Is there still a requirement for the RAF

#1
Lets face it, do we still really need to have an air force in this country. Before i step off my soap box, please listen to my reasoning.

1. Medium and heavy lift can be done by contractors. (probably be more military like than the air force anyway)

2. Strike can be done be the Fleet Air Arm.

3. Close support can be done by the AAC.

4. Air Sea Rescue and CAS again can be covered by the Navy.

5. All other heli tasks should also go to the AAC.

6. The Int stuff can easily be done by the Int Corps. The RAF don't have a clue about ISTAR anyway.

7. Think of the savings by closing most of the airfields in East Anglia and getting rid of that horrible blue uniform. We could at least save one regiment!!
 
#2
If we lost the RAF, we would have no-one available to look after all the Army's Air Defence Regiments.

My first act as CDS will be to merge all AD into the RAF Regiment :D
 
#3
Ah yes, the Crabs, the Third Service (or was that Turd Service). I'm told they carry out a really important role. The trouble is that a lot of what they do could be carried out by contract or the RN or Army and certainly with a lot less fuss and frustration.
 
#4
Be careful what you wish for...

Following on from O4C, SDR and subsequent adjustments, purely on numbers, the RAF is barely worth a seperate uniform anyway :evil: So your suggestion has some merit.

And of course, some countries, eg Canada, have gone the whole hog and merged the three services... think of the savings that would generate us :twisted:

But I find it curious that, from a forum that objected to the amalgamation of seperate infantry battalions, comes the suggestion of amalgamating an entire force :twisted:

Holding, as I do, no specific infantry loyalties, I suggest bigger cost savings would be made by merging all infantry into a single Corps of Infantry, with a single uniform and trappings - cost savings enough to, perhaps, save several battalions :twisted:
 
#5
Cyberhacker said:
Holding, as I do, no specific infantry loyalties, I suggest bigger cost savings would be made by merging all infantry into a single Corps of Infantry, with a single uniform and trappings - cost savings enough to, perhaps, save several battalions :twisted:
I hear your suggestion, however.... The regimental system is recognised as being the best system in the world as it breeds loyalty and the desire to be better than the other regiments. Thus producing better soldiers.
 
#6
Cyberhacker said:
Holding, as I do, no specific infantry loyalties, I suggest bigger cost savings would be made by merging all infantry into a single Corps of Infantry, with a single uniform and trappings - cost savings enough to, perhaps, save several battalions :twisted:
Are you not advocating the POLITICAL: Playing the Long Game Plan :twisted: that is so much evident in today’s politics – I feel it will come no matter – in time :evil:
 
#7
This has been discussed for years, disbanding the RAF would save money and possibly bring less buerocracy (sp) but I will believe it when I see it



Bring back the Royal Flying Corps ?!?!?
 
#8
Didn't Monty advocate the complete co-operation of the air and ground HQs, at all levels, and in all aspects - e.g. air supremacy at the strategic level and ground support at the tactical level? In his campaigns he was emphatic that the air and ground plans must be developed in close concert and that the RAF was vital to the ground campaign.

These days we have 'J' to bring together the 'G' and the 'A' at formation level, as opposed to the informal 'chumminess' of the 1940's. We have an Army FAC system as opposed to the 'cab-rank' talked in by RAF on the ground. So there is insititutionalised co-operation to a far greater degree.

However we also have ground attack aviation that is army, ground attack fast-jet which is RAF, light lift/air OP/liaison which is army, light lift which is RN, heavier lift which is RAF, surface to air AD which is army, surface to air AD which is RAF Regiment, as well as the purely air to air AD, heavy fixed wing transport, maritime etc etc which is the RAF's domain.

Is this all logical, or is it just a reflection of the mere fact we are all seperate services? For instance, should the RAF be strategic air, and the army be tactical air? It would make sense - after all, the JHF recognises this fact does it not? What we have now is a hodge-podge of 'providers' (you can tell I'm a civvy 5 days a week), with the source of the 'solutions' not being particularly logical.

