Does the RAF regiment have a future?

Hadn’t realised that we had entrusted the security of the massed RAF F35s at Kabul to the TA.

d

Actually your half-arsed attempt at being droll brings up a really relevant point to the actual thread topic. F35 being what it is, will it ever operate from a forward location, or will it be kept out of theatre or even more likely, on a carrier?

That's a question the RAF Regt should be kakking themselves about.
 
This is a part of the forums entitled 'The serious bit'. Instead of engaging with cheap snark why not attempt to respond sensibly? It may allow you to offer a more compelling argument than your previous offerings.
Because putting it quite simply your rambling post was simply a garbled mass of statements thrown on the page into an incoherent mess.
The cherry on the top being your total inability to grasp the point I was making.
 
I wonder if it would be possible to set up a PMC to provide airfield security for the RAF?

The MOD can satisfy itself that it will save a shed load of money by scrapping the RAF Reg, and then pay 4x as much for a bunch of ex-Indian Gurkhas, Philippinos and other odd and sods to do a version of the same job.

I'm off to make some calls...
 
You couldn’t possibly know that.



It’s the same for all units, services and throughout the MoD.

I confess it is a sweeping generalisation. But there is some logic behind that. The army doesn't vet everyone to SC, the RAF does. From being directly involved in 2 PJOBs - Gib and BFSAI - so I could directly compare holdings of classified - the army formations held held smaller quantities. I've encountered several army officers with the roles as head of G2 for a garrison/barracks - who come from a cap badge where G2 is not the primary role. Doesn't happen on a RAF station.

I've extrapolated what I consider an educated guess in respect of the above, including joint experience, to opine the army spend less time on risk management, RBCs, governance etc. Obviously places like Chicksands etc will buck the trend against places like say Halton, but I doubt I'm far out in my appraisal.
 
The Regt will survive ,if no other reason than the Regt tells the RAF its needed and no one else will do and no AM is going to risk signing it off.
May as well close the thread.
 
to opine the army spend less time on risk management,

The risk management is undertaken by the MoD in producing doctrine, policy and the required guidance in the form of the manuals, which are tri-service.

Everyone just has to follow them. Yes, the RAF may have more in some areas, but the RAFP aren’t forging the way ahead.

Yes, it’s extremely important and a little concerning you find it tedious - security isn’t a dirty word, but let’s not big the RAFP‘s part more than what it really is, that’s one of the problems with the RAF Regt, a minority love big timing it and really show the rest up.
 
The Regt will survive ,if no other reason than the Regt tells the RAF its needed and no one else will do and no AM is going to risk signing it off.
May as well close the thread.

And you always need someone to distract from the real shít that’s going on.
 
@dingerr I'm not trying to big anyone up - the main point I'm trying to get over is that 21st of foot is writing off the entire RAFP outside specialist formations as 'knuckle draggers'. These who according to their head of branch spend 80% of their time doing security related tasks - which as you rightly say is extremely important.

His point was erroneous in conclusion and full of factual errors.

Even if there has been a revision to pay scales I missed at some point, when Pay 16 came out, RAFP went in at Supp 2 whereas RMP GPD and RAVC handlers went in at Supp 1. They were obviously doing something correct.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The risk management is undertaken by the MoD in producing doctrine, policy and the required guidance in the form of the manuals, which are tri-service.

Everyone just has to follow them. Yes, the RAF may have more in some areas, but the RAFP aren’t forging the way ahead.

Yes, it’s extremely important and a little concerning you find it tedious - security isn’t a dirty word, but let’s not big the RAFP‘s part more than what it really is, that’s one of the problems with the RAF Regt, a minority love big timing it and really show the rest up.
Security is not a dirty word. Crevice is a disgusting word.
 
No so. Any trade which has a single GCSE as entry criteria, recruits 'knuckle draggers'. Anyway you still have not addressed my point.

You're being increasingly disingenuous. You erroneously talked about a single specialist squadron, you labelled 'the rest' as 'knuckle draggers'. But you can't be differentiating on the basis of that single GCSE because there is no requirement to gain extra GCSEs to move onto that any specialist RAFP formation.

Wulfric correctly demonstrated you are conflating mission and tasks so I won't go back to that. Suffice to say your analysis of them being 2 sides of the same coin working to the same CoC is weak. The CoC for FP is different to security and for policing is different to both.
 

Latest Threads

Top