Thanks for that Mike
 

Clearly the RAF and Navy are not working hard enough as far as Gen Sir Mike Jackson is concerned. On the subject of a role for British troops in any future Lebanon peacekeeping force he has said he doubted it would be "sensible" to offer troops to such a force, but suggested it would be easier to supply air or maritime forces.
Thanks for that Mike - cos we're just not busy enough - I was wondering where to go for Xmas this year, problem solved.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

If he gives HM Forces a broomstick they could stick it up thair @rse and sweep the floor at the same time :ugh:

Saves having to spend money on contract cleaners :ok: :E

as RAF 3 and 4* seem to come back as plt offs perhaps the Army might like to start circular careers too. When you reach the top at age 60 you go round again and start a a platoon plod in some sand pit.

How about that for fun?

Crabs on the ground as peacekeepers ?

Why not (apart from the fact that we're quiet busy)? Crabs (as you put it) have done the job before (myself included) and some are doing it right now alongside colleagues from the Army and the Naval Service.

I guess certain individuals in the light blue and dark blue bretheren believe that right now they are busier than the green jobs....

If we accept that the SH force are part of the Army (as with CHF) - they do after all belong to JHC and therefore Land Command - then the remainder of the oldest and youngest services are not really doing much are they? AT force also excepted here. Please don't compare guarding an airbase with infantry patrolling duties in Basrah or Helmand.

Which would allow a destroyer or a frigate to poise menacingly off the Eastern Mediterannean coast, alongside a fighter or two from Strike Command.

Not exactly taxing, is it, compared to patrolling the Taliban heartland. I think Jacko has a fair point. I don't think the Army has anyone left.

KNOB :mad: :ugh: :mad:

I suspect Jacko may have political aspirations. His abounding enthusiasm for the last reduction of army manpower seemed to please his masters.

Thanks for that intelligent response.

I saw in a newspaper recently that our top general had time to go to a wedding of two of TBs closest friends/advisers.An unusual invitation surely!!!

Ok - great - thanks

Last time I looked it still said RAF in the middle of my wings! We may come under their budget, command or whatever - but we are NOT f*****g Army!

No, but you should be.

How much of the RAF effort is expended on supporting the shorter tours that the RAF conduct compared to the Army.

If tour lengths were the same, then surely less AT would be required to move people at less frequent intervals?

Some parts of the SH fleet seem to do more 'training' than anything else.

I think you will also find that a large portion of the RAF Harrier Force is deployed in the 'stan; also GR4s in the 'raq. And that is not for a single short tour, it a repeat commitment. So in fact it would be fair to say that all the Services are pretty well committed.

Oh serf, how amusing to read your uninformed gobsh!te views!

If you had any idea of how stretched the SH force is in various theatres you would eat your words, say sorry and go back to polishing your boots (Army Cadets is it?)

Same for the Nimrod force. There may not be a potent submarine threat to the UK any more (for which they may get some banter) but they know how to redeploy themselves into other roles in operational theatres (nuff said there I think).

And as for your opinions on tour lengths. How would you like a knackered Harrier pilot stacking into the deck while attempting to support you with a bit of CAS?

KKKKKKKKNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!

What percentage of the Harrier Force is 8 aircraft, exactly? And how many of the Joint Harrier Force are from the RN?

And I am certain that there are no GR4s in the Gulf.

So, other than RN and RAF Harriers, SH and AT, what exactly is the pointy end of the RAF doing?

Is it just me, or are there some countries about this world whose time has come to stand up and be counted? Tis my contention that many NATO and ex Warsaw pact countries were happy to ride into battle on the coat-tails of the senior partners but now they are on thier own in the big bad world it's all suddenly a bit too difficult. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick completely and everyone is just as deep in the brown stuff we are?:(

Perhaps a bit of wargaming in the states...?

Lots of gardening leave...

Planning how they can nadger 95% of the airforce budget in the next round...

Bugger all really...but hey they'll tell you they are worth every penny..

W:mad: :mad: kers...

