Times up for the RAF

[Snap Cap]

The government in its wisdom are seriously considering doing away with the RAF they feel we no longer need them due to obviously money, planes don't come cheap and they think the navy and army could take over thier duties during conflict.

Jeremy Vine was discussing this on Radio 2 yetserday and as usual sat on the fence. There was obvious outcry both for and against the removal but I have to admit those who emailed and phoned in with thier views for doing away with the RAF put up a good argument but those against all seemed to have more emotional reasons for keeping it such as "my dad was in the RAF"

 

Not 100% sure myself but it made for interesting listening.

[southwest_colonel]

The government in its wisdom are seriously considering doing away with the RAF they feel we no longer need them due to obviously money, planes don't come cheap and they think the navy and army could take over thier duties during conflict.

Jeremy Vine was discussing this on Radio 2 yetserday and as usual sat on the fence. There was obvious outcry both for and against the removal but I have to admit those who emailed and phoned in with thier views for doing away with the RAF put up a good argument but those against all seemed to have more emotional reasons for keeping it such as "my dad was in the RAF"

 

Not 100% sure myself but it made for interesting listening.

I am fully in support of any move along the lines of disbanding the RAF and splitting its roles between the RN and Army. It is the only force which is solely a support service. You will never have an operation which is led by, and comprised almost entirely of Air Force assets and personnel. It also has by far the longest bureaucratic chain of any of the armed forces - the FAA and AAC manage to put airframes in the sky without so many administrative personnel. Were the roles distributed between the RN and Army, just losing much of this chain would make huge savings (as they would hopefully look to implement their own administrative and engineering blueprints for efficiency) - that's not even considering the cost of simply having a service, regardless of who is employed.

 

Importantly, it would significantly streamline the procurement process which, you have to admit, is pretty shocking at the moment. Currently, you have the RN and Army trying to put their cases forward - they have (reasonably) clear ideas of what capabilities they desire in x number of years time, and what they will need to provide the requirements. Then you have a support service (yes, I will continue to call the RAF a support service, as I will continue to call a spade a spade). They are also bidding for their pet projects (Eurofighter anyone?) - the problem is that the RAF should be bidding on the appropriate air assets to support land or sea operations, they don't always. And often that is at the detriment of those on the front-line.

 

There are other arguments, but, for my money, these are the most convincing two.

[PUSC]

im with him

[mick miller]

Ditto.

[wymberley]

Per Mare

Per Terram

By Heck

[bigt1754]

So it'll be the Air Force with a different badge then??

 

We have the best armed forces in the world and just putting a different badge on a plane doesn't mean you need less support for those aircraft, if this happens, those in the RAF will simply put on an army/navy uniform instead. Or do you suggest employing and training new staff and making those already trained redundant?? BONKERS

 

Happy days

 

bigt

[DSPUK]

I would have listened to it but I can't stand the voice of Jeremy Whine

 

Dave

[Chris Bb]

I would have listened to it but I can't stand the voice of Jeremy Whine

[Piebob]

It is the only force which is solely a support service.

 

Incorrect, the RAF is currently tasked with the defence of UK airspace. However, pretty much agree with everything else you said.

 

But, I might play devil's advocate and say - why do we need ANY armed forces at all? It's not the cold war any more, and the terrorist threat/activity is handled by other agencies.

[kdubya]

the pussers and the army have been trying to do away with the raf since 1919 they have not manged yet and they wont manage in future.

 

KW

[Bagsy]

I am fully in support of any move along the lines of disbanding the RAF and splitting its roles between the RN and Army. It is the only force which is solely a support service. You will never have an operation which is led by, and comprised almost entirely of Air Force assets and personnel. It also has by far the longest bureaucratic chain of any of the armed forces - the FAA and AAC manage to put airframes in the sky without so many administrative personnel. Were the roles distributed between the RN and Army, just losing much of this chain would make huge savings (as they would hopefully look to implement their own administrative and engineering blueprints for efficiency) - that's not even considering the cost of simply having a service, regardless of who is employed.

 

Importantly, it would significantly streamline the procurement process which, you have to admit, is pretty shocking at the moment. Currently, you have the RN and Army trying to put their cases forward - they have (reasonably) clear ideas of what capabilities they desire in x number of years time, and what they will need to provide the requirements. Then you have a support service (yes, I will continue to call the RAF a support service, as I will continue to call a spade a spade). They are also bidding for their pet projects (Eurofighter anyone?) - the problem is that the RAF should be bidding on the appropriate air assets to support land or sea operations, they don't always. And often that is at the detriment of those on the front-line.

 

There are other arguments, but, for my money, these are the most convincing two.

 

:blink: exactly as said above. The idea of merging the RAF with the Army and Navy has been discussed for some years and would, in my opinion, maximise the efficiency of our forces by ridding them of all the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.

 

Should have been done years ago

[wymberley]

the pussers and the army have been trying to do away with the raf since 1919 they have not manged yet and they wont manage in future.

