..and even if they did, it's hard to see where the savings would come if the intention was for like-for-like capability. There ihas been a case made that we are overborne with senior officers -but, right or wrong, that cuts across all three services.

Using exactly the same logic, why is he not demanding we merge Army and Navy as well into single defence force?

I think this is being catastrophically misinterpreted.

The thrust of the article I read was not "disband the RAF", it was "why are we not doing anything."

Yes, a phrase along the lines of "if we can't even do this, what's the point" was used, but I read that as clearly being hyperbole. I tend to agree with the sentiment, but it is dependent on considerations as to if the RAF can or can't do the task proposed.

I appreciate this is an audience of members and ex-members, but this is really a ludicrous level of sensitivity and touchiness.

P

PN,

The Army never lost Air Assets....just reverted to a different array usually smaller and more along the lines of organic to its own Field Units. You might notice the current level of Army Aviation which specializes in Helicopters but is not limited to them alone.

The Air Force is not interested in having all of the flying....just the flashy, high dollar, kind.....read up on the move to rid itself of the A-10.

SASLess, no, the parallels remain. Teeny Weeny airways also operates its own assets for organic support although the RAF operates the bigger rotary wing aircraft.

True, but the RAF many years ago decided that the AAC could only operate aircraft BELOW a stipulated a.u.w. so that put the kibosh on everything.

I thought that Sharkey had written the article, under a pseydonym! :E

With the current state of the Middle East, likely to impinge on Southern Europe, 2% of GDP on defence is clearly inadequate.
Transfer EU contributions to MOD.

Check me out.
 

So to cut a long story short, I complained about the article to the DT citing the various points that we had all no doubt noticed.

After a couple of replies back and forth I received the following from the editorial standards team today:

"An opinion article of 9 Jan ("If the RAF can't drop food to Madaya in Syria, we shouldn't bother having an air force at all") illustrated its argument that airlifts would be unchallenging by reference to occasions when Israeli jets have bombed sites in Syria without losses from Syrian surface to air missiles. We accept that this could have been misleading, given that the Hercules aircraft envisaged by the article for such airlifts would face a higher risk from all Syrian defences than the jet aircraft used in earlier Israeli raids. We have therefore removed the article from the site."

Success!

BV:ok:

Good effort Bob!

Now what else should we get deleted from the Torygraph?

airsound

Daily T Errors
 

the DT has been know as a a service paper for years but of late they have made a series of gaffs indicating a lost the knack of checking facts with someone who knows
A list would be too tedious but one that strikes me as obvious was a photo captioned that HRH the Duke of E chatting to officers at a parade. One of the men pictured was holding a pace stick

Indeed, some of its efforts are very amateurish, some with serious security implications. I had reason to complain once about an article where they said, and I paraphrase, 'we aren't allowed to mention their real names so have changed them to protect the individuals'. All was going well until half way down a random name appeared in the interview, at which point it dawned on me they had accidentally included one of the real names. I complained, took them about 2 weeks to reply by which point the damage was done.

When I was in Helmand in 06, the CO said he only wanted journalists out there he could trust; the DT at that time was on his list. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that their amateurism now represents a risk at times and we should no longer simply assume that the DT is a credible publication.

The person holding a pace stick was, nevertheless, an officer. He may not have been a commissioned officer, but journalists often fail to draw any distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers. This trait is not confined to the DT.

An interesting road to go down. Those who make the news getting to choose who reports the news. I wonder what other nations take that approach......

S-D

Pace sticks at Dawn anyone?
 

My point exactly, a warrant officer is not "an officer" and would not thank you for suggesting he was imitating one. He holds the Queens warrant and is more use than many "officers" especially junior ones like me.

My point was that those writing military articles should know better than to misuse terms and should avoid annoying both"officers" and "warrant officers"

Lacking such knowledge they should avoid subjects they do not understand or, preferably, check the wording with someone who does

OED, Officer. A person holding a position of trust, in the services one holding a commission. (Not a warrant).

Tinribs, without stating the obvious, the clue is in the name:

CommissionedOfficer

Warrant Officer

Non-Commissioned Officer

Strangely they all seem to have something in common.

Well the Japanese ASDF and public seem to be keen on this RAF Typhoon visit.
Video will probably self-destruct fairly soon...


Japan plans ASDF drill with UK's Royal Air Force - News - NHK WORLD - English


Japan's Air Self-Defense Force is due to take part in a drill with Britain's Royal Air Force in a move aimed at boosting cooperation between the two countries in East Asia.

Defense Minister Gen Nakatani and British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon met in Tokyo early this month. They agreed the Royal Air Force's Eurofighter Typhoon unit will head to Japan this year for the first time.

Japan's Defense Ministry is making arrangements for the joint exercise to take place in the fall.

A ministry official said the countries share the same values, so boosting Britain's presence in the region will put pressure on China. Beijing has been expanding its maritime activities.