Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Still broken? Is the RAF in better or worse shape than ten years ago

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Still broken? Is the RAF in better or worse shape than ten years ago

Old 30th Apr 2018, 12:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,924
Still broken? Is the RAF in better or worse shape than ten years ago

Leafing through an ancient issue of Air Forces Monthly (dated October 2007) I came across a piece entitled 'Is the RAF broken?'

The article went into detail about the definition of stretch and Ďoverstretchí, and discussed sustainability (whether the RAF could achieve the tasks set without breaking harmony guidelines), readiness, retention and the mismatch between actual operations and planning assumptions. It talked about the RAFís diminishing force structure and the fact that the UK was spending 2.2% of GDP on defence - which it said was the lowest proportion since 1930. It criticised what it called 'the ill conceived rush towards PFIs and PPPs, and towards availability based contracting, which it averred would see the loss of key competences and skills among the uniformed engineers.

Out of curiosity, I looked at an order of battle for the RAF in 2007, and saw that it included 15 frontline fast jet squadrons (two Typhoon, three Tornado F3, seven Tornado GR4, two Harrier, and one Jaguar), while we still had 18 Nimrod MR2s for MPA and ASW duties, and a 'gold standard' military SAR provisionÖ..

​​​​​​​Size-wise, it looked like a no-brainer, but we all know that size isn't everything?

So is today's 'Agile, Adaptable and Capable' RAF in better shape than ten years ago?

Has the flood of leavers at the 38/16 point slowed, or does it no longer matter?

Is morale better? Has faith in the senior leadership been restored?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 12:19
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 488
No, no and no
KPax is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 12:42
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Med
Age: 47
Posts: 90
Sorry Kpax but I think there were 6 questions at the end so if you don't mind I'll answer the 3 remaining ones: no no and no!
4everAD is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 13:51
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,259
Isn’t it the 40/20 point now?
MPN11 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 15:24
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 201
JN - I suspect you knew the answers before you hit send, nevertheless...

If you think it was only 3yrs after that OOB that Bagwell (I think) was openly talking about a future FJ force of 5 or 6 squadrons, then at least things appear to be back on the right trajectory (and not forgetting the MPA decision and new Tanker/Transports since either)

From the outside looking in the elephant in the room is obviously manning, in that there appears to be an acute shortage of it. So, on that basis alone, for the guys and gals who are serving then I seriously doubt things feel much better - more likely a whole lot worse.
andrewn is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 16:55
  #6 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,606
The rush to grey began almost 30 years ago. The immediate size reduction target was over 40,000. Many of those made redundant and who might have transferred their skills and training to PFI will now be nearing or passed retirement age. The pool of trained manpower will be pretty dry.

Is contractorisation working?

The RAAF had a scheme where some grey suits had a reserve commitment and, as grey, had enhanced pay compared with non-reserve employees. Did this work?
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 19:48
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,502
I don't know.

But I wish those that have chosen a career in the RAF all the very best of fortune. Their RAF is not that in which I served; neither was the one that I joined that of those before me. Good Luck to you all.

Last edited by jindabyne; 1st May 2018 at 10:06. Reason: sp
jindabyne is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 21:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 559
Doing more with even less. More capable fighting platforms and doing just as much. The people are just as fun to work with as ever. Itís not better.....or worse.
Just different.
high spirits is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 21:20
  #9 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,606
Originally Posted by high spirits View Post
Doing more with even less. More capable fighting platforms and doing just as much. The people are just as fun to work with as ever. Itís not better.....or worse.
Just different.
And the people are different too. Look at your children and think of your childhood.

I remember car sharing, then lifts home at weekends, then buying a banger and so on. Now
. . .
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 21:36
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,494
I donít know how you can be said to be agile when youíre fixed in place by non-discretionary demands that outstrip resource. Itís either or and thatís a decision nobody wants to make.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 21:47
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 5,014
In 1918, the RAF inherited 22,000 aircraft. Has it been all downhill from there?

How many aircraft in today’s RAF?

Would their Airships be able to launch 100 frontline types today?
India Four Two is online now  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 22:16
  #12 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 872
Well, if we mil Brits want to be really depressed, a look at this piece should do the trick. It's by Ted R Bromund, in an American magazine, The Weekly Standard. It's called Damn, Busted.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/ted-r...nd/damn-busted

Here are a few snippets:
For two decades, British governments have promised to square the funding circle by achieving greater efficiencies, a promise first heard in that 1998 review. For two decades, the efficiencies achieved have failed to keep the declines in defense spending from gnawing into the size and strength of Britainís forces.
Whatís even more disturbing are the lies the British tell themselves to make all this seem okay. There is the lie that todayís equipment is so much better than yesterdayís that it doesnít matter how little of it they have. Leaving aside the obvious fact that even the best plane canít be in two places at once, the problem with this lie is that buying one plane doesnít get you one plane on the front line: Given training and maintenance, it gets you about a third of a plane, which is much less useful.
Britainís can-do military culture and its political willingness to deploy mean that Britain is taking on far more risk than it realizes, and on margins that are almost comically slender.
In the end, Britainís problem isnít money. Itís the absence of leaders who are able to advance a vision for Britainís world role that would justify spending more money on it.
Anyone disagree?

airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2018, 22:57
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 658
Nope, but then maybe it’s about time we wound our necks in and concentrated on looking after the indigenous population of the British Isles first.
hunterboy is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 06:59
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SW France
Age: 73
Posts: 571
Much of this overstretch is down to that mindless phrase that gets wheeled out when required to justify budget cuts - namely, that the UK "punches above its weight"..
When the salami gets too thin to slice anymore, then capability holidays step forward. It's enough to make you weep.
Unfortunately, Ted Bromund's comments as quoted by Airsound are right on the money.
sidevalve is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 06:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,629
22000 aircraft?!

Letís get back to those numbers. Would you say, in order to ensure a decent force mix, we should have about 10000 Typhoons and 5000 F35s?

Lets pick some some semi random but plausible costs. Say £50M per Typhoon and £80M per F35. So, by my maths, we just need to find £900,000,000,000 (shall we just call it a nice round £Trillion?).

All we need to do now is work out the rotary, transport and UAV costs and add in the wages and pensions bill and we can present it to parliament for approval. Iím sure the electorate wonít mind the extra few percent on their income tax. Besides, itís only the squeezed middle thatíll actually pay and who cares about them anyway?

Do I need to add that Iím only kidding or does that go without saying?

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 07:16
  #16 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,606
The world stage is an expensive place but other countries seem to manage without dozens of fighters and bombers.

But we are a maritime power dependent on SLOC so we need a strong navy. So are many other countries dependent on SLOC but manage with littoral forces, perhaps even just CG cutters.

We need a nuclear deterrent to assure our place on the UNSC. Why? We do have a VETO but do we use it?

The argument should be Britain's world role, pay up or get out.
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 1st May 2018, 08:08
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Suffolk
Age: 61
Posts: 144
How many GR1s lofting dumb 1000-pounders would have been needed to achieve the recent action in Syria?
99 Change Hands is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 09:13
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,629
99 C H

How dare you inject reason and logic into the debate?!

Thankfully someone with much better knowledge than yourself (along with some examples of how many Hunters we had in 1957) will be along shortly to silence your inane ramblings.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 09:19
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by 99 Change Hands View Post
How many GR1s lofting dumb 1000-pounders would have been needed to achieve the recent action in Syria?
Hard to say, as we don't yet know precisely what was achieved during the recent action in Syria.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 1st May 2018, 12:35
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,081
Hopefully we will have JayTeeto back inside soon to sort them out
NutLoose is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.