Times up for the RAF

[KFC]

I think it's inevitable that the RAF will revert to being part of the army. It doesn't need to be a stand alone force any more.

 

As far as the defence needs of the country goes then I think the need for defence is diminishing.

 

Thanks to privatisation most of what we had is now owned by foreign countries so they don't need to take it.

The other side of that same coin is that any country that attacked us now would be attacking their own assets. :o

[kdubya]

I think it's inevitable that the RAF will revert to being part of the army. It doesn't need to be a stand alone force any more.

 

As far as the defence needs of the country goes then I think the need for defence is diminishing.

 

Thanks to privatisation most of what we had is now owned by foreign countries so they don't need to take it.

The other side of that same coin is that any country that attacked us now would be attacking their own assets. :o

 

 

 

If the RAF was broken up and handed to the army and navy who would operate the transport squadrons (VC10s, tristars, hercs, C-17s and a variety of helicopters such as the apache attack squadrons)? Who would own the pilot and maintainer training schools? Who would own the tanker force? Who would own the chinook force (which operates from land bases, carriers or special ships like HMS Ocean), or the Pumas, or the Merlins? Who would own the strategic intel assets like the awacs.

 

This is one of those rather silly suggestions which do not survive exploration of the detail.

 

As for attcking their own assets by attacking us does that mean bradford and luton will not be targeted?

 

KW

[Bluebarrels]

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

 

shaun

 

Thats correct blue on blue,but when you work out how many times theve got us out the ****,were bound to take casualties(fact) but please dont forget how many they have saved in the process :o

 

And as for backbiting,get back in your pram :blink: its not backbiting mate its called having an opinion,it might not be your opinion,but it certainley is mine BB

 

and to jasper3,im sorry to hear about your neighbours loss,very sad news

 

Im not attacking individuals by any means,its the system i disagree with at times so i hope no offence was taken as none was meant

Edited August 12, 2010 by Bluebarrels

[Ozzy Fudd]

Thats correct blue on blue,but when you work out how many times theve got us out the ****,were bound to take casualties(fact) but please dont forget how many they have saved in the process :o

 

 

during ww2 the usaaf was nicknamed the american luftwaffe by their OWN troops because they attacked anything that moved, some things never change. how many blue on blue incidents have the raf been involved in compared to the yanks? :blink:

Edited August 12, 2010 by Ozzy Fudd

[Bluebarrels]

 

during ww2 the usaaf was nicknamed the american luftwaffe by their OWN troops because they attacked anything that moved, some things never change. how many blue on blue incidents have the raf been involved in compared to the yanks?

 

You tell me mate,obviously you have all the answers :o :blink: BB

[shaun4860]

You tell me mate,obviously you have all the answers :o :blink: BB

 

 

you so obviously have an axe to grind with the RAF.....

 

If they have it so good then why didnt you join them instead, or did you try and were rejected....

 

shaun

[Ozzy Fudd]

You tell me mate,obviously you have all the answers :o :blink: BB

 

dont have exact figures, but id say its very few compared to absolute **** loads

[pavman]

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.

 

 

Zapp you speak in riddles my friend are you saying that the nice hooker in Kiev with the rings in tender places will no longer be available to NATO staff from the UK to assist on UK PLC funded fishing trips :o

[wymberley]

The main thrust of this debate is money. SWC criticises the RAF with regard to their procurement process which ultimately effects the troops on the front line unlike the Army that is able to foresee their needs more efficiently. In reply, I would just say, snatch land rovers, body armour and ammunition.

No, all branches of our armed forces are equally (in)efficient and nothing will change in that respect no matter what happens to the RAF. Politicians, many of whom have no business acumen or real experience outside of Wesminster, will want to be seen as being cost conscious. This is as it should be, but if they get it wrong and when related to our armed forces in effect are gambling on history not repeating itself. Big mistake.

The problem is that the system is inherently flawed in as much as the decision makers (this includes the civil service which operates a similar "rank structure") have become institutionalised and corrupted by the system itself. It is a well known saying within the forces that people are promoted one rank above their capability. If the board of directors of a large company wish to replace a retiring head of purchasing and have come to the conclusion that there is no one qualified at present within the company, what do they do? Out-source and head-hunt. The civil service and armed forces must promote from within even though it transpires that that was the "one rank".