So how about?
All aviation - army
Fast jet - RAF
AD - army, except air bases and advanced Harrier mats, which would be RAF Regt.

Finally, how do the USMC do it? Is their air supremacy aspect dealt with by the USN, with all ground related activities, including fast jet being USMC commanded and piloted? Anyone know?
 
#9
How many planes/people does the RAF have? Everyone of them I have ever met seems to be an administrator of some kind, although lots of the officers still receive flying pay even when the planes they flew/navigated have been out of commission for about 20 years. I doubt more than half of the Crabs actually have anything to do with aircraft.

So NO we don't need an airforce.

Reform the Womens Auxillary Ballon Corps!!
 
#10
far2young2die said:
How many planes/people does the RAF have? Everyone of them I have ever met seems to be an administrator of some kind, although lots of the officers still receive flying pay even when the planes they flew/navigated have been out of commission for about 20 years. I doubt more than half of the Crabs actually have anything to do with aircraft.
Clearly you move in the wrong circles if you only meet administrators. There are certainly support personnel in the RAF, exactly as in the other services, but the numbers are not excessive. Flying pay is generally only applicable when individuals are employed on flying duties and current; the same applies to the AAC. The Paras get extra pay, even though there hasn't been a major need for them for nearly 50 years, so presumably you'd like to see an end to that.
 
#11
Some interesting views coming out here - some of them valid and some the usual tripe.
far2young - if you stop talking to those that administer, you'd find others that also support the main objective of the RAF - getting 'platforms' into the air. These platforms are sometimes freight, fuel, passengers, equipment or firepower. It takes a lot of people to put technologically advanced weapons platforms into the air and keep them there. I am sure anyone connected with Apache knows the increase in support activities over, for example, a Gazelle.
Yes, the Army can operate / control some of them, as can the RN. However, we have 3 different services that attract different people to do different jobs.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/strength.html will tell you how many aircraft and people we have.

We need to maintain strat lift capability as this is how we rapidly project military capability - we will go where most contractors will or can not go. Trust me on this - I am involved in that work at times.
It is right that there are 3 seperate forces to cope with the differences between land, sea and air. When they cross is when the real work begins - and it is that combination and relation that is the 'force multiplier' and gives the strength. A ground commander can certainly understand the close support given by the aircraft. However, there is the strategic impact that needs to be understood. We are all pretty good at what we do, whether you believe it or not - across all 3 Services.
 
#12
Far far too many Airships (Air Marshals ) , come to that its the same in the Navy and Army.

Quite a few keys to the Executive bog should be handed in, otherwise each Squadron will have an Airship etc. :roll:
 
#13
It is right that there are 3 seperate forces to cope with the differences between land, sea and air. When they cross is when the real work begins - and it is that combination and relation that is the 'force multiplier' and gives the strength. A ground commander can certainly understand the close support given by the aircraft. However, there is the strategic impact that needs to be understood. We are all pretty good at what we do, whether you believe it or not - across all 3 Services.
Very fair.

What savings could be made by merging various common functions though? As a random example, why do we need 3 sets of military law and G1 infrastructures? I'm sure there are many things that the Canadians found need not be replicated over three services - even if the ultimate aim of a single service hasn't really worked as they intended.
 
#14
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
We need to maintain strat lift capability as this is how we rapidly project military capability - we will go where most contractors will or can not go. Trust me on this - I am involved in that work at times.
I beg to differ. Bagram airfield, summer 2002. Loads of strat and medium lift aircraft flying into the airfield from various nations except the RAF as it was"too dangerous" So we all had to fly in to Kabul in the dead of night, sleep on a concrete floor for several hours and wait for a two and a half hour road move in a logistics convoy, if there were seats available. So don't give me that we will fly anywhere crap.
 
#15
eye_spy said:
.

