Should we have an RAF?
 

Not my question but one asked in a DT article by one David Blair.
Comments and opinions please.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ce-at-all.html

The poor dear seems to think the RAF's primary, even sole purpose is to drop sugar buns on hungry people. He's a bit naiive, to put it mildly.

His maths is as unimpressive as his knowledge of aircraft operations. Achieving an airdrop six miles into enemy territory and completing the mission - in and out in 80 seconds?

The man is an ignorant arse and vastly below the Telegraph's usual standards.

If the politicians decided that they wanted the RAF to drop supplies in Syria, then the RAF would get on with the task. The RAF cannot decide to do so on its own initiative. The author of the DT article plainly knows nothing about Command and Control.

The numerous comments re. this crass piece of cr*p journalism make good reading.
I sense several ppuners may have been among the contributors.

My favourites are the ones that invite Blair to join the crew of a Hercules, on such a mission.

Same answer to OP and writer in DT…

Yes.
Underline previous poster's appeal to democratic control of our armed forces. Also, mention of current state of RAF (and other British forces) is as willed and resourced by our government.

'nuff said.
Batco

Looks like another go at getting a knee jerk reaction from No10 as a result of shock photographs and Liberal political noises. I doubt a war, particularly a civil war, has ever been fought that did not create starvation and hunger to civilians. Sarajevo comes to mind, where a more benign environment allowed an air bridge to provide some supplies. Funny though that those who might wish to put servicemen in harms way are usually those who would never get anywhere near the action.

Smudge

Wow. Just wow.
 

I am not going to waste my time listing his inaccuracies and pathetic attempts at devising military tactics but I have complained to the Telegraph.

It's like reading a Lewis Page article.

BV:mad::mad:

The author of that article, and all those commenting on it have the same number of votes as me in a general election.

Terrifying.

Not a fan of universal suffrage, and I put this forward as my first exhibit.

Perhaps the author of the article is just touting for a place as an advisor to Labour's defence policy review...

If he obtained what he wanted for a flight into sovereign and denied airspace that he is given the view from the ramp when either an S400 or Sukhoi is trying to attack the aircraft. I suggest when his ass is on the line his view would change pretty quickly. Damn social justice warriors, I do not want aircrew lives put unnecessarily at risk.

I particularly enjoyed the comment, presumably by an analyst or Syria watcher who noted that Madaba actually had months of food delivered in October but it was being stockpiled and kept from the population by the various factions seeking to increase their control.

I hope Mr Blair feels uncomfortable when he reads the comments section and sees how quickly most sensible people have seen through his non-existent analysis and feeble attempt at guilting people into action on the basis of flawed opinion, not even fact.

There are however, a number of seemingly genuine questions amongst the comments about why exactly we need to retain an Air Force in these tough times. Questions that I can live with for the most part as it shows the RAF needs to better articulate its raison detre. A job for Media & Comms me thinks rather than the usual self-congratulatory guff that appears in the RAF News or coverage of various parades, sporting occasions and Ski Champs (incidentally, has anybody from the Ops side of the RAF ever managed to get time to go on those?!)

It is the ROYAL Air Force, and until Her Majesty decides otherwise, that is how it will remain. Sorry, chum.

This chump has actually performed a public service. Rather than say nothing and be thought a fool, he has put pen to paper and confirmed that in regard to the Syrian conflict, he has the political and military appreciation of a fruit fly. Either that, or he's just discovered his mum is having an affair with a Regiment gunner.

Two's in:

Sir, you malign a fine body of men, surely the Pioneer Corps is the better option.

The chap is indeed a ****, but at least seems to understand the C130 tends to fly in a forward direction. As opposed to the Group Captain supplier who, in 1996, insisted on procuring Active Dipping Sonar kit for C130. The RN's rather sarcastic offer to give it to him free of charge from surplus assets was rejected. MoD has much worse in its ranks than Mr Blair!

Hear, hear, Air Pig!

(Point of pedantry, the Royal Pioneer Corps no longer exists, as such, but is now part of the Really Large Corps)

When bleating about how "easy it would be to fly for 40 seconds into Syria", he doesn't even make the rather simple connection with the Sukhoi shoot down for breaching airspace for 17 seconds.

He seems too pleased with himself for knowing the relationship between distance, speed and time to have actually used any other brain cells. Perhaps all of the cells he had available were taken up with that simple maths - it seems so.

Thank you TTN,

I must realign my thoughts then maybe the 5th Foot and Mouth (Carry on up the Khyber) would be more appropriate.

It's all a bit odd, this. The article, with all its strange ignorance of politics, tactics, capabilities, navigation, and the rest, sits oddly with Mr Blair's (no relation, btw) previous effort
How the RAF is helping Iraqi forces to retake Ramadi from Islamic State - Telegraph
In that piece, he seems to be praising the RAF for helping the Iraqi government's (subsequently successful) retaking of Ramadi.

Maybe Mr Blair has just discovered the keys to the Torygraph's editorial cocktail cabinet.

airsound