Should we have an RAF?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to have but do we really "need" a separate RAF?
I'm sure the default position of most on this site is "keep the RAF come hell or high water" but do we actually need a third force? This is a different question to "do we need the war fighting capabilities that the RAF presently provides"; which of course we do. As far as I can see all of the capabilities presently provided by the RAF are fully capable of and are provided by the Navy, Army or Marine Corps organisations of a number of our NATO allies.
If such a change should ever come about it will be because the bean counters have decided large sums of money can be saved. After all this present government is looking at ways to merge much of the police and fire service as the Home Office has decided its a money saving wheeze. So if they're prepared to do that why not divvy out the work of the RAF to the other two organisations that fly military aircraft? Regardless, of history or tradition if it will save money I'm sure someone in HM Treasury will be looking seriously at it
If such a change should ever come about it will be because the bean counters have decided large sums of money can be saved. After all this present government is looking at ways to merge much of the police and fire service as the Home Office has decided its a money saving wheeze. So if they're prepared to do that why not divvy out the work of the RAF to the other two organisations that fly military aircraft? Regardless, of history or tradition if it will save money I'm sure someone in HM Treasury will be looking seriously at it
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Having been in a light blue unit turned purple with the addition of green, I experienced the cultural gap at first hand. A preponderance of lt col were woefully out of their depth regarding blue.
It may be true that junior officers brought up in a joint environment can integrate successfully but at the operational command level I think the culture difference would cause difficulties. Even role changes at command level inspire distrust and unease. Some commanders manage, some don't.
Ask why the Canadian experiment failed.
It may be true that junior officers brought up in a joint environment can integrate successfully but at the operational command level I think the culture difference would cause difficulties. Even role changes at command level inspire distrust and unease. Some commanders manage, some don't.
Ask why the Canadian experiment failed.
I'd be interested to see the numbers showing that re-brigading the RAF would save money. Army HQ constantly grumbled about the running costs of JHC, they'd shed a track if they had to stump up for ownership too.
But more importantly, I'd like to see it demonstrated that the Smuts Report is no longer valid. The RAF was created precisely because the RFC and FAA were incapable of using and getting the best out of this new fangled capability, air power. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that has changed over the years, if for no other reason than air power isn't foremost in most Generals' and Admirals' minds. So I suspect you can't effectively demonstrate the rationale behind the 'founding charter' having changed sufficiently to warrant re-brigading.
Additionally, there would be no cost savings by re-brigading the RAF's assets and responsibilities. The kit and personnel requirements wouldn't change overnight just because we are wearing a different hat, and there'd be no savings from rationalising 'top brass': the Army and RN are too busy running their own services to take on a new one, of which they have limited experience, within hide. You'd have to take your expertise with you. That's assuming personnel agree to go to the other services.
But more importantly, I'd like to see it demonstrated that the Smuts Report is no longer valid. The RAF was created precisely because the RFC and FAA were incapable of using and getting the best out of this new fangled capability, air power. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that has changed over the years, if for no other reason than air power isn't foremost in most Generals' and Admirals' minds. So I suspect you can't effectively demonstrate the rationale behind the 'founding charter' having changed sufficiently to warrant re-brigading.
Additionally, there would be no cost savings by re-brigading the RAF's assets and responsibilities. The kit and personnel requirements wouldn't change overnight just because we are wearing a different hat, and there'd be no savings from rationalising 'top brass': the Army and RN are too busy running their own services to take on a new one, of which they have limited experience, within hide. You'd have to take your expertise with you. That's assuming personnel agree to go to the other services.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus. 540 Kt Albert.what've you not been telling us? So the skip crews have been cruising half speed to make maximum use of the galley. Thought so. 
This journos credibility is thoroughly shot
This journos credibility is thoroughly shot
Having worked on a army base for three years the priority at the time was definitely soldier first, and at a pinch sport second. They couldn't seem to get their head around producing things as a priority. I was amazed they manage to keep an highly technical and manpower needy a/c like the Apache in the air, things in the AAC must be different.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
I concur with Melchett on this old chestnut. The idea that loads of cash would be saved by splitting the RAF between the army & the RN is regularly trooped out by the DT, Lewis Page et al at every defence review yet unless ac & capabilities were shed then all costs simply get divided up between the other 2 services. There wouldn't be a wholesale shedding of personnel, little or no rationalisation of bases, HQs would still be needed as the other services couldn't take on the additional workload even if they had the knowledge & experience. IOT could be closed as Sandhurst & Dartmouth would take on the required officer training but Cranwell would still be needed as a flying station. Re-uniforming all the ex-RAF personnel would be a cost, as would be rewriting all orders etc so there would be upfront costs before any potential long terming savings. Splitting the resources of the RAF might actually be less efficient such as the requirement for each of the remaining services to train their own techies.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the OP I feel some satisfaction that the comments and opinions requested have so far coincided with my own. Here is another link showing a short bio of David Blair. It confirms his (lack of) expertise in air operations.
David Blair - Telegraph
David Blair - Telegraph
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it amazing that you crabs dignify this sort of crap with serious comment. Even us pongos recognise it as total garbage, but you are feeding him the oxygen he lives on. Ignore him.
