Independent RAF
stevef - you forgot the hob-nailed boots, 303s, button sticks and brass buttons - not these modern 'agonised' things !
Cyberhacker - bullseye re, regimental variation - that would scupper any possibility of commonality ... much too common?
Cyberhacker - bullseye re, regimental variation - that would scupper any possibility of commonality ... much too common?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The principles were:
1. All services would wear the same pattern and colour uniform (Canada plus? 😀
2. If this was not possible, same cloth and pattern but individual colours.
3. If this was not possible, the same cloth.
4. If this was not possible .....
The obvious one was RAF No 1 uniform, Army equivalent, and Royal Marines. Same pattern and cloth but blue for RAF and the brown for the others.
But the Royal Marines not only demanded a different shade of green but an entirely different cloth.
We are almost there now with cabbage kit. Whereas the RAF wore blues in winter and stone in summer in Cyprus many now wear cabbage kit all year - free issue.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,863
Received 2,815 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
As for uniforms, I would change the colour of the trousers from the jacket, thus you could change one half ie the trousers without having to scrap the lot. You could have say black generic trousers for all three forces, the blue, brown, blue grey jackets for each force.
Umm No. Today the helicopter embarked on a deployed RCN frigates are crewed by personnel who are in the Air Force, not the Navy, and belong to an Air Force Squadron. Except for Tactical control it is an Air Force operation. The only change was Canada went away from the hated green uniforms for everyone, to environment specific uniforms. Other than that cosmetic change the unified force structure from the 1969 reorganization has not changed with respect to Maritime air.
[Wah]
I know this is PPRUNE, so I'll keep it aviation... there is limited value (IMHO) of having three aviation arms (four if you include the coastguard). It makes sense to combine them all into one... whether it is called the Air Force, the Air Arm or the Air Corps (or even the Air Guard) does not matter. But Air's standing should be at the same level as Land and Sea.
[/Wah]
But in parallel, why does the Army have so many separate Infantry and Armour/Cavalry "regiments" - a single multi-battalion Corps of Infantry and a single multi-Regiment Armour/Cavalry Corps would make more sense... or even a single, combined, Combat Arms Corps
I know this is PPRUNE, so I'll keep it aviation... there is limited value (IMHO) of having three aviation arms (four if you include the coastguard). It makes sense to combine them all into one... whether it is called the Air Force, the Air Arm or the Air Corps (or even the Air Guard) does not matter. But Air's standing should be at the same level as Land and Sea.
[/Wah]
But in parallel, why does the Army have so many separate Infantry and Armour/Cavalry "regiments" - a single multi-battalion Corps of Infantry and a single multi-Regiment Armour/Cavalry Corps would make more sense... or even a single, combined, Combat Arms Corps
FB
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Coventry
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aah, but you are forgetting we are in the age of snowflakes and empowerment. We are individuals and self-motivating now. Ancient concepts such as fighting for your comrades and esprit de corps are meaningless to this lot. We should all be in one organisation, choosing our own roles and uniform invading whom we choose and where our officers serve us the soldiers.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hoofddorp The Netherlands
Age: 70
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aah, but you are forgetting we are in the age of snowflakes and empowerment. We are individuals and self-motivating now. Ancient concepts such as fighting for your comrades and esprit de corps are meaningless to this lot. We should all be in one organisation, choosing our own roles and uniform invading whom we choose and where our officers serve us the soldiers.
Thread Starter
I really expected intelligent replies and considered thoughts to my post about the justification an independent RAF. Abuse gets nowhere other than to make abusers show the narrowness of their thinking. What a shame. Nevertheless, I thank those whose comments had been thought through.
John
If it was sensible answers you were after then perhaps you should have worded it in a more sensible way.
Your post appeared to be blatantly provocative and not very well intelligently structured.
For starters where was your justification for asking the question?
Most people on here don’t know you from Adam. We have no idea of your motivation and are very familiar with wind up merchants.
BV
Your post appeared to be blatantly provocative and not very well intelligently structured.
For starters where was your justification for asking the question?
Most people on here don’t know you from Adam. We have no idea of your motivation and are very familiar with wind up merchants.
BV
Chill out BV !
If it was sensible answers you were after then perhaps you should have worded it in a more sensible way.
Your post appeared to be blatantly provocative and not very well intelligently structured.
For starters where was your justification for asking the question?
Most people on here don’t know you from Adam. We have no idea of your motivation and are very familiar with wind up merchants.
BV
Your post appeared to be blatantly provocative and not very well intelligently structured.
For starters where was your justification for asking the question?
Most people on here don’t know you from Adam. We have no idea of your motivation and are very familiar with wind up merchants.
