Sunday Times- RAF preparing to cut 10,000 staff.

baboon6 said:
But how much more capable is Typhoon than Hawk? I suppose it would be difficult to quantify this, but it can definitely carry a lot more ordnance a lot further- and has the electronics etc. to deliver it accurately and survive.


This is not simply about the performance of an RAF squadron, it is about the survival of the RAF itself.

New Labour are betting that if they run down the armed forces enough, they will atrophy to such a point that they will collapse completely in both command structure and morale. Would a 'pointless' RAF of just 20,000 be able to survive at all? Will a Navy with only a dozen ships survive?

This is why the RAF should downsize its airframes and expand its flying fleet. Rebuild morale. Dramatically expand RAF GSA, to promote the survival into the future. Build a viable springboard of traditions, procedures and knowledge, upon which more capable aircraft can be added at a later date.

And launch a three-service-pronged attack on the treacherous Labour party. This is where the ultimate problem lies.


.
 
Yes, getting rid of one of the world's most capable combat aircraft and replacing it with a type which will never deploy because it's far too limited (Hawk) and which, because of its lack of utility will be highly vulnerable to defence spending cuts is bound to improve morale, isn't it?

As Meridian tried to point out, FSTA is not "another of those big-ticket items that the RAF loves".

First, it was foisted upon the RAF by the government, in lieu of what appears to have been an attractive (i.e. pretty cheap) outright procurement of A310 MRTT, and second, what would you replace it with? A few knackered 1960s-era converted airliners with AAR capab.. oh, hang on.

It may be a 'big ticket item' but it's a damned important one - not least because if the RAF were to reconstruct itself along the fantasy air force lines you outline, the Hawk would require far more AAR than other types, which would require more tanker aircraft...
 
tekirdag said:
But that increase in maintenance does not alter the fact that you can run about 6 Hawks for every Typhoon.

Typhoon
Airframe £5m a year capital cost (20-year span)
Direct personnel x 10 £300,000
Spares £5m
Consumables £1.5m
Total £11.8 million

Hawk
Airframe £0.8m a year capital cost (20-year span)
Direct personnel x 7 £200,000
Spares £0.8m
Consumables £200,000
Total £2.0 million

I say you can run two Typhoons for the cost of a Hawk.

Let's see - each fast-jet aircrew costs (say) £5 million to train, and £100k per year in pay, allowances, pensions, continuing training, etc. Let's say that they manage a decade of squadron service in their twenty-year career, and you hold 1.5 crews per aircraft.

That means that every ejector seat you have to fill, costs you £21 million for a 20-year service life of the aircraft.

Typhoon
One seat - one aircrew. £21 million in aircrew costs.

Hawk
Two seats - two aircrew. £42 million in aircrew costs.

Sorry - did I just pluck fictional figures out of the air to support my argument? Only following your example, old chap.

If you want a real-world example of how maintainability improvements are cheaper in the long run, take a look at the US Navy. They replaced the F-14 of "Top Gun" fame with the F-18 which hasn't had a homoerotic film made about it (yet).

F-14 squadron at sea: 450 personnel, 50% average availability of aircraft.
F-18 squadron at sea: 250 personnel, 80% average availability of aircraft.

Every squadron of F-18 in service saved them £20 million a year in wages alone; or another way, £40 million per airframe over its lifetime.

PS It does show why building £2 million of navigation avionics into every aircraft is still cheaper than hauling around the talking baggage...
 
Mighty_Q said:
Tally,

This is just what 34 Sqn RAF Regt are doing right now, with the sad loss of A/Cpl Wojtak R.I.P. Aswell as providing FP to CB

34 sqn will be home for xmas but will start training again in march to go back out later that year.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
box-of-frogs said:
All 3 Services should start fighting the penny pinching scum that are politicians rather than each other!

Divide and conquor

Once the penny pinching scum read this thread and no doubt the threads that appear on E Goat and RR they will love it

Ever wonder why unions no matter their differences band together at crunch times?
 

RedCoat2009

Old-Salt
Vladimir_Ilyich_Crab said:
RedCoat2009 said:
Scrapping the RAF does not equal no aircraft. We merely transfer the mission to those more capable: The RNAS for all fast jet ops, and the Army Air Corps get all the helicopters.

For strat and tac airlift, we place that mission in the hands of the RN. The do long range deployment by sea, air should be fairly easy to adapt.

Face it, the job will get do, more efficiently, and a lot cheaper as well.

1. What evidence do you base for FLEET to be more capable of running an air campaign than AIR?

2. If your logic is that long range deployment by sea could adapt to doing air, why would you not want the RN to be subsumed by the RAF- if it is so easy to adapt in fact if you are planning a campaign based on 600kt assets getting on target with millisecond precision surely you would find it easy to get a 40kt destroyer to roughly the right spot on the ocean easier than vice versa?

your profile name is appropriate for someone with a 19th century grasp of modern combined joint ops.



