Fox: RAF Will Not Merge With Other Services
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By this flawed logic, I presume you are also endorsing the formation of a single Royal Regiment of Squaddies encompassing all of the existing Corps and Regiments
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the advantages of a fully independent Air Force is that no one part of the Army can get too powerful and therefore enjoy a monopoly on funding. It provides balance. Most attendees of 'swindon tech' will agree, whatever their Service. If a merger is a player, why not suck in the RN at the same time; then we can all stop arguing over funding.....I dont agree with that view by the way!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say that all the RAF does is support the army is extremely ignorant and shows a deep misunderstanding on your behalf.
Thanks althenick, I needed a good laugh, top comedy!!!
I think unchecked thought that you were serious!!!!!!
I think unchecked thought that you were serious!!!!!!
If the RAF joins the Army it should surely be as a separate flying regiment.
That way we can have our own rules, regulations, uniforms, abbreviations, bases, ranks*, etc. Only problem is I don't think any shops near me sell red trousers.
*If the Cavalry can have Corporal of Horse we can stick with Flight Sergeants etc. I've no problem with the O's adopting Army ranks - it'll save explaining that Flight Lieutenant is the same as Captain - except PA Flt Lt, more like a Lt Col where it's important - at the bank..
That way we can have our own rules, regulations, uniforms, abbreviations, bases, ranks*, etc. Only problem is I don't think any shops near me sell red trousers.
*If the Cavalry can have Corporal of Horse we can stick with Flight Sergeants etc. I've no problem with the O's adopting Army ranks - it'll save explaining that Flight Lieutenant is the same as Captain - except PA Flt Lt, more like a Lt Col where it's important - at the bank..
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, this thread has shown up an issue which has affected the viewpoint of our Army colleagues most disturbingly. It is that of "The War."
For the best part of ten years we've been engaged in counter insurgency in a land locked country whose airspace we own. For an entire generation of Ruperts and Toms this is warfare. It's the only thing they know. Iraq, similar principle applies (bar early 2003).
The point is, this younger generation of Army simply see the RAF as another combat support arm in the same view as the RA or AAC, because HERRICK is not just the war it's Their War.
The obvious, as we've seen on this thread, follows. Note the higher levels of the army structure might stoke this view as, once we withdraw from Afghan, then Army face a similar slashing. Not right or good but sadly inevitable. Thus to preserve their patch they will get the junior to chunter on about the "hundred year experiment" etc.
They conveniently forget who's running the UK side of things in Libya, a campaign where certainly the Army is not the prime customer of the RAF or RN.
TTH
For the best part of ten years we've been engaged in counter insurgency in a land locked country whose airspace we own. For an entire generation of Ruperts and Toms this is warfare. It's the only thing they know. Iraq, similar principle applies (bar early 2003).
The point is, this younger generation of Army simply see the RAF as another combat support arm in the same view as the RA or AAC, because HERRICK is not just the war it's Their War.
The obvious, as we've seen on this thread, follows. Note the higher levels of the army structure might stoke this view as, once we withdraw from Afghan, then Army face a similar slashing. Not right or good but sadly inevitable. Thus to preserve their patch they will get the junior to chunter on about the "hundred year experiment" etc.
They conveniently forget who's running the UK side of things in Libya, a campaign where certainly the Army is not the prime customer of the RAF or RN.
TTH
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Personally, I think it will happen within the next ten years. It seems senseless to me that a service which is pretty much fully committed to supporting another service should be independent. Someone upstairs will realize that there would be much savings to be made in streamlining the management of the RAF and making it a Service within the Army.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said TTH,
I suspect there is going to be something of a crisis of identity and purpose within the Army when they finally withdraw from Afg. They seem to have configured themselves almost exclusively for this op, to the detriment of what are perceived as old-fashioned roles such as armoured warfare, and they expect the rest of the forces to follow suit. If you're a Major / Lieutenant Colonel, you are going nowhere unless you've been written up for a command tour in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, wise heads in the RAF and Navy (and maybe some in the Army) realise that, in the words of Robert Duvall, " one day this war's gonna end" and if history tells us anything then the next major entanglement will probably look very different to the last one.
So please, please, please, enough " disband the RAF" horsesh!t already.
I suspect there is going to be something of a crisis of identity and purpose within the Army when they finally withdraw from Afg. They seem to have configured themselves almost exclusively for this op, to the detriment of what are perceived as old-fashioned roles such as armoured warfare, and they expect the rest of the forces to follow suit. If you're a Major / Lieutenant Colonel, you are going nowhere unless you've been written up for a command tour in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, wise heads in the RAF and Navy (and maybe some in the Army) realise that, in the words of Robert Duvall, " one day this war's gonna end" and if history tells us anything then the next major entanglement will probably look very different to the last one.
So please, please, please, enough " disband the RAF" horsesh!t already.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Army may face cuts to fund TA reservists
As it would appear that post Afg the Army will be more of a part time job than a full time occupation the notion of a green grocer/weekend warrior being in command of something as complex as the RAF is simply ludicrous
As it would appear that post Afg the Army will be more of a part time job than a full time occupation the notion of a green grocer/weekend warrior being in command of something as complex as the RAF is simply ludicrous
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Althenick.