BV
Your post ("most people on here don't know you from Adam") suggests that "if we don't know you, then we don't trust you". I know very few people on here but I'm always happy to see what they have to say. A very simple search on pprune would show you some of John's RAF background and would certainly show his age grouping too. John, like yourself, is one of the few ppruners who use their actual name and so it's perhaps a little ingenuous of you to summise John's post as being a wind up. Unless you jumped straight in without taking a minute or two to see who John LeBrun might be ?
John's initial post was worded in a sensible way but you chose to answer it with ridicule. Take a look back at your immediate reply to it . . . . . Ooh, ooh. Me first. ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha. BV
Then, in your last post, you ask for the justification of asking the question ? I didn't know this was a requirement on pprune but, if it is, then John's opening words were "An independent RAF is becoming hard to justify". To me this showed John's personal thoughts and he went on to invite other thoughts / opinions. All rather polite and sensible; it wasn't blatantly provocative and I fail to see how the structure can be construed as "not very well intelligently structured" (I struggle with the structure of your phrase there, BV ???) John's post was not deserving of ridicule.
But there we go. Back to my coffee and biscuits . . . then I might order John's book "Lucky Me !" from that well known river website !
Cheers to All . . .
IR
Trust me when I say I am chilled. My pulse rarely quickens.
I am not in the habit of googling peoples usernames before I reply to them I’m afraid. Besides, even if I did, who is to say that we were talking to the real John le Brun? It could easily have been a Lewis Page type character on a wind up mission or a school kid looking for someone to do his homework.
I stand by my initial response.
The question of an independent RAF as asked is the oldest wind up in the book from every RN (especially FAA) and Army guy I know.
I saw nothing in the original post that convinced me that it was a genuine query. Maybe I’ve become overly cynical in my old age!
If John wants my honest opinion then here it is. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
It would be easy to say “if it flies, it’s Air Force. If it floats, it’s Navy. If it runs, drives or digs a hole it’s Army”. But that would ignore the bespoke requirements that exist in each service.
I don’t understand why people always pick on the RAF as the one service that could be subsumed into another. Is it simply because we’re the youngest?!
BV
I am not in the habit of googling peoples usernames before I reply to them I’m afraid. Besides, even if I did, who is to say that we were talking to the real John le Brun? It could easily have been a Lewis Page type character on a wind up mission or a school kid looking for someone to do his homework.
I stand by my initial response.
The question of an independent RAF as asked is the oldest wind up in the book from every RN (especially FAA) and Army guy I know.
I saw nothing in the original post that convinced me that it was a genuine query. Maybe I’ve become overly cynical in my old age!
If John wants my honest opinion then here it is. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
It would be easy to say “if it flies, it’s Air Force. If it floats, it’s Navy. If it runs, drives or digs a hole it’s Army”. But that would ignore the bespoke requirements that exist in each service.
I don’t understand why people always pick on the RAF as the one service that could be subsumed into another. Is it simply because we’re the youngest?!
BV
Must admit I thought much the same as Bob - why did that post suddenly appear? There was no discussion in the "real world" saying it was on anyone's agenda so it did/does look like stirring
I think it's because the RAF has roles that you could see under another service (and, in other countries, are under those services). There is less logic in the RAF operating ships nor armoured battalions.
So, for example, the RN could operate long range MPA, the Army could operate the Support helicopter fleet (no other RAF helicopters these days), tactical airlift and close air support. However, it's on the strategic level that the need for an Independent Air Force comes in. Air Defence and Dominance, Strategic airborne ISTAR., strategic transport and long range/ non-battlefield attack capability are all elements that you couldn't comfortably place in the other Services, or if you did I suspect they would be seen as adjuncts to the main role. Which brings us full circle as to why they created a separate Air Force in the first place.
And once you have those as a separate force, it makes sense for the other things to be in that too.
John's initial post was worded in a sensible way but you chose to answer it with ridicule. Take a look back at your immediate reply to it . . . . . Ooh, ooh. Me first. ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha.
John's post was not deserving of ridicule.
John's post was not deserving of ridicule.
His post was entirely deserving of ridicule, IMHO.
Whenever we tried giving command and control of the air component to one of the other components during war games, it did not end well because none of the others seemed to understand that the air was a battlespace in its own right and has to be fought as such, just as the others are. There are 5 components, land, maritime, air, space and cyber. While at any one time, any of these can be the supported component, my experience is that it is best if they are fought in their own right to support the commander's plan.
John's old enough to know better, to expect banter and to show a bit more common sense.
It's a pity that John found the RAF 100th anniversary function in Lincoln so unsatisfactory - I'm sure he would have enjoyed one of the Newark Museum V-force reunions far more! A lot of people attended who he would have known in his service time.