Scrap the RAF
 

I notice that in "The Times" this morning, under the letters to the editor, a Richard Need states that the RAF should be scraped i.e. disbanding the RAF as a separate arm of the forces.

"The Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps could absorb aircrew and aircraft dedicated to specific sea and ground roles. A General in the field would have direct command not only over his armour, artillery and infantry but his air support as well. The admiral at sea would have absolute control not only over his ship borne aircraft but also those based in various Fleet Air Arm bases all over the world."

I think we have tired this already with the Harrier and if memory served me well the PVR rate on the Harrier Sqn went sky high. Do we fancy wearing green's all the time? or the Navy Blue?

...... :}

Isn't this just a re-jig of what a certain seemingly clueless ex-infantry officer said and then apologised for saying?

I think we are being rubbed up the wrong way here!!!:=

PA

A cursory look at history should stop the debate. The RAF was formed because the single service route was inefficient and ineffective. Wasted resources, competing requirements, lack of support because the air assets were owned by a different organisation to the ones needing support, etc.

The RAF is a better way of doing things, which is why it now exists!

Anyone who thinks this idea has any merit should take a look at what the South Vietnamese Government did in the years 1973-75 with their considerable air assets. It doesn't make pretty reading.

Having experienced working with the army, I have found that their knowledge of aircraft roles is terrible. Using a hercules to carry a single Major somewhere because he requested it and couldn't wait until 3 hours time when a Herc was going that way anyway.....etc etc

Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals!

Not sure this is even worth arguing about, after all the cutbacks recently it won't be long until theres nothing left to argue over.

Come on, the writings on the wall, Joint this, joint that, JPA etc etc.

Resources getting smaller and smaller.

Welcome to USMC UK style. And yes it could work and be an improvement, but we all know that it wont, it will be fudged and messed about etc.

Well I can only suggest that we continue to downsize whilst taking on more and more commitments around the world, invest lots of money in such schemes as JPA and capped actuals.

And maybe we can rely on our hierachy to say that everything is really alright and that guys love spending all their time away, not seeing their families or friends...

And maybe come up with a nice phrase such as, hmmm let me think...

''stretched, but NOT overstretched...''

"Centralized Control, Decentralized Execution"; "Airpower not effective in penny packets"; "Concentration of force" etc, etc...

Just raided my copy of AP 3000, point being that Trenchard, Douhet, Mitchell et al hacked air power theory early last century and the central tenets still hold true. Armchair Generals / ACMs / ex COs 1RIR should either make the effort to understand airpower before spouting off or simply STFUp.

The RAF lead the way in being the first independent air arm and the rest of the world eventually followed so I think we probably got it right.

I don't want to have a go at the army and I hold the AAC in high esteem, however I've seen what happens when the Brigadier has "a Puma on the front lawn" doing nothing when it could well be doing something useful for someone else. Imagine the chaos with a gaggle of Hercs, Harriers, Sentinels etc sat on some brass-hats capacious lawn while some other poor bugger in a different AOR is crying out for air.......

This cannot be allowed to happen.:ugh:

This is exactly what happend in South Vietnam within months of the Americans leaving the ARVN to run the show themselves. Every divisional commander demanded and got his own private air force, and the result was all too predictable - fragmented air assets which were refused to neighbouring ground formations because they might be needed sometime later by the ground commander who had them under his direct command. (And besides, they looked good on the lawn outside his HQ and made him feel important.)

On to a far more controveresial point, (and one that I'm sure will elicit howls of outrage from some quarters in Australia), look what happened when the Australians handed over all their rotary wing assets to the Army. For years, almost the whole fleet of Blackhawks languished on the ground for want of scheduled service, because the Army treated the choppers as trucks. (For quite some time, only three aircraft were serviceable from the whole fleet.)

And then the perdictable happened - the tragic crash in Townsville when two Blackhawks meshed rotors on a night exercise and the best part of a SAS Troop were killed.

I'm sure there'll be some who'll correct me on the details, but in a nutshell, the ground force commander decided to amend the operational procedures that had been practised in daylight, in particular, the formation they would adopt and the route they should fly. The more junior air element commander, also Army, unwilingly agreed to the changes, where a junior offer from a separate service could have safely said 'no' with no reprucussions to his career - as had happened on numerous occasions in the past when senior Army officers attempted to micromanage an air op. (And this was the main reason so many senior Army officers wanted control of the helo force.)

When I was first about to join the SH Force (SRT in them days), I was told "the most important thing you can learn is how, as a flying officer, to tell a major to f:mad: k off"..... the answer of course is "not in those exact words".

Proved true for years and years, when I was a few pay grades higher than a flying officer, and could tell a general to f:mad: k off ...... but not in those exact words.......;)

Its because of people with attitudes like yours the RAF will be dissed from now until kingdom come. The sooner the Air Force weed out you and your kind the better!

Sorry Mutley, but the Townsville Blackhawk accident wouldn't have happened (and a lot of good men wouldn't have died) if the junior officer had been in a position to safely say 'No' to the senior officer without putting his career under threat. I've been in the position myself on more than one occasion as a Flying Officer or Flt Lt where I had to tell a Major or a Colonel that I couldn't do what he was demanding because it was unsafe.

I've also spent considerable time defending my ground crews from silly bloody WO's and Majors who wanted them parading around in full uniform with spit shined boots while sweating their arses off working on aircraft in the open in tropical conditions.

The same WOs and Majors couldn't seem to get their heads around the fact that these ground crew should have some 'down' time during the day because they worked sometimes until midnight servicing the aircraft when the aircraft had been out operating all day during 'normal' working hours. They wanted them to be see to be 'usefully' employed at all times between 0750 and 1700.

I'd be very interested to hear any comments from a current junior Army Aviation officer how he handles similar situations.

Don't think so Mutley, it is because of attitudes like TH's that we have not lost more aircraft and people when being asked to do something that really should be done another way.

At least people are now starting to learn who the aviation SMEs are and now ask the crews 'what is the best way to deliver this package', rather than saying 'fly here, land here, die horribly'!!!

Ok Apologies from me, I went off at the handle on the literal meaning and should have read, paused and then replied.

I understand there is a need as Aircraft Captain to be firm but fair to coin a phrase and after all your the person in charge regardless of Rank on or off the aircraft.

With regard to the AAC Junior Officer, we normally crew him with a grumpy NCO like myself. As my previous post is evident I don't mind gobbing off.

please tell me this is not to be? Who can the rest of the Armed Forces take the p**s out of.:E

Hmmm...now I always thought that the RAF was a single service combined from the RFC and RNAS.

Wasted resources, competing requirements, lack of support because the air assets were owned by a different organisation to the ones needing support, etc., now seems to be the problem all over again.

The Army and Marines who are engaged in shoot outs with the bad guys seem to be getting the dirty end of the stick when it comes to allocation of air assets are they not?