 

KW

Good man.

"Trenchard Brat"

[bigchap]

what a load of cobblers,the pongoes couldn't maintain a bmx bike let alone a front line combat aircraft.what aircraft can the navy put up that are as capable as a typhoon or tornado?

who flies the awacs and tankers?

who will train the forces taking over the raf's role?

it will cost more not less.

[Ozzy Fudd]

I am fully in support of any move along the lines of disbanding the RAF and splitting its roles between the RN and Army. It is the only force which is solely a support service. You will never have an operation which is led by, and comprised almost entirely of Air Force assets and personnel. It also has by far the longest bureaucratic chain of any of the armed forces - the FAA and AAC manage to put airframes in the sky without so many administrative personnel. Were the roles distributed between the RN and Army, just losing much of this chain would make huge savings (as they would hopefully look to implement their own administrative and engineering blueprints for efficiency) - that's not even considering the cost of simply having a service, regardless of who is employed.

 

Importantly, it would significantly streamline the procurement process which, you have to admit, is pretty shocking at the moment. Currently, you have the RN and Army trying to put their cases forward - they have (reasonably) clear ideas of what capabilities they desire in x number of years time, and what they will need to provide the requirements. Then you have a support service (yes, I will continue to call the RAF a support service, as I will continue to call a spade a spade). They are also bidding for their pet projects (Eurofighter anyone?) - the problem is that the RAF should be bidding on the appropriate air assets to support land or sea operations, they don't always. And often that is at the detriment of those on the front-line.

 

There are other arguments, but, for my money, these are the most convincing two.

 

im all for streamlining the raf bureacy, but disbanding it because its a only a "support" service?! :blink:

 

:blink: thats daft. as has already been stated, the raf are here to defend uk airspace. yes, they support alot of ground operations, but dont forget all the bombing/air superiority roles they have - opening stages of the two gulf wars spring to mind first. hopefully it never happens, but what would happen if we ended up in a war against a proper military; ie, one with fast jets, bombers, etc. how would the raf stand up to that if theyve replaced everything with transports and the odd ground attack air craft? thats sound military logic that is, we dont need it at the moment so we wont bother preparing for it!

 

as for the arguments for disbanding the raf, following that logic, why not just disband everything - the army, navy, raf - and alamagate it into uk military incorporated? when was the last time a royal navy frigate fought properly in a war, ie an intership battle? so theyre pretty useless then, apart from sailing about the world stopping the odd drug runner or somali pirate or transporting troops. what about the royal marines? why do they come under the navy, as basically they get used as soldiers - surely they should come under the army? sure they even use army ranks! as for the army itself, when was the last time they had a proper tank battle? or when was the last time the para's had to parachute into a hot lz to fight? so we dont need those either then :blink:

 

sorry lads, i know alot of people on here are serving in all 3 services, im not trying to insult anyone or put any of the services down, im just trying to put things into perspective a bit!

[welsh1]

The RAF could come "home" to the army,after all it was Her Majesty's Corp of The Royal Engineers that formed them . :blink:

 

13 April 1912 King George V signed a royal warrant establishing the Royal Flying Corps. The Air Battalion of the Royal Engineers became the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps a month later on 13 May

[Floating Chamber]

The government in its wisdom are seriously considering doing away with the RAF they feel we no longer need them due to obviously money, planes don't come cheap and they think the navy and army could take over thier duties during conflict.

Jeremy Vine was discussing this on Radio 2 yetserday and as usual sat on the fence. There was obvious outcry both for and against the removal but I have to admit those who emailed and phoned in with thier views for doing away with the RAF put up a good argument but those against all seemed to have more emotional reasons for keeping it such as "my dad was in the RAF"

 

Not 100% sure myself but it made for interesting listening.

 

Why not sub-contract the Luftwaffe. Surely they'd do it at a discount. We had the chance 70 years ago, but turned it down.

[Blacksheep]

what a load of cobblers,the pongoes couldn't maintain a bmx bike let alone a front line combat aircraft.what aircraft can the navy put up that are as capable as a typhoon or tornado?

 

Who do you think flys and maintains the Apache then? the most advanced attack helicopter on the planet ,its also the hardest aircraft to fly there is.

Army Air Corps , thats who!!!!

[wymberley]

Who do you think flys and maintains the Apache then? the most advanced attack helicopter on the planet ,its also the hardest aircraft to fly there is.

Army Air Corps , thats who!!!!

Funny, the female captain pilot that was interviewd on the TV within the past few days said it was easy to fly; and that it was the weaponry that was more complex.

Cheers

[pavman]

my lad just signed up for another 4 years and the contract says he cant leave and they cant ditch him :blink:

[Zapp]

what a load of cobblers,the pongoes couldn't maintain a bmx bike let alone a front line combat aircraft.what aircraft can the navy put up that are as capable as a typhoon or tornado?

who flies the awacs and tankers?

who will train the forces taking over the raf's role?

it will cost more not less.