I see the Syrians have given permission for a UN food and medicine convoy to go through. I wonder how well that will go, and if it succeeds in getting into the city how much of the aid will reach the starving populace and how much will be purloined by the leaders of the forces resisting Assad. In any case, I think this has at least a better chance of working then chucking stuff out of the back of a Hercules!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who was the 'MOD Source'?
Surely a serving Officer would simply have said "We have not been tasked to do that mission" and kicked the ball back into the political half.
Edit: The comments below the article are articulating what we are saying on here very well. Worth a read.
Edit: The comments below the article are articulating what we are saying on here very well. Worth a read.
Last edited by ExRAFRadar; 11th Jan 2016 at 09:12. Reason: Add comments bit
From a well known and emminently sensible Ppruner....
Sums it up, I think.
CG
When and if the Government decides to task the RAF with missions such as the one you suggest, you will (I hope) eat your words and apologise publicly. Apart from the numerous factual inaccuracies in your poorly based article, it is not up to the RAF to choose the tasks it undertakes. Do some research and come back when you are capable of being an asset to the DT rather than an embarrassment.
CG
He misses so many points, it seems unsporting to point out another couple, but:
(a) not many Israeli missions were flying low level drops in (relatively) slow transport aircraft, and would have had a full EW/SEAD support package alongside.
(b) Madaya may only be a short distance inside Syria, but it's near the borders with Israel and Lebanon and relatively near Damascus, so any delivery flight would need to fly thorugh those countries.
so it wouldn't be a quick 'chuck some sacks out a C-130' job
He does make one good point regarding ISIS having access to a nuclear reactor if the Israeli's hadn't bombed it.
(a) not many Israeli missions were flying low level drops in (relatively) slow transport aircraft, and would have had a full EW/SEAD support package alongside.
(b) Madaya may only be a short distance inside Syria, but it's near the borders with Israel and Lebanon and relatively near Damascus, so any delivery flight would need to fly thorugh those countries.
so it wouldn't be a quick 'chuck some sacks out a C-130' job
He does make one good point regarding ISIS having access to a nuclear reactor if the Israeli's hadn't bombed it.
One particular issue raised does deserve an answer, I think.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was. As I understand it one of the jobs Tornado is good at is attacking anti-aircraft weapons, but since the maximum number deployable now appears to be in single digits it would seem relatively easy to overwhelm the available forces.
P
Is it really beyond the ability of the RAF to penetrate hostile airspace for a round-trip of 80 seconds?
P
I rather suspect the author of this piece in the link has a somewhat prejudiced, prejorative, subjective and emotional position on both the RAF and the Syrian crisis/war. I also noticed he hasn't asked the question why no other air force is doing the things he asks, as of the present time? I don't know that the Israeli Air Force is dropping supplies to the starving population nor the Americans, French or Russians?
So is he going to advance the argument for the disbandment of all these countries' air forces as well?
FB
So is he going to advance the argument for the disbandment of all these countries' air forces as well?
FB
Different questions....Tasking and Capability.
It one thing to say the RAF has not been Tasked and an altogether thing to suggest sufficient assets to be capable of meeting the Tasking unless that Tasking is tailored to the Assets available...which then begs the question of whether there are enough Assets to be effective.
At some point....any force can be too small to be genuinely effective no matter the capability of its Fleet of Aircraft.
As the RAF is so quick to do....the Battle of Britain might very well have gone the other way had the Fighter Force been much smaller and the Aircraft Industry unable to replenish the losses in aircraft.
As it was, the RAF nearly ran out of Pilots towards the end and had to draft in replacements from other branches of the RAF and Commonwealth Countries as well as from foreign sources.
Has the RAF lost that ability to replace Aircraft and Pilots should it be engaged in a full fledged War?
It one thing to say the RAF has not been Tasked and an altogether thing to suggest sufficient assets to be capable of meeting the Tasking unless that Tasking is tailored to the Assets available...which then begs the question of whether there are enough Assets to be effective.
At some point....any force can be too small to be genuinely effective no matter the capability of its Fleet of Aircraft.
As the RAF is so quick to do....the Battle of Britain might very well have gone the other way had the Fighter Force been much smaller and the Aircraft Industry unable to replenish the losses in aircraft.
As it was, the RAF nearly ran out of Pilots towards the end and had to draft in replacements from other branches of the RAF and Commonwealth Countries as well as from foreign sources.
Has the RAF lost that ability to replace Aircraft and Pilots should it be engaged in a full fledged War?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A Separate Air Force
The US followed the RAF, albeit almost 30 years later. As the USN and US MC, like the FAA, retained organic Air it was the Army that lost Air.
While the sizes are different the logic for abolition or retention must be similar. The Canadians restored the RCAF after an interval of 43 years.
For the MOD to be forced to disband the RAF, they would be running counter to experience or leading the field.
While the sizes are different the logic for abolition or retention must be similar. The Canadians restored the RCAF after an interval of 43 years.
For the MOD to be forced to disband the RAF, they would be running counter to experience or leading the field.