What do the RAF Regt do?

#2
Tell me - I give up .............
 
#5
No. Likewise, get rid of the rest of the RAF except CAS and heavy lift, but put them squarely under the comand of the army.

There isnt much else that can't be done by a Tomahawk Cruise Missile a) cheaper and b)safer (no future shot down aircrew being paraded on Al-Jazeera TV, for example)
 
#9
Well I for one think that they should go, they really have no role that cannot be done better by existing soldiers. They are actually an expensive overqualified and time expired relic of the cold war, who now see justification in their infantry skills. In Walt terms they are Professional walts.
 
#10
Outstanding, you're sayin you'd be happy with the Infantry taking over the role of Airfield defence? People always bash the RAF Regiment for only guarding etc., but if they were ditched, then that role would go to the infantry.

How fun.
 
#11
Goon

What is so different in airfield defence than other key point defence. I would keep the Regt for the job but what do they think they do that soldiers could not?
 
#12
The_Goon said:
Outstanding, you're sayin you'd be happy with the Infantry taking over the role of Airfield defence? People always bash the RAF Regiment for only guarding etc., but if they were ditched, then that role would go to the infantry.

How fun.
No, thats what MPGS is for :wink: , alternatively, hod the dod, why not make the techs, cooks, bottle washers and all the other dross do the occasional stag, commanded by the provosts. REME do stags, RLC do stags, why shouldn't the techs and supply merchants shoulder some resposability?
 
#13
No, you miss my point, one-flew-over. I'm not saying they do anything special, what i'm saying is if they were got rid of, then the defence of airfields and surrounding areas would fall to the infantry. Who would then moan about having to do it because it is not the most exciting of roles.

Keep the regiment because they guard the airfields and surrounding locale, therefore freeing up the infantry.
 
#14
The-Goose said:
Are they a complete waste of space or is there a purpose to the RAF maintianing them?
Now i know my spelling and grammer is pish but i think you mean, "Are they a complete waste of space or is there a purpose to the RAF maintaining them"?

I always thought that every time you seen the raf regiment they put a smile on your face as on the way back from a patrol you knew you were almost back at base
 
#16
The_Goon said:
Keep the regiment because they guard the airfields and surrounding locale, therefore freeing up the infantry.
If we do keep them after The Defence Review that G Broon is planning, they should be limited to the courese they are able to do, I mean why train them to do things that they will never need?
 
#17
I'm all for keeping the RAF Regt though i'm not sure if there's really a role for airfield defence in the current climate? Insurgents do not possess fighter jets, attack helicopters or bombers and will hardly attack an airfield in large numbers when they can mortar it instead.
 
#18
Good point OS, they don't really have any real job except airfield security, What course training do you need to guard one? Cant be that difficult??
 
#20
The_Goon said:
Ah, either you're trying to get a bite, walt, or you've no real idea how the RAF in general works.

Oh well.
No bite, and i do know better than most how the RAF works. But the RAF is overmanned and largely not fit for purpose and still fighting the cold war.

It needs to be refocussed on CAS, Heli borne inf ops and heavy lift. And the RAF Regt, now having lost its airborne, armoured and AD capabilities could be replaced by Inf or even MPGS in the UK.

If the RAF Regt really still had a role, why is there a defence white paper, which is being taken very seriously reccommending merger with the RAFP into Provost and Security Wings? The fact is better and more useful elements of our armed forces have been didbanded, so why should the axe not fall on the Rock apes?

They are very good troops and well trained, but there usefulness has been diminished by changing priorities, defence cuts and the end of the cold war.

We need highly mobile forces today, with long reach and deployability, not an elite static defence force.
 

Latest Threads

Top