Well, others have explained it to you a lot clearer than I can be bothered to. This country will always require defending and in this day and age the way to to do that is from the air. That is the primary role of the RAF. Governments of the future will not always be so keen to send our forces around the world. Hence why the army should be the ones afraid of their future. They only have 4 years to decide best how to reconfigure themselves because after the war has ended and you all come home, there ain't gonna be a lot for you to do.
Best you all get your thinking caps on.
Watch with interest which branch of the armed forces are most likely to help out with a humanitarian crisis in east Africa over the next few months. I didnt see the army delivering aid to Ethiopia, Pakistan, Haiti etc over the years.
Yes, the RAF supports the army, but that isn't all it does. Please remove your head from your anus and have a read of something.
Well, others have explained it to you a lot clearer than I can be bothered to. This country will always require defending and in this day and age the way to to do that is from the air. That is the primary role of the RAF. Governments of the future will not always be so keen to send our forces around the world. Hence why the army should be the ones afraid of their future. They only have 4 years to decide best how to reconfigure themselves because after the war has ended and you all come home, there ain't gonna be a lot for you to do.
Best you all get your thinking caps on.
Watch with interest which branch of the armed forces are most likely to help out with a humanitarian crisis in east Africa over the next few months. I didnt see the army delivering aid to Ethiopia, Pakistan, Haiti etc over the years.
Yes, the RAF supports the army, but that isn't all it does. Please remove your head from your anus and have a read of something.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Althenick.......are you an ex stoker.....you sound like one...put a log on and leave constructive airpower to the professionals !
Well, others have explained it to you a lot clearer than I can be bothered to. This country will always require defending and in this day and age the way to to do that is from the air.
Watch with interest which branch of the armed forces are most likely to help out with a humanitarian crisis in east Africa over the next few months. I didnt see the army delivering aid to Ethiopia, Pakistan, Haiti etc over the years.
Pre-SDSR i'd have argued to the death for an independent Air Force, But now All the services are too small. The RAF aren't interested in Maritime - They proved that with giving up Harrier and rightly or wrongly Nimrod.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Althenick.
Army? Primary business? Libya? Anything? No?
We are not in business to support the Army. We in business to defend the UK interests at home and abroad. In the case of HERRICK means primarily supporting land forces as that is the nature of the campaign. Is is not the case in the other big op currently in progress.
You are clearly no expert on airpower if you think that the Harrier was the ONLY aircraft like you bang on about. Your incessant clawing at the RAF is a massively compelling case for an independent RAF all by itself as it demonstrates the surface level of the lack of understanding of airpower in Army circles. I would dream of telling you how to run a land campaign, take a patrol out or restructure your force. Don't pretend you have anywhere near the understanding of air in that same fashion.
My guess is you fit neatly into the category of soldier I discussed in my previous post. And just for you I'll say it again. If you think all the RAF does is support the Army, see OP ELLAMY.
TTH
Army? Primary business? Libya? Anything? No?
We are not in business to support the Army. We in business to defend the UK interests at home and abroad. In the case of HERRICK means primarily supporting land forces as that is the nature of the campaign. Is is not the case in the other big op currently in progress.
You are clearly no expert on airpower if you think that the Harrier was the ONLY aircraft like you bang on about. Your incessant clawing at the RAF is a massively compelling case for an independent RAF all by itself as it demonstrates the surface level of the lack of understanding of airpower in Army circles. I would dream of telling you how to run a land campaign, take a patrol out or restructure your force. Don't pretend you have anywhere near the understanding of air in that same fashion.
My guess is you fit neatly into the category of soldier I discussed in my previous post. And just for you I'll say it again. If you think all the RAF does is support the Army, see OP ELLAMY.
TTH
Last edited by TurbineTooHot; 16th Jul 2011 at 21:38.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm an ex greenie, and I would happily leave airpower to the professionals only the RAF gave up Harrier"
and the RN gave up their carrier, so should we give all the grey funnels to the Army to transport tanks?
and the RN gave up their carrier, so should we give all the grey funnels to the Army to transport tanks?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, read this thread with interest now can someone please explain something to me. When I with Naval Air Sqdns in the early 80's I spent a lot of time on deployments in germany. There were a large number of US army bases there and each one had a PSP runway. These were provided for comms aircraft and for rapid deployment of units.
Why is it, that when the Army move into an airbase with a hard rwy they feel obiged to either
a) dig it up
b) blow it up
c) build on it
d) plant trees next to it
Thorney island is a great example. They built alongside the rwy and put obstructions on it. Surely, if the unit base there needs to deploy, would it not be easier to despatch transport aircraft to the unit rather than have the unit transport by road to Brize? The same has happened at several other basis. Why do they not keep one rwy clear to enable use? Lighting and other equipment is not required so upkeep would be minimal.
I am sure there is a damned good reason,i just don't see it
Ty
Why is it, that when the Army move into an airbase with a hard rwy they feel obiged to either
a) dig it up
b) blow it up
c) build on it
d) plant trees next to it
Thorney island is a great example. They built alongside the rwy and put obstructions on it. Surely, if the unit base there needs to deploy, would it not be easier to despatch transport aircraft to the unit rather than have the unit transport by road to Brize? The same has happened at several other basis. Why do they not keep one rwy clear to enable use? Lighting and other equipment is not required so upkeep would be minimal.
I am sure there is a damned good reason,i just don't see it
Ty
Last edited by Poltergeist; 18th Jul 2011 at 15:13.