3 Group For The Chop?
 

There have been various suggestions that the existing organisation of HQ STC and the 3 Groups is no longer required. A little bird tells me that HQ 3 Gp is about to bite the dust. The stations and organisations under 3 Gp will presumably be divided between 1 Gp, 2 Gp and HQ STC.

Anyone confirm or provide more details?

Anyone have any views?

I bet there won't be any reduction in the number of air marshls!

At what point do you no longer have an Air Force....but merely an air operation, air wing, or aviation section?:(

Given that ther RAF's traditional structure was based upon the Cavalry (courtesy of the Royal Flying Corps), convention dictates that its nomenclature should be the same as that of our green-suited cousins. In that case, a force or army group should consist of 45,000 or more men, and a corps should consist of 20,000 to 45,000 men. A little tenuous, I suppose, but that's one viewpoint.

"Royal Air Corps", anyone? Apparently we get mistaken for the RAC anyway, so why not change it!?

I guess one way of answering SASless' question is that we no longer have an air force when we have to rely on others to enable us to function.

In that sense we no longer have an air force.

Thank God for Uncle Sam.

soddim,

If that is your definition we have not had an Air Force for about half a century!

SASless,

It may be suffering right now, but there are only one or two bigger, one or two more capable, and arguably only one that is both.

Demise of 3 Group. Yes, it is all true and I think will be part of the PTC merger with STC when PTC moves to HW.

That enough words for Prune?

If 3 Group gets the chop, I wonder what their airships will invent to keep themselves in a job (RAFG dissapeared and HQLC appeared). Maybe it will be RAF Waddington Command and RAF Brize Norton Command (neatly doubling their airships appointments in one stroke of the pen),

The functional basis of the group structure makes little sense. Why not have a "home" group and an "away" group for UK and OOA respectively?

With reference to "home group" and "away group", if a fighter jock bags a kill whilst part of the "away group" does it count as double in the event of a draw? :ok:

DtP

Only if extra time is required.

SH

On that basis, we should be taking penalties in Iraq by now.......

16B

Pr00ne,

Half a century ago we had enough operational aircraft in every role - and all of them British - to take on anybody in the World on our own (except Uncle Sam and Russia).

Now we couldn't even take on the French without outside help!

Regards the penalties.....

If we win the cuppppppp, do we get to fly square flags or triangular ones?

Theres life in the old dog yet.

LFOGOOTFW

:}

ISITD

Soddim,

Half a Century ago; our front line fighter in RAFG was an American designed Canadian built jet gifted to us by the USA, our only nuclear capable bomber was an American piston engined bomber, the only nuclear capable forces in the UK were US owned and controlled bombers nesting on East Anglian and Lincolnshire airfields and the frontline night fighter was a Meteor!..............but I take your point!!

Still think the RAF is up there with the best when it comes to capability, sure we lack some capability, CSAR, SEAD etc etc but hasn’t it always been the case? We had no agile air superiority fighter for decades when they were common in NATO and the potential foe, the rather simplistic example I quote above of Mig 15 versus Meteor and Venom is another example.

We could no more take on the French than they could take us on, but that’s not why we have an Air Force is it?

pr00ne,

I agree that the RAF is still high quality but quantity has a quality all of its' own and our numbers just do not add up to an air force, unfortunately.

Next time "the few" might not get away with mere skill and cunning because modern weapons defer to neither. Young Mohammed in his Russian/French/Chinese/American automated fly-by-money fighter has a very good chance of winning and Cpl Al Nazry with his oil-funded SAM will rot your wings off.

Capability in the future will be more about funding than ability.

pr00ne,

I may have been just a few years out but, when I joined the RAF in 1959, we had Hunters, Meteors, Javelins, Canberras, all 3xV-bombers either in-service or about to enter, Shackletons and the Lightning entering service. The numbers of aircraft available for war would make today's force look more like a Wing and the number of operational bases in UK and around the World gave a generous degree of redundancy.

OK, let's joke about the individual capability of each weapons system but they were state of the art in their time and they constituted a formidable force in the World.

Today we have such a piddling little capability that we can't even get our boats back from Iran.

soddim,

I take your point and agree with most of what you say, I was just being a little light hearted and picky in my response to your original mail and the dates.

On Iran and boats, would we have done ANYTHING different over the last 50 years? I doubt it. We have a highly capable RAF and though it is clearly far smaller than the one you and I joined we are looking at a very different world situation where a huge air force with hundreds and hundreds of shiny new jets just isn't needed any more.

cyrus,

Young Mohammed?

Who the hell is that? The threat today does nOT come from ANY fast jets, have you noticed what the armed forces have been up to lately?

pr00ne,

Young Mohammed (Pakistani tribe) has just been given an F-16 - what he does with it in the future might not be to our liking and it may yet carry a tactical nuke.

Young Mohammed (Saudi tribe) is already operational on F-15C and S and we will try to get his brother checked out on Typhoon.

Goodness only knows how Young Mohammed (Iranian) is getting on - there has not been a lot of int from there since the Russians and Chinese started supplying all their aircraft. Rumour has it that his fighter will be nuke-capable any day now.

As for Mohammed's brothers in Syria, doubt if they would join us in the next coalition - more likely they will oppose us.

Yes, it is a popular theory at the moment that just because the Iraqis offered no effective air force against the coalition in both Gulf conflicts, the next war will be the same.

Very dangerous school of thought.

If oil reaches $100 a barrel, the ME might once again be the scene of major conflict.

A few years ago NATO realigned along it long souther border. One NATO topic was water wars. At least with the southern border we are not eyeball to eyeball and any real reach by tactical bombers needs an effective force extender.

Our bases may be sufficiently far back to be secure from a bomber attack but if we take bombs forward then we are moving into harms way.

Is the risk greater for nuclear war with the Iranians or between the differing parties within the region that we have to worry about?

If India and Pakistan square off at one another again...with their new capability...how does that play out in our strategic planning? Which side do we back...or do we take on both sides? With our presence in the ME which comes as a mixed blessing...it is good to have bases and forces there...but then it also puts them at risk to attack...even if the attack is not directed at us but hits us...what will we do?

If it comes to nuclear war...do we need a large fancy air force...or just a very capable small force?

What if it remains a mud moving exercise and lots of ground troops which we do not have....then what?

At what point will the Western world go to war over oil supplies at a reasonable price? Oil can be a weapon as much as a resource can it not?

How do the Russians play into this equation? Can we modernize the Russian oil production infrastructure and build a pipeline network to Europe and offset the importance of ME oil to Europe?