Well the C130 crews go in & out of bases/ strips on operations, getting shot at as required, or blown up by IEDs on said strips, I think you might have a few issues with telling the crews that they don't need to be servicemen, they can get shot at as civilians as they don't really count as military.....

And as for

That rules out any form of PAS, unless you're going to keep promoting them (instead of just paying them as such!)

Does Billy Smart's know about Carlsburg's intentions

Fly this. Every day. Single seat. No WSOs. No whinging. No bluntness.

http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-conten...ad060fbd27.jpg

A 27 ship formation take off - that I'd like to see!

Presumably they briefed as a 40 ship, walked as a 35, & only 27 made it to the runway?

Errr... There's a reason the Regiment was formed... If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

" A 27 ship formation take off - that I'd like to see! "


In 2 years time that will be the whole of the RAF FJ's on one runway:O

I have not read all the posts but thought a reminder that 'round and round goes the ruddy great wheel'.

I can remember just how far back to common uniform idea went, Mountbatten I think. The principle was to be:

1. All wear the same.
2. If not then all the cloth to be the same, just different colours.
3. All patterns to be the same with embellishments if necessary.

Naturally the RN stepped sideways which left the RAF and Army, oh and the RM.

The RM could not wear either the same colour or same cloth as the Army.

The RN had a different flying coverall from the RAF and the AAC was different too.

The woolly pulley at last was an item where there should be no problem except for the colour.

Except the RAF went from ribbed to plain, round neck to V, to round neck and ribbed with the RN and Army unable to keep up.

"If we're going to bin all the other Air Combat Service Support trades and branches why retain the engineers? After all the only deploy to the same places that the other trades go to so there is no military reason that they too can't be contractors (are they at any greater risk than the contract chefs in Bastion/KAF?).

While we're at it. Do we really need our AT/AR crews to be regular service personnel. Don't they do the air equivalent if the RFA's maritime role? So let's bin them too. If we do that, then the policy could be extended to the non-Fast Jet ISTAR lot too.

So we'd be left with was a Royal Air Force comprising Fast Jet Pilots, the odd Tornado WSO, and Support Helicopter aircrew."

....and dont forget each one would have his/her own 1*,2*, and 3* of course! ;)

All Tornado WSO's are odd.

@Ken Scott. Chap, I was taking the p*ss; it was never meant to be taken as a serious proposition. Unless, of course, you agree with the original post about the ACSS branches and trades being civilianised. In which case, I've been shot at a few times (direct and indirect) and I'm a Blunty!

@Oldman. You are, of course, correct; however, those stars would also be FJ or SH pilots (maybe with an odd Tornado WSO for E&D qouta reasons).

@Kreuger. Fair point. My ISS Tutor would have, probably, highlighted my apparent tautology. Are you my ISS Tutor?

My point entirely although I was specific in talking about C130 crews - pretty much everyone who is deployed into an operational theatre is in harms way & I feel should be a military person. The CS peeps who deploy seem to get rather large allowances for being there which would seem to negate the savings from civilianising the post in the first place.

Why should the 'stars' of the future be from just those fleets? The AT fleets have been continuously on operations for the past decade, & I don't believe that an SF pilot, for example, would be any less able or qualified to reach the highest ranks. Even the 'route queens' now do virtually nothing but in theatre flying.

As FJ pukes are allegedly to be allowed to command AT squadrons (not enough FJ ones to permit the 'right' people to have a command) then an AT background presumably will no longer be a bar...

Provided of course that all the AT pilots don't just say 'f**k it, I'm leaving for BA/ Cathay/ Jet2 etc'.

Quite so. It was a practical solution in the days of a linear battlespace where contractors could be 'in the rear with the gear'. Now, in the current 360 degree threat environment, the overheads are getting expensive to keep them there. There is always the risk that they either get on the next flight home as soon as they have had enough IDF or get pulled by the company once the insurers have reached the limit of their risk appetite.

NB. Both of these scenarios have already happened in AFG and Iraq.

Being in harm's way is not unique to military personnel and therefore, while there are pros and cons regarding affordability and reliability, it is perfectly feasible for contractors/CS to fulfill these tasks.

However, what is unique to military personnel is the authority to kill and inflict violence. Thus civilians (some exceptions, such as the Prime Minister) are excluded from being part of the kill chain.

If the RAF ran a bewery it would campaign to shut down the Rum distillers on the basis that it could the same job better and more cheaply with its brewing kit. Once the distillers wee shut the RAF would admit it couldn't distill, but would claim there was no demand for Rum anyway, so why bother making it?

RLE - of course it is perfectly feasible (and appropriate) to use contractors on deployed ops. My point is that their use is not a way to save money vice uniforms and, if things are too kinetic, they may not be there.

However small the support tails gets in relation to the teeth, there will always be a requirement to have all bases covered by an as-small-as-practical cadre of military personnel, especially at the start of an op when the metal is flying.

Ken

In the words of Michael Winner - calm down dear.

It's irony. The original post postulated a binning of all of the people perceived as being a supplementary. My post in extended the pretext ironically. This is not a sensible post.

The answer to the star point is that in this threads make-believe ironic world the RAF would only comprise of FJ and SH.

A touch patronizing, don't you think?

I thought we were having a discourse on the merits (or lack of) of your suggestion.... no calming down required thank you.

An interesting suggestion your 'ironic RAF' where one of the two fleets (the other being SH) that have done their real job continuously for many decades should be excluded but the one that had spent virtually all its time until fairly recently only practicing should be included.

I'll go and have a lie down before the nasty man makes me any more cross....!

Jamesdevice,

I think you're in the wrong thread!

oops.. too much beer

By fairly recently I take it you mean 1990? After all, at least one fleet within the despised FJ brigade have been on constant ops since then?:ugh:

I could enrage you further by saying, IMHO, the only fleet within the RAF that has really been doing their proper job continuously for many decades is the SAR force....