1. Medium and heavy lift can be done by contractors. (probably be more military like than the air force anyway)
Until the bullets fly and they then go sick. I would if I where a civvie

2. Strike can be done be the Fleet Air Arm.
who will soon not have enough Sea Harrier to defend their ships and might be reluctant to sail up the Straits of Hormuz.

3. Close support can be done by the AAC.
Once LONGBOW flies and the pilots are trained - and assuming there are no tanks on the right hand side of the airframe...
.......
7. Think of the savings by closing most of the airfields in East Anglia and getting rid of that horrible blue uniform. We could at least save one regiment!!
One Typhoon: £57 million. Payroll for a Bn: £17 million?
 
#16
There are always commercial operators who will fly anywhere for money (or other reasons - Air America, anyone?), but I would not necessarily want to fly with them.

The MoD already charter a certain amount of strategic airlift capability, having failed to adequately resource the RAF, and sometimes the lowest bidder supplies some fairly dodgy old aircraft. The RAF have an exceptional safety record, particularly with passenger flights. I know who I'd rather fly with.
 
#17
I stand (metaphorically, as I am actually sitting) corrected! :oops:

But given the recent cuts is there the capability? Actual - not loads of kit specifications, which are always bollox.
The Paras get extra pay, even though there hasn't been a major need for them for nearly 50 years, so presumably you'd like to see an end to that.
I have no problem with that, although they do still make the old coffin dodgers stay current - and POD would never go for it.
 
#18
Yes, but what unique thing does the RAF do that could not be done by either the RN or the Army? If you take the USMC air arm as an example, it delivers all-round far more than the RAF can, yet its a naval service.

Topical discussion, because CDS and the politicos are just about to bungle the Navy's two new carriers with about 15 years of cost-cutting before they make it into service, yet they intend to cripple (and cut) the rest of the Armed Forces with the consequences of Eurofighter costs. The better course, in the opinion of just about everyone I know (including some light blues) would be to slash the RAF and build ourselves a really good carrier force (maybe get the US to build us a couple of their nuke carriers) which can at least be used in littorial warfare anywhere in the world - and for UK home defence if necessary.
 
#19
What can the RAF do that we can't?

Maritime patrolling/sub-hunting could be done by the RN, and the rest divvied up like below (shameless re-posting to get some of you f~ckers to answer it - didn't type it all out for nothing you know, mutter, chunter). But how about strategic air-lift? heavy airfreight? air trooping? airspace air to air defence? air to air refuelling?

Why would the army or RN get involved in any of that, or want to?

However we also have ground attack aviation that is army, ground attack fast-jet which is RAF, light lift/air OP/liaison which is army, light lift which is RN, heavier lift which is RAF, surface to air AD which is army, surface to air AD which is RAF Regiment, as well as the purely air to air AD, heavy fixed wing transport, maritime etc etc which is the RAF's domain.

Is this all logical, or is it just a reflection of the mere fact we are all seperate services? For instance, should the RAF be strategic air, and the army be tactical air? It would make sense - after all, the JHF recognises this fact does it not? What we have now is a hodge-podge of 'providers' (you can tell I'm a civvy 5 days a week), with the source of the 'solutions' not being particularly logical.

So how about?
All aviation - army
Fast jet - RAF
AD - army, except air bases and advanced Harrier mats, which would be RAF Regt.
Rest - maritime, heavy transport, air-air refuel etc - RAF

Finally, how do the USMC do it? Is their air supremacy aspect dealt with by the USN, with all ground related activities, including fast jet being USMC commanded and piloted? Anyone know?
 
#20
The answer is clear.

We should all become Crabs, Navy included.

Better scoff for one thing and blue really makes my eyes look lovely.

There would be no nned to ask who controls what asset, as it would all be Crab. No need to worry abour transport because we would have air next dooe, and the politicos would like it because the RAF does not mix on the ground with the rougher type of foreigner, just drop bombs on them and back home in time for tea and toast.
 

Latest Threads

Top