I am not trying to inflame attitudes, nor am I anti-RAF...I am pro-success.

We need to face the harsh realities of the present and future. If we are to succeed as a credible, capable armed force, we need to look for inefficiencies and do a better job of national defence. I really don't think we can justify all that we have on the drawing boards for the future.

We can start now by combining the duplicate missions/services/capabilities we have now and get Purple, quickly.

Combine the military police, medical, admin, chaplaincy, logistical, etc NOW. If we rely upon history and tradition to save us, we are doomed.

Combine our three airforces into 2, one fixed wing, the other helicopter.

Combine our three infantries into one.

Get Labour out, ASP.
 
R

really?_fascinating

Guest
How do we really do that - do you really see RLC suppliers suddenly being suppliers on a submarine? Or RAFP being deployed as part of infantry sects? It is a great soundbite, but we have three seperate services who are expert at the environmnet they operate in.

Arguably we would be better to 'stay in lane' and reduce duplication - why do we need the Army AND the Navy to contribute bdes to Afgh? We don't, so the Navy should concentrate on it's core roles - none of which see them projecting power 1000km in shore! Why do we have the RAF equipping and training light role inf coys to hold ground that happens to have a runway in it? It is Army business, let the Army get on with it!
 
You are correct and wrong.

The Army used to defend the RAF airstrips, until WW2, when Winston Churchill pointed out that there were far too many fit young men in the RAF who could do the job, and the ARmy were strapped as it was. THus the RAF Regt was formed in order to defend the runways.

A Two pronged service model, Navy and Army with the RAF being split (fixed and rotary) amongst teh two. The Royal Marines Bde chopped to the Army, but the remainder (boat parties, etc) left under Navy CoC.

Sane purplisation, so no RLC on Subs, but they could work in the dockyards. But with only two services, I would wager there would be little need for further combination except at higher HQ formations or specific units (ie NGFS Bty).
 

SSeeker

Old-Salt
tekirdag said:
baboon6 said:
But how much more capable is Typhoon than Hawk? I suppose it would be difficult to quantify this, but it can definitely carry a lot more ordnance a lot further- and has the electronics etc. to deliver it accurately and survive.


This is not simply about the performance of an RAF squadron, it is about the survival of the RAF itself.

New Labour are betting that if they run down the armed forces enough, they will atrophy to such a point that they will collapse completely in both command structure and morale. Would a 'pointless' RAF of just 20,000 be able to survive at all? Will a Navy with only a dozen ships survive?

This is why the RAF should downsize its airframes and expand its flying fleet. Rebuild morale. Dramatically expand RAF GSA, to promote the survival into the future. Build a viable springboard of traditions, procedures and knowledge, upon which more capable aircraft can be added at a later date.

And launch a three-service-pronged attack on the treacherous Labour party. This is where the ultimate problem lies.


.

Then labour will say " hey lets have a european army as it will save money"!!!!!!!!!
 

flipflop

Old-Salt
RedCoat2009 said:
Vladimir_Ilyich_Crab said:
RedCoat2009 said:
Scrapping the RAF does not equal no aircraft. We merely transfer the mission to those more capable: The RNAS for all fast jet ops, and the Army Air Corps get all the helicopters.

For strat and tac airlift, we place that mission in the hands of the RN. The do long range deployment by sea, air should be fairly easy to adapt.

Face it, the job will get do, more efficiently, and a lot cheaper as well.

1. What evidence do you base for FLEET to be more capable of running an air campaign than AIR?

2. If your logic is that long range deployment by sea could adapt to doing air, why would you not want the RN to be subsumed by the RAF- if it is so easy to adapt in fact if you are planning a campaign based on 600kt assets getting on target with millisecond precision surely you would find it easy to get a 40kt destroyer to roughly the right spot on the ocean easier than vice versa?

your profile name is appropriate for someone with a 19th century grasp of modern combined joint ops.



I am not trying to inflame attitudes, nor am I anti-RAF...I am pro-success.

We need to face the harsh realities of the present and future. If we are to succeed as a credible, capable armed force, we need to look for inefficiencies and do a better job of national defence. I really don't think we can justify all that we have on the drawing boards for the future.

We can start now by combining the duplicate missions/services/capabilities we have now and get Purple, quickly.

Combine the military police, medical, admin, chaplaincy, logistical, etc NOW. If we rely upon history and tradition to save us, we are doomed.

Combine our three airforces into 2, one fixed wing, the other helicopter.

Combine our three infantries into one.

Get Labour out, ASP.

Are you refering to British Army 'success' in Basra or the on-going 'success' in Helmand?

