spain, Italy etc know it now.
Who flies such capability is up to the MoD and politicians, but for it to be a capability I suspect the RN have to be involved somewhere (as it is not just about fighter pilots in the cockpit) - I personally think the RAF need to be involved too if it is to be a truly flexible capability.
Alternatively: Jermy again made the point that we need to be equipped to fight the last conflict and give little thought to future ones.
As a generalisation, for truly effective expeditionary operations that require political freedom for the longest period of time, carrier bourne offensive air is needed. The UK knew that until the RAF saw themselves threatened by it in the '60s, and the US, FR, USSR (now Russia), India, China, Spain, Italy etc know it now.
Who flies such capability is up to the MoD and politicians, but for it to be a capability I suspect the RN have to be involved somewhere (as it is not just about fighter pilots in the cockpit) - I personally think the RAF need to be involved too if it is to be a truly flexible capability.