5d2d

KNOB :ugh:

fabs,

you beat me to it!

TBSG,

I assume you realise that Qatar counts as the Gulf?

Why do the Army have such a large presence in Germany.

What's with all the poncing about at Horseguards?

With the end of Op Corporate, what will the Army do now?

I think that there are a few assets left in the Army doing little (other than the same infantry battalions, such as 1LI) to contribute.

See, I can do ill-informed comments too.

Defend the points above and, while you're at it, you might want to research the RAF commitment to ops. I think you'll find that it's exactly the same percentage as the other 2 services. As for 4 month tours: we are happy; there is a minute impact on AT; more people take their turn; more time with families; finally, less PODL and, therefore more productive (individually) OOA and in UK.

Ignorance is indeed bliss.

More intelligent than your previous offering, I would suggest.

Herewith a very recent quote from a Taleban Warlord in Helmand Province: "If it was not for the presence of Air Power, the British Army would all be dead in their foxholes!"

Clearly your enemy has a better understanding of military doctrine than you do!

KNOB:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

And that goes for all the other KNOBs on here who are driven by their devotion to wearing khaki rather than understanding the concept of Jointery. Air Power is inherently JOINT, unlike the British Army which has no concept unless they mean joined at the hip!

KNOBs, all of them!

Back to my Morangie and it's just gone 1300!

FW

Just before I get a refill!

They send a vast number of majors a year to their ICSC at Shrivenham; a course which lasts as long as ACSC, fer Christ's sake! Plenty of slack there for culling!

FW

Originally Posted by TBSG
And I am certain that there are no GR4s in the Gulf.

And would you like to tell that to my husband and his Sqn, of whom most will be spending the festive season away from home in the desert!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Yes I am p*!sed!

[QUOTE=TBSG]
And I am certain that there are no GR4s in the Gulf.
QUOTE]


Are you going to tell the MOD that their Defence Fact Sheet Detailing UK Forces on Op TELIC is wrong.
Defence Fact Sheet Detailing UK Forces on Op TELIC Scroll to the bottom

I stand corrected on the GR4s and am happy to admit it. Not that I ever saw them when I was flying in, around and between Basrah and Al-Amarah.

However, my original gentle dig at parts of the RAF seems to have hit a few raw nerves. I stand by my point, as someone who in the last 2 years has spent more nights away from home than in it, that the FJ world is not as busy or as deployed as the Army in general, the SH forces, the AT force....

So this was not a dig at the RAF in general, there is enough of that around this forum at the best of times. I do always laugh on being lectured on jointery by the light blue - for whom joint usually = Air Power.

Perhaps you never saw any GR4s because they don't just operated in/over the MND(SE) AOR. These ac support coalition forces they are directed to where the coalition need is greatest.

As for not all elements of the RAF are as busy as others - well this is true of elements all Services (not much call for MRLS in current ops). Plus some elements (including FJ) have mil ops to conduct closer to home.

Still back to work in the great purple cave...

It's not just the army at Al Amarah fella. And when I was at Abu Naji and nearby, I spoke to the GR4s a number of times as well as the AT and SH. Just because YOU didn't SEE the pointys (US and UK) doesn't mean they weren't there!

I am temporarily resident at the big Purple Learning Centre in Swindonshire, and we have been discussing this exact attitude displayed by the Army. ie: they don't know, or even give a t0ss, about air power unless it's directly over their heads or taking them home.

'Joint' begins with 'A' and ends in 'rmy' :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

I saw the GR4's plenty of times, usually when they were stuck on the runway after breaking down:E

Seriously though, what CGS meant to say was that it is easier to redeploy a frigate stuck in the med on patrol to cover Lebanon than it is to provide a deployed force.

Of course if one wanted to be a stirrer you could have the debate held in my (purple) office today. Along the lines of RAF has 4 F3's down South, 6 Harriers in the Stan and * (number not known but not high) in Qatar. Why exactly do we need upwards of 250 Tornados and 80 harriers again? :ok:

Lots of aircraft according to the RAF website (last updated Apr 21 2006 2:22pm)

220 FJ

100 SH

What are they all doing?

