More from the PTT - Abolish the RAF!!

#2
It's not saying get rid of the capability, just the RAF as an organisation with the savings being the cut of the top of the structure. Logical I suppose.
 
#4
It's not saying get rid of the capability, just the RAF as an organisation with the savings being the cut of the top of the structure. Logical I suppose.

What structure?

Do we really think that if we culled Strike Command (or whatever they're called these days), LAND and FLEET would be able to suck it all up as is?
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
You have a defence arm for strategic purposes and use its assets tactically. The RAF reached the apogee of its strategic usefulness with the freefall nuke. It immediately lost it strategic usefulness to Polaris and has been limping along on good PR ever since
 
#6
Not as is no, but there would be savings.

Simplistic example: Dress committees. The RN, Army and RAF each have their own. Merge RAF with Army and RN and you cut the RAF Dress committee. Thats a cut in posts and a cut in cost of a 3rd uniform.

As I said, simplistic example but I can see the logic behind the theory. Whether it would work in reality is a different matter.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Are you a a complete mong? Canada tried to merge their forces about 20 years ago (might have been more) - it was a complete clusterfukc without any of the anticipated savings.

Abolish the crabs. OK so there isn't to all intents and purposes a FAA and Teeny Weeny Airways don't have the capacity to do anything that the crabs are doing. If you want to merge the crabs into TWA then (a) there's a huge financial expense (b) there's a huge cultural expense, and (c) a huge capability hiatus.

If you don't believe me, just look at the creation of HM Revenue and Customs (as just one example from the Public Sector), there was a huge fall off in expertise/capability/and morale.
 
#9
Ok so one country merges their Armed Forces and gets it wrong, does that mean it will never work for anyone? Good job inventors throughout the ages haven't thought like that.

The AAC doesn't have the capacity to take on what the RAF are doing? They would if they had the resources of the RAF also handed over with the work load.

(a) there's a huge financial expense - But a long term saving.

(b) there's a huge cultural expense - That's just clinging to tradition.

(c) a huge capability hiatus - Really?! You aren't cutting the capability, it's simply being merged into another organisation. The aircrew/groundcrew/engineers/etc would transfer over.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Ok so one country merges their Armed Forces and gets it wrong, does that mean it will never work for anyone? Good job inventors throughout the ages haven't thought like that.

The AAC doesn't have the capacity to take on what the RAF are doing? They would if they had the resources of the RAF also handed over with the work load.

(a) there's a huge financial expense - But a long term saving. (Bolloux)

(b) there's a huge cultural expense - That's just clinging to tradition. Really? apart from your naivety in thinking that "tradition" means nothing, working cultures (as opposed to uniforms/flags/mess piss-ups) are very different across the services

(c) a huge capability hiatus - Really?! You aren't cutting the capability, it's simply being merged into another organisation. The aircrew/groundcrew/engineers/etc would transfer over. And endure the whole "we never did it like that in the FAA/TWA/RAF" mindset that would go on for years.
You clearly have never been involved in the merger of organisations with different mind-sets/esprit de corps. As an example 6 years after the event, HMCE staff still refer to the Revenue side of their house as the Dark Side. Mergers between different County regiments have been acrimonious in the past. If you want to merge a whole part of the Armed Forces with another, you are just asking for a world of hurt.

This is a non-starter with extra "non" and "starter".
 
#11
There would be a long term saving, the mere fact that in certain areas you would only 2x rather than 3x (uniforms/random individual service committees/etc) gives savings.

Tradition, while important, is not the priority in the current climate of save save save. Would you rather have bullets and bombs or tradition? Beggars cannot be choosers.

"We never did it like that...." comments are hardly a factor in a cost saving measure. It's a generation thing, look at various Regiments that have merged (pretty much all Regiments at some stage have had mergers), after a period of time the old and bold have moved on and the new generation have known nothing different.

As much as I like the RAF and would hate to see 3 services become 2, this is about saving money and the theory behind merging the RAF into the RN and Army is logical and if it weren't for the great RAF PR machine would probably be seriously considered.
 
#13
Interesting to check the 'about us' tab on the 'independent' Phoenix Think Tank site. Exclusively staffed by ex-RN or RM senior officers, with a couple of naval-style academics....so 'independent' in the sense that it is not part of Defence, but quite likely to have a bit of institutional bias about it! I'm not saying they're wrong, however.
 
#14
Interesting to check the 'about us' tab on the 'independent' Phoenix Think Tank site. Exclusively staffed by ex-RN or RM senior officers, with a couple of naval-style academics....so 'independent' in the sense that it is not part of Defence, but quite likely to have a bit of institutional bias about it! I'm not saying they're wrong, however.


There were a couple of VERY interesting threads on pprune about who's really behind the PTT, but they've been disapeared.
 
#16
So, to take this to its logical conclusion, why keep a separate Navy and Army? Double the saving outlined above by going the Israeli route of a single Defence Force. And while we are at it, why have different uniforms for different regiments? Let's put the Paras in the same colour berets as everyone else!

In reality, of course, the anticipated savings are largely illusory. There'll still have to be an administrative infrastructure to look after ships, and one to look after aircraft. So whilst co-operation between services over things like procurement and uniform can offer some benefits, winding up entire services will gain little. Far better to look at the command structures of all the forces, to see why a navy with fewer ships still needs so many admirals, and so forth.
 
#17
In terms of ‘getting rid’ of the RAF – BEHAVE. Who knows what’s around the corner? Air to Air combat is unlikely, but there is a possibility and an evident threat. Each week our Russian friends pay us a visit via nuclear carrying aircraft. If we do not have the ability to respond to such threat then how can we consider being a world player, both politically and militarily?
I would love to see the RAF do a day’s work, or the Navy to earn their operational medal (exceptions; RM, FAA) but the truth is, without them our capability is severely reduced.
 
#18
In terms of ‘getting rid’ of the RAF – BEHAVE.
No-one seems to be arguing that we should get rid of the capability, just the structure/hierarchy and certain aspects of the attitude (which regularly does the RAF severe discredit which they do not really deserve - some cannot help being crass and unthinking).
 
#20
No-one seems to be arguing that we should get rid of the capability, just the structure/hierarchy and certain aspects of the attitude (which regularly does the RAF severe discredit which they do not really deserve - some cannot help being crass and unthinking).
I totally agree with your point. Question is how you impose change on a service which is ultimately a more aggressive form of Easyjet... Maybe a merge would be good... The RAF is racking up a £40k hotel bill each day in Libya... this could be one tradition the Army might benefit from.
 

Latest Threads