Very good point. Better the devil you know (rockapes) than the ones you wish you didn't (heroin buying, prostitute smuggling Romanians).

Hey... The Regiment can purchase heroin and smuggle whores too you know!!!! It's not like they lack talent...

Some interesting points raised on this thread. Most of the slagging about the rocks seem to be regarding this big 3 load of tosh. I have never heard a rock mention it but I'm sure Northern Monkey will correct me.

Fact is, as already mentioned, the RAF will not disband the Regt.

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Not getting excited-merely trying to point out DaveTheApe might not be comparing like to like, thereby making any comparison invalid.

Ey oop Northern Monkey. The source I found on tinternet cited different CFT weights for the non-infantry wallahs. Went down quite dramatically as I recall, so I am comparing like for like I think. No axe to grind or point to prove.

Dave-I was just under the impression the CFT you were quoting differed across the board. You are right-non-teeth arms march with 15 Kg. I had a feeling the infantry also did a harder CFT, which is backed by mention above of the ACFT 2.

ICH-I didn't bring up CFT tests as a measure of military greatness, that was someone else. I attempted to reflect that the figures quoted weren't wholly accurate. The comments I made in this scenario were an attempt at levity. not willy-waving! Most rocks I'm sure are good lads and competent at their job. But some are extremely thin-skinned and have chips on their shoulders.

For what it's worth, there has been a more rational defence of the rockapes' existence and perceived military stance than has been the case in other threads-perhaps because some of the usual suspects have been conspicuous in their absence.

I don't think the regiment will disappear any time soon, mainly because it's an RAF asset that they will fight tooth and nail to preserve. We all know the 3 services don't play well together and the RAF command would not want to go cap in hand for airfield defence to army assets whom they would have little control over. Obversely, as some posters have pointed out, what army regiment would wish to be committed to airfield defence?

Whether the regiment requires a para sqn is open to debate, particularly as the Paras are less and less trained on drops (partly because the RAF cannot commit assets to army jumps). It could be argued that they are window-dressing-it's a prestigious, high profile asset which neither the army or RAF want to let go.

The argument will continue to rage as to whether RAF regt should continue to exist but it mainly boils down to inter-service politics and whilst the RAF can afford them, they will remain.

whilst the RAF can afford them, they will remain

Cheaper and provide more than a Typhoon I'll warrant...

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Dave-I was just under the impression the CFT you were quoting differed across the board. You are right-non-teeth arms march with 15 Kg. I had a feeling the infantry also did a harder CFT, which is backed by mention above of the ACFT 2.

ICH-I didn't bring up CFT tests as a measure of military greatness, that was someone else. I attempted to reflect that the figures quoted weren't wholly accurate. The comments I made in this scenario were an attempt at levity. not willy-waving! Most rocks I'm sure are good lads and competent at their job. But some are extremely thin-skinned and have chips on their shoulders.

For what it's worth, there has been a more rational defence of the rockapes' existence and perceived military stance than has been the case in other threads-perhaps because some of the usual suspects have been conspicuous in their absence.

I don't think the regiment will disappear any time soon, mainly because it's an RAF asset that they will fight tooth and nail to preserve. We all know the 3 services don't play well together and the RAF command would not want to go cap in hand for airfield defence to army assets whom they would have little control over. Obversely, as some posters have pointed out, what army regiment would wish to be committed to airfield defence?

Whether the regiment requires a para sqn is open to debate, particularly as the Paras are less and less trained on drops (partly because the RAF cannot commit assets to army jumps). It could be argued that they are window-dressing-it's a prestigious, high profile asset which neither the army or RAF want to let go.

The argument will continue to rage as to whether RAF regt should continue to exist but it mainly boils down to inter-service politics and whilst the RAF can afford them, they will remain.

NM, my bold, I agree entirely that the para role could well be up for debate (certainly for the RAF Regt in the current COE). However, the capability once lost will never be regained. I think that the 'window dressing' comment in part truthful, from a manequins perspective.

The RAF Regt dis-bandwagon has been trundling on for some years now, it would take a major change of culture within the RAF for the Regt to be offered up to balance the books elsewhere......then again Typhoon and the new Carriers won't pay for themselves. Then again the new CAS (person not bombs) seems not entirely as ALI focussed as the previous so hmmm.......

On the plus side, if we did become part of the dark side at least we could get a Mess Kit that wasn't designed by the same Tailor as the Int Corp (no offence, I sympathise with you :( ) and a No1 Uniform marginally different from the RAC (Automobile Club not Armoured Corp :D )

We are not S.F but have men in the SFSG
We are not paras but have an airborn Sqn
We are not the Guards but we QCS
We are not the RA but have had air defence
We are not the R A C but have been armourd
We are not INF but do 26 weeks Inf training
So who are the RAF Regt? they are specialists in the defence of RAF bases & instalations. Any comparison with the army is a wast of time.

Originally Posted by johno123

We are not S.F but have men in the SFSG
We are not paras but have an airborn Sqn
We are not the Guards but we QCS
We are not the RA but have had air defence
We are not the R A C but have been armourd
We are not INF but do 26 weeks Inf training
So who are the RAF Regt? they are specialists in the defence of RAF bases & instalations. Any comparison with the army is a wast of time.

Johno, stop it, I'm welling up!

I grafted alongside the RAF Regt at the Black Eagle site on the FI, 83-84.
Hard working days building the infra structure around Stanley Airfield. The Regt lads we worked with day to day seemed switched on, smart as mustard and very motivated. They were also generous and willing to accept the motley band of scruffy sappers minging up there dining area.
For what it's worth I don't have a bad word for them.

Damn the expense, keep them I say!

Johno, stop it, I'm welling up!

Yeah... He makes me cry too... But he's right...

I'm sure the Rocks off Black Eagle were very happy to make you welcome and help you... It's what Rocks do... and, BTW, you might know Jaybee... I think he was there then... :D

Originally Posted by bluntslane

Originally Posted by johno123

We are not S.F but have men in the SFSG
We are not paras but have an airborn Sqn
We are not the Guards but we QCS
We are not the RA but have had air defence
We are not the R A C but have been armourd
We are not INF but do 26 weeks Inf training
So who are the RAF Regt? they are specialists in the defence of RAF bases & instalations. Any comparison with the army is a wast of time.

Johno, stop it, I'm welling up!

I grafted alongside the RAF Regt at the Black Eagle site on the FI, 83-84.
Hard working days building the infra structure around Stanley Airfield. The Regt lads we worked with day to day seemed switched on, smart as mustard and very motivated. They were also generous and willing to accept the motley band of scruffy sappers minging up there dining area.
For what it's worth I don't have a bad word for them.

Damn the expense, keep them I say!

bluntslane was it you who helped us build this little box.(black eagles mess)