I think you'll find most are either deployed or being fixed in the sheds back here. There's not many left for UK based training, especially at our secret Wiltshire AT aerodrome.

Strength of Israeli Armed Forces
 

125,000 soldiers + 500,000 reservists
3650 tanks
10400 APCs
620 SP guns
400+ aircraft including
200 F15 and F16
175 GA AIRCRAFT
95 attack helicopters
Mind you I bet they pay more of the GDP on defence than we do + loads of freebies or cheapies from GWB.

TBSG- pretty sure that the GR4s are included in the ATO every time they launch. Don't you read it before you go flying in the sandpit? Or does the British Army have its own special ATO?

Jags'll Go
 

Recce? CAS? Air Presence? IN.

Looks like the Army and RN also contribute to Air Power, according to the definition on the RAF website............

Perhaps the Pongos views are jaded as the only Air assets they see tend to be the non glamorous, non sexy and utterly essential stuff like A/T and C130's. They also suffer when it breaks down, and wonder why it is that the RAF is getting 232 shiny new Typhoons when it can't keep more than 15 of its predecessors deployed at once, and when it can't afford to fund the AT replacement?

Not that I've wasted days of my life suffering at the hands of the movers in the Middle East of course...:E

If you are Joe Grunt then that is exactly where you want your air power - overhead and giving the bad guys the good news. Which is why AH and GR7 are doing so well for the blokes in the 'Stan. The Army has a limited view at the lower levels for a very good reason - they are the ones with the bayonets, they are the ones being SVBIED'd all the time. They want help getting out of the sh1t.

One has to ask from the green viewpoint - what exactly will 232 Typhoon bring? THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION AND NOT DESIGNED TO DISAPPEAR DOWN A RABBIT HOLE OFTEN VISITED IN THIS FORUM!

Anyway, anyone can list the roles of Air Power from the doctrinal publications. No-one has actually yet agreed (or stated) what the pointy ones are doing - less 8 GR7 in AFG, F3 in FI and some GR4a in Qatar. How about the other 200?

Goldcup - any time we wanted FJ presence over Al Amarah, the USAF came along. Don't know why them and not RAF. Maybe that was only when I was there.

Goldcup - any time we wanted FJ presence over Al Amarah, the USAF came along. Don't know why them and not RAF. Maybe that was only when I was there.[/QUOTE]

Probably because the USAF has a darn sight more assets based nearer to Al Amarah than 6 GR4s based in Qatar, which don't have a 2 hour transit each way. Not to mention their good number of Al Udeid based stuff which does.

Then you have the USMC CAS based at Al Asad IINM?

Plus a CVN in the Arabian Gulf with around 48 F/A-18s on board.

I think I can see why you got US rather than RAF....:ugh:

66 years on and the argument is still the same.

Here's the Allies first true "Joint Operation" - Operation Dynamo or 'Dunkirk' as it more commonly known...
and In fact RAF squadrons supporting Operation Dynamo had carried out 171 reconnaissance, 651 bombing, and 2,739 fighter sorties and had suffered 177 aircraft destroyed or seriously damaged including 107 fighters and 87 pilots, leaving Fighter Command with just 331 serviceable fighters to defend the homeland.

What's Dunkirk got to do with it? Well, "Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they're not there."

Per Ardua Ad Astra. With emphasis on the Ardua.

[/qoute] Probably because the USAF has a darn sight more assets based nearer to Al Amarah than 6 GR4s based in Qatar, which don't have a 2 hour transit each way. Not to mention their good number of Al Udeid based stuff which does.
Then you have the USMC CAS based at Al Asad IINM?
Plus a CVN in the Arabian Gulf with around 48 F/A-18s on board.
I think I can see why you got US rather than RAF....:ugh:[/QUOTE]

The emphasis above should actually be on the difference in numbers of ac deployed US v RAF, as the GR4s (not GR4as) are covering the whole area, regardless of transit time.