More from the PTT - Abolish the RAF!!

Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by sunnoficarus, May 5, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.
  2. Please explain how this is in any way, shape or form 'logical'.

  3. 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?
  4. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    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
  5. 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.
  6. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    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.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    How about merging the FAA and AAC into the RAF

    Petrol, meet barbecue
  8. 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.
  9. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    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".
  10. 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.
  11. I could accept the FAA, but the AAC? No chucking fance.
  12. 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 '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.

  13. There were a couple of VERY interesting threads on pprune about who's really behind the PTT, but they've been disapeared.
  14. Funny that, because I could accept merging with the AAC, but the RAF? I'd rather fork dogshit into my eyes.