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

Nice to have but do we really "need" a separate RAF?
 

I'm sure the default position of most on this site is "keep the RAF come hell or high water" but do we actually need a third force? This is a different question to "do we need the war fighting capabilities that the RAF presently provides"; which of course we do. As far as I can see all of the capabilities presently provided by the RAF are fully capable of and are provided by the Navy, Army or Marine Corps organisations of a number of our NATO allies.

If such a change should ever come about it will be because the bean counters have decided large sums of money can be saved. After all this present government is looking at ways to merge much of the police and fire service as the Home Office has decided its a money saving wheeze. So if they're prepared to do that why not divvy out the work of the RAF to the other two organisations that fly military aircraft? Regardless, of history or tradition if it will save money I'm sure someone in HM Treasury will be looking seriously at it

Having been in a light blue unit turned purple with the addition of green, I experienced the cultural gap at first hand. A preponderance of lt col were woefully out of their depth regarding blue.

It may be true that junior officers brought up in a joint environment can integrate successfully but at the operational command level I think the culture difference would cause difficulties. Even role changes at command level inspire distrust and unease. Some commanders manage, some don't.

Ask why the Canadian experiment failed.

I'd be interested to see the numbers showing that re-brigading the RAF would save money. Army HQ constantly grumbled about the running costs of JHC, they'd shed a track if they had to stump up for ownership too.

But more importantly, I'd like to see it demonstrated that the Smuts Report is no longer valid. The RAF was created precisely because the RFC and FAA were incapable of using and getting the best out of this new fangled capability, air power. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that has changed over the years, if for no other reason than air power isn't foremost in most Generals' and Admirals' minds. So I suspect you can't effectively demonstrate the rationale behind the 'founding charter' having changed sufficiently to warrant re-brigading.

Additionally, there would be no cost savings by re-brigading the RAF's assets and responsibilities. The kit and personnel requirements wouldn't change overnight just because we are wearing a different hat, and there'd be no savings from rationalising 'top brass': the Army and RN are too busy running their own services to take on a new one, of which they have limited experience, within hide. You'd have to take your expertise with you. That's assuming personnel agree to go to the other services.

Sadly, long gone. Disbanded many years ago.

Jesus. 540 Kt Albert.what've you not been telling us? So the skip crews have been cruising half speed to make maximum use of the galley. Thought so. :}

This journos credibility is thoroughly shot

Having worked on a army base for three years the priority at the time was definitely soldier first, and at a pinch sport second. They couldn't seem to get their head around producing things as a priority. I was amazed they manage to keep an highly technical and manpower needy a/c like the Apache in the air, things in the AAC must be different.

I concur with Melchett on this old chestnut. The idea that loads of cash would be saved by splitting the RAF between the army & the RN is regularly trooped out by the DT, Lewis Page et al at every defence review yet unless ac & capabilities were shed then all costs simply get divided up between the other 2 services. There wouldn't be a wholesale shedding of personnel, little or no rationalisation of bases, HQs would still be needed as the other services couldn't take on the additional workload even if they had the knowledge & experience. IOT could be closed as Sandhurst & Dartmouth would take on the required officer training but Cranwell would still be needed as a flying station. Re-uniforming all the ex-RAF personnel would be a cost, as would be rewriting all orders etc so there would be upfront costs before any potential long terming savings. Splitting the resources of the RAF might actually be less efficient such as the requirement for each of the remaining services to train their own techies.

As the OP I feel some satisfaction that the comments and opinions requested have so far coincided with my own. Here is another link showing a short bio of David Blair. It confirms his (lack of) expertise in air operations.


David Blair - Telegraph

Sounds a bit like a fair few posters on the mil aircrew board on PPRuNe! :p

I find it amazing that you crabs dignify this sort of crap with serious comment. Even us pongos recognise it as total garbage, but you are feeding him the oxygen he lives on. Ignore him.

I see the Syrians have given permission for a UN food and medicine convoy to go through. I wonder how well that will go, and if it succeeds in getting into the city how much of the aid will reach the starving populace and how much will be purloined by the leaders of the forces resisting Assad. In any case, I think this has at least a better chance of working then chucking stuff out of the back of a Hercules!

Who was the 'MOD Source'?
 

Surely a serving Officer would simply have said "We have not been tasked to do that mission" and kicked the ball back into the political half.

Edit: The comments below the article are articulating what we are saying on here very well. Worth a read.

From a well known and emminently sensible Ppruner....

Sums it up, I think.

CG

He misses so many points, it seems unsporting to point out another couple, but:

(a) not many Israeli missions were flying low level drops in (relatively) slow transport aircraft, and would have had a full EW/SEAD support package alongside.
(b) Madaya may only be a short distance inside Syria, but it's near the borders with Israel and Lebanon and relatively near Damascus, so any delivery flight would need to fly thorugh those countries.

so it wouldn't be a quick 'chuck some sacks out a C-130' job

He does make one good point regarding ISIS having access to a nuclear reactor if the Israeli's hadn't bombed it.

One particular issue raised does deserve an answer, I think.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. As I understand it one of the jobs Tornado is good at is attacking anti-aircraft weapons, but since the maximum number deployable now appears to be in single digits it would seem relatively easy to overwhelm the available forces.

P

I rather suspect the author of this piece in the link has a somewhat prejudiced, prejorative, subjective and emotional position on both the RAF and the Syrian crisis/war. I also noticed he hasn't asked the question why no other air force is doing the things he asks, as of the present time? I don't know that the Israeli Air Force is dropping supplies to the starving population nor the Americans, French or Russians?

So is he going to advance the argument for the disbandment of all these countries' air forces as well?:confused:

FB:)

I think we a second opinion here. Has anyone got Sharkey's number?:

RFC?
 

How about re branding from the RAF to the Royal Flying Corps and have Lord Flasheart in charge and somebody called Darling to run SHQ?

Different questions....Tasking and Capability.

It one thing to say the RAF has not been Tasked and an altogether thing to suggest sufficient assets to be capable of meeting the Tasking unless that Tasking is tailored to the Assets available...which then begs the question of whether there are enough Assets to be effective.

At some point....any force can be too small to be genuinely effective no matter the capability of its Fleet of Aircraft.

As the RAF is so quick to do....the Battle of Britain might very well have gone the other way had the Fighter Force been much smaller and the Aircraft Industry unable to replenish the losses in aircraft.

As it was, the RAF nearly ran out of Pilots towards the end and had to draft in replacements from other branches of the RAF and Commonwealth Countries as well as from foreign sources.

Has the RAF lost that ability to replace Aircraft and Pilots should it be engaged in a full fledged War?

A Separate Air Force
 

The US followed the RAF, albeit almost 30 years later. As the USN and US MC, like the FAA, retained organic Air it was the Army that lost Air.

While the sizes are different the logic for abolition or retention must be similar. The Canadians restored the RCAF after an interval of 43 years.

For the MOD to be forced to disband the RAF, they would be running counter to experience or leading the field.