BEagle
 

It won’t surprise you to hear that I disagree with your post!

John is not exactly a prolific poster and is to all intents and purposes a stranger to most on here.

I’m sure he is a great guy and deserving of our respect. However, he strayed onto the internet and didn’t make a very good hash at what may well have been a valid question.

His post effectively said:

’Hi, you don’t know me but I think the RAF is a waste of time. Discuss.’

What kind of reception would anyone expect from a post like that.

If he had started his post with:

’Hello all, I am Sqn Ldr (Retd) John LeBrun AFC and I have a question for you all...’

He would probably have got a very different reception.

This forum is well known for trolling and as a source for lazy journalists. Only a naive soul would not realise how the OP looked to the rest of us.

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about us young ‘uns respecting our elders. However, this is an anonymous Internet forum. Without a solid posting history or a well introduced discussion you’re just a stranger with a combative question.

Anyway. I must fly. Quite literally.

BV

Most sensible thing i've read on PPrune for a long time Bob!

Thank you for your support. You hit the nail on the head. These were my personal thoughts which I believed were worth airing.

John
 

Now we have got the introductions out of the way I will give you my honest answer.

I don’t know why you’re picking on the RAF in particular. If your suggestion was to merge all of the forces I think it would be something more worth debating.

The current set up works just fine albeit with some obvious duplication in HQ roles.

If you wanted to subsume the RAF into the other services then you may as well go the whole hog and amalgamate the whole lot. Just disbanding the RAF wouldn’t be worth the bother on its own.

Emotion aside a single force structure could be something that is worth doing.

My opinion though (for what it’s worth) is to leave it be. The amount of cost, ill will and years of power struggles that would ensue are just not worth the investment.

I know this will sound glib and laden with banter (which it is) but it’s hard enough to develop airmindedness amongst RAF personnel. The idea of persuading the other services to embrace ‘Air’ to a greater extent does not fill me with glee.

Other opinions may vary of course.

BV

I have flown with J le B on a number of occasions and greatly respect his ability, especially with regard to airmanship.

BV

I find paragraph 6 of your #84 compelling.

It's only just over a decade ago that the Army was being trumpeted as the most important arm of the services, and the view that the RAF and (to a lesser extent) RN should be subordinate to it was not uncommon to hear. Now, we have just emerged from an Integrated Review in which the Army found its strategic development proposals being rejected by central Government not just once (which might have been merely embarrassing) but twice. To be fair, it is not surprising that the Army is going through a painful moment of reinvention given the extent to which it had been committed to what history is already judging a misguided policy of interventionism. By contrast the RN is on a high, full of confidence and restored to the prominence its supporters would argue should never have been lost. And the RAF has landed most of its arguments with Government, gaining an impressive array of new equipment and well-placed to reprise an earlier part of its history by containing the Russian threat from bases at home and in the near abroad.

All this is to say that, taking the long view, none of the services can be said to be 'supporting' the other in defending the UK's vital interests. Each has its role to play, varying in prominence with the shifting of the geopolitical tides, with each remaining different enough from the others in terms of equipment, doctrine and training that the benefits of maintaining separate personnel and separate cultures are still seen to outweigh the costs.