 

You need to read between the lines on this one. If you or I were chairing a defence review that was seriously looking at scrapping the RAF as a standalone service, you can be very sure that we would be doing so on the basis that a pretty fundamental shift in our defence policy is about to take place. Nobody will take over the role of the RAF because we may be about to completely change the way we defend the UK.

 

If you cannot afford force projection which is tied to airbases such as frontline combat aircraft, tankers or AWACS (and we cannot), then you dont need the RAF. Dont forget that we rely on other nations for an awful lot of what the RAF is mandated to do. Much of our conventional strategic deterrent such as air defence comes from our membership of the EU and NATO. We pay to rent transport helicopters from former Soviet countries in Afghanistan and our only strategic super-heavy lift capability comes from us renting an An-124 from Ukraine.

 

Think about it this way; imagine all the things you would no longer need to pay for if you binned most of your expeditionary capability, formed a home-defence force and backed it up with a couple of JSF equipped carriers and a Trident replacement as a strategic deterrant.

[Bluebarrels]

my lad just signed up for another 4 years and the contract says he cant leave and they cant ditch him :blink:

 

No your right,but he could be changing uniforms as long as they offer him work to see out his contract,thats that,and if he declines hes making himself jobless BB

 

I also think Raf contracts should be 22 years,why should they be able to serve until 55?

 

Why do they go operational,and stay in 5 star hotels,when the men doing the work live in **** for 6/7 months

(hence the reason anyone from the Raf will say ,(well check in ,you dig in)

 

Why have the Raf got so many fat senior ranks, (because life is easy for them)?(desk jockeys)

 

Why do they find it a problem to maintain and fly 1 tristar,when the rest of the fleet is us?

 

Why do the British Infantry battalions rely on Fast air from the Americans 90% of the time on ops?

 

wake up and smell the coffee,this has been a long time coming,but theve finally been sussed

 

And yes before anyone,jumps down my throat,ive served for 27 years and seen first hand,everything ive mentioned above.BB

Edited August 11, 2010 by Bluebarrels

[The original sad lad]

WE SHOULD ALL MAKE LOVE NOT WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :blink:

[shaun4860]

No your right,but he could be changing uniforms :blink: as long as they offer him work to see out his contract,thats that,and if he declines hes making himself jobless BB

 

I also think Raf contracts should be 22 years,why should they be able to serve until 55?

 

Why do they go operational,and stay in 5 star hotels,when the men doing the work live in **** for 6/7 months

(hence the reason anyone from the Raf will say ,(well check in ,you dig in)

 

Why have the Raf got so many fat senior ranks, (because life is easy for them)?(desk jockeys)

 

Why do they find it a problem to maintain and fly 1 tristar,when the rest of the fleet is us?

 

Why do the British Infantry battalions rely on Fast air from the Americans 90% of the time on ops?

 

wake up and smell the coffee,this has been a long time coming,but theve finally been sussed

 

And yes before anyone,jumps down my throat,ive served for 27 years and seen first hand,everything ive mentioned above.BB

 

 

Not a fan of the RAF then......my nephew is in at the mo.....he thinks he is doing a good job....

 

My dad thought he was doing a good job for 23years...maybe there were wrong and they are all **** as you say.....everyone has opinions.....

 

Oh and just to finish with.......was it the USAF or the RAF that bombed our troops by accident....... blue on blue i think its called....and on more than one occasion

 

Maybe we do need to rethink our defence strategy but let them do it.....we dont need backbiting amongst our own troops...

 

shaun

Edited August 11, 2010 by shaun4860

[jasper3]

Ummm . I'm ex Army and proud of it...

yesterday i stood along side many RAF airmen from the RAF regt who were saying goodbye to one of thier brothers who died in Afghanistan, he wasn't there on holiday

he was my neighbours son, doing his bit

also at the funearal were sailors soldiers and marines.... does a cap badge really mean so much does a colour of a uniform really mean so much

no..of course they don't...its the job the lads do, that means so much, weather he/she is flying a plane or sweeping up the camp..they are all part of a well oild machine

 

jeremy Vine is a ****** and couldnt fight off a cold

 

I will always support our lads , esp when on active duty they are all out there doing a job..back them with pride not **** them with insults

[shaun4860]

Ummm . I'm ex Army and proud of it...

yesterday i stood along side many RAF airmen from the RAF regt who were saying goodbye to one of thier brothers who died in Afghanistan, he wasn't there on holiday

he was my neighbours son, doing his bit

also at the funearal were sailors soldiers and marines.... does a cap badge really mean so much does a colour of a uniform really mean so much

no..of course they don't...its the job the lads do, that means so much, weather he/she is flying a plane or sweeping up the camp..they are all part of a well oild machine

 

jeremy Vine is a ****** and couldnt fight off a cold

 

I will always support our lads , esp when on active duty they are all out there doing a job..back them with pride not **** them with insults

 

 

well said.... :blink:

 

shaun