Given that gross oversimplification appears to be the order of the day; here's another one:

There are two means of getting to the UK: Air and Sea. Therefore Defence of the UK should be configured around an air force and a navy. Expeditionary operations on land could be met by expanding the Royal Marines. Afterall, UK Land forces are totally reliant on sea and air to get them to their fight, and sustainment thereafter, so why bother with them?
 
flipflop said:
Given that gross oversimplification appears to be the order of the day; here's another one:

There are two means of getting to the UK: Air and Sea. Therefore Defence of the UK should be configured around an air force and a navy. Expeditionary operations on land could be met by expanding the Royal Marines. Afterall, UK Land forces are totally reliant on sea and air to get them to their fight, and sustainment thereafter, so why bother with them?

Yes, let us go down that route.....

'The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the Navy.'
Sir Edward Grey

Nothing about the RAF. So we'll skip them, fixed wing and strategic transport for the Royal Navy Air Service. Army Air Corps (Heavy) and RAF Regt for the Infantry. SPlit the remainder between the various Corps and Divsions of the Army and Navy.

Job jobbed.
 
I have read this blog and all the other bash the other services blogs and they never cease to make me smile. After 8 years as an Air Force loggy and a few years as a TA infanteer I think I have seen the best and worst in both services. Cant speak for the Navy but the few fishheads I have worked with seemed okay.

This figure of 10,000 is classic worst case options number designed to be leaked if the Treasury pushes to hard. Its the clever version of RAF to scrap Red Arrows or Army to lose redcoats. Well done the staff officer who drafted the options and the jorno he leaked it to. I reckon that deserves at least a 'spec rec' if not an 'exceptional' recommendation.

I think the problem is that the current defence budget is still supporting an 80's level of senior officers (more admirals than ships, headquarters (PJHQ, ARRC, Land etc) and institutional scared cows (Gold Stick and Silver Stick?).

The question I keep asking is how many 2 stars do we really need to deploy a reinforced brigade to ISEF plus 3/4 squadrons worth of jets/SH.?

IMHO I would start with an immediate 30% cut in headquarters staffs (including civil servants), all officers over the rank of major and a independent NAO review of ceremonial and the 'black economy' (serving soldiers being used as servants for retired senior officers).

Lets stop arguing over who flys the jets and focus with the massive overhead created by the pre Cold War mentality of the senior mangement and civil servants.
 
Surely cutting the RAF would achieve an even greater cull of the HQs?
 
MND (SW) in Bos, and we had a Div deployed in both Granby and Telic.
 

dkh51250

Old-Salt
Personal experience of jointery with the Army. Rheindahlen early 90s, failure to adopt USAS on the part of the Army.

The reason given, using a computer system would reduce the number of boots on the ground thus negating the need for a 2* officer.

Needless to say ultimately the computer has eventually won, MJDI, the rebranded USAS has now been adopted.

The heartbreaking bit was watching all the computer records being transferred back to manual ledgers. Talk about Luddites.

Had USAS been adopted as first mooted many moons ago most of the "missing" Bowman kit would not be missing.
 
RedCoat2009 said:
Vladimir_Ilyich_Crab said:
RedCoat2009 said:
Scrapping the RAF does not equal no aircraft. We merely transfer the mission to those more capable: The RNAS for all fast jet ops, and the Army Air Corps get all the helicopters.

For strat and tac airlift, we place that mission in the hands of the RN. The do long range deployment by sea, air should be fairly easy to adapt.

Face it, the job will get do, more efficiently, and a lot cheaper as well.

1. What evidence do you base for FLEET to be more capable of running an air campaign than AIR?

2. If your logic is that long range deployment by sea could adapt to doing air, why would you not want the RN to be subsumed by the RAF- if it is so easy to adapt in fact if you are planning a campaign based on 600kt assets getting on target with millisecond precision surely you would find it easy to get a 40kt destroyer to roughly the right spot on the ocean easier than vice versa?

your profile name is appropriate for someone with a 19th century grasp of modern combined joint ops.



I am not trying to inflame attitudes, nor am I anti-RAF...I am pro-success.

We need to face the harsh realities of the present and future. If we are to succeed as a credible, capable armed force, we need to look for inefficiencies and do a better job of national defence. I really don't think we can justify all that we have on the drawing boards for the future.

We can start now by combining the duplicate missions/services/capabilities we have now and get Purple, quickly.

Combine the military police, medical, admin, chaplaincy, logistical, etc NOW. If we rely upon history and tradition to save us, we are doomed.

Combine our three airforces into 2, one fixed wing, the other helicopter.

Combine our three infantries into one.

Get Labour out, ASP.

You still haven't answered either of my questions. If you get round to it, please also confirm, if AUS/CAN/US/NZ seem to think best military practise is 3 services, why so many people here don't? Don't talk about numbers NZ has an army of about 4500 and an air force of 2300ish.

Smacks to me of simple, illogical crab bashing - amusing when drinking wobblies waiting for either the 3rd Russian shock army or armageddon, stupid in the middle of a seemingly endless COIN campaign with a steady rate of attrition - and that's just the one to get the poxy government to open the golden purse strings and stop spending money on immigrants and dole slackers.
 
Top