ARmy Rumour SErvice

Our manpower is still more 'developed' and 'equipped' than the creatures in the RAF though.

A Soldier no longer just a bloke with a gat & a radio? Bloooody looooxury. We used to dream of 'avin't radio...

I think you are a little behind the curve, with regards to the RAC at least. I'm thinking CR1 and 2 here.
I agree entirely with the general thrust of your comments however.

Originally Posted by PE4rocks

I think you are a little behind the curve, with regards to the RAC at least. I'm thinking CR1 and 2 here.
I agree entirely with the general thrust of your comments however.

CR1 (commanders station) had more buttons and was way less ergonomic than a Tornado, only difference was speed over ground until you factored in the speed over ground of outgoing and incoming.

The man equipment saga has been told and retold ever since we upped from bow and arrows (even then the English longbowman was the most technically and physically advanced tool in the box). The Napoleonic, British musket man, could load and fire far quicker than the French, the Horse Artillery were drilled in a way that could outpace charging cavalry, the infantry were drilled to be a machine that could form square quicker than charging cavalry.

Perhaps the RAF in it's quest for technology is the one who has forgotten the man in the equation.

So the RAF are basically cnuts?

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

So the RAF are basically cnuts?

Not at all some of them are really quite nice. What they forget is that the Navy and the original RAF built the capability around the man, and we used to win wars in those days, go the other way and you have a technically brilliant and capability sound range of equipment that is manned by technocrats not warriors.

Unfortunately bokkatankie, with the way that our future warplanes and ships are going then its logical to have geeks in the hot seat. They may not be like Tom Cruise in Top Gun or Russell Crowe in Master and Commander, but I'd like a highly competent computer operator to nail the bad guy rather than a frustrated flashman character stabbing at buttons with a bayonet!

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

The arguement that the 'RAF man the equipment and the Army equip the man' has been thrown around for some time now. Being RAF and with quite some time in the Joint world I have always been fairly happy with that as a basic statement.

However, things seem to be changing. I'd suggest that, more and more, the Army is 'manning the equipment'. A couple of points to support my suggestion:

- The RAF (and the RN) have always been capabilities based around technologically advanced weapons platforms. Weapons, sensors, comms etc all combined to provide capable and complex platforms that required manning and operating, not to mention serious maintenance.

- Since TELIC we have seen some quantum leaps in Land warfare equipment and capabilities. Take Mastiff or any other similar vehicle. So much more than wheels, an engine and some armour. Sensors, displays, countermeasures, remote weapon mounts etc. It is now a complex weapons platform that needs to be manned.

- The soldier. No longer just a bloke with a gat and a radio. Again, since TELIC, the soldier is part of a man-portable system that has capabilities beyond what required a vehicle 20 years ago. Would a commander want one more man with a finger on the trigger, or would they want the ECM he carries? It is so much more complex now, not just about literal firepower, but the ability to jam, transmit, receive and everything else all those man-worn systems are capable of.

So, happy for it to be picked to bits, but I'd say the Army is edging far more towards manning the equipment now and in the future.

I would agree with the caveat that once we return to contingency and ar out of Afghanistan there won't be "any" equipment to man...