Most important of all, is the fact that our forces structure is pyramid shaped, with the wide base supporting the pinnacle. This is a fact that those at the pinnacle would do well to remember. Rumours and indecision about their possible future will de-moralise our troops and cause their departure as opposed to "signing on" and affect recruitment. With the base then eroded, what happens to the pyramid?

Consequently, this whole situation will rumble on ad ifinitum until there's a radical policy change and some high level business acumen is utilised to replace the faltering "old boy network".

 

Cheers, rant over, sorry.

[shaun4860]

well surley the most cost effective way is scrap the lot,

 

reinvest in protecting our shores with nuke missiles, let everyone know we will use them if attacked.

 

once you have your nukes you dont need any armed forces at all.....

 

bring back all our lads and lasses from abroad, put them all on the dole (dont need them/cant afford them)

 

job done.....

 

god im good..... :o

 

shaun

Edited August 12, 2010 by shaun4860

[bruno22rf]

In case we forget-for the first 3 years of WW2 the only way we could strike back at germany was with the RAF-nearly 56000 men paid the ultimate price to defend this country.Since the war succesive governments have raped the RAF to a point at least 20 years ago where the equipment supplied to the service was so outdated that we had (and still have) no way of defending ourselves (all services are in pretty much the same boat).Our Aicraft, once the finest in the world, are now outclassed by most modern countries and our force has become the rubbish bin of the world.I ,for one, would defend the continued existance of the RAF by any means at my disposal but the people of this country need to grow up and realise that we need to spend billions more on the service to get it back to where it should be-our very survival will ,im sure, depend on it within the current generations lifetime.And no-i was never in the RAF.

[Airborne9]

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

 

Pav, i dont understand how he has signed up for another 4 years, we are on an open engagement giving 1 years notice if you want to terminate your contract, plus they can ditch any of us at any time, I have had 2 lads booted out in the last 8 weeks, if you **** about these days then your out just like any other job

[pavman]

Pav, i dont understand how he has signed up for another 4 years, we are on an open engagement giving 1 years notice if you want to terminate your contract, plus they can ditch any of us at any time, I have had 2 lads booted out in the last 8 weeks, if you **** about these days then your out just like any other job

 

I guess dicking around would do it but we are talking under normal conditions......... did it not come out the HMG often leak ideas to see what the public reaction is like ending school milk......... IMHO this is such a case they are testing public opinion knowing the last gov have made an **** of going to war and we are spread so thin and it cost so much we are going to end up with a central european force no doubt run from brussels or dare i say germany with each state comiting something to the pot and you can bet our share we put in will be more than we ever take out. if we brought all our troops home we could make a ring around the coast and stop anyone getting in or the guilty home grown radicals from getting out

 

god save the queen and the rest of them can go poke a stick in there sun dried starfish

[Bluebarrels]

you so obviously have an axe to grind with the RAF.....

 

If they have it so good then why didnt you join them instead, or did you try and were rejected....

 

shaun

 

No axe to grind at all mate,the gay uniform just wasnt my thing i prefered a more manly uniform,hence joining the army (only joking by the way) far too many touchy people use this site and as for being rejected mate,its never happened to me,always been in full time employment ,in a job i like since i was 16,how many people can say that

 

However a top tip for you,the local metalsmith near me has a special deal on at the minute hes grinding axes with 50% off,get yourself down there Obviously you have an axe that needs a new edge BB

Edited August 13, 2010 by Bluebarrels

[SHOOTEMUP]

I guess dicking around would do it but we are talking under normal conditions......... did it not come out the HMG often leak ideas to see what the public reaction is like ending school milk......... IMHO this is such a case they are testing public opinion knowing the last gov have made an **** of going to war and we are spread so thin and it cost so much we are going to end up with a central european force no doubt run from brussels or dare i say germany with each state comiting something to the pot and you can bet our share we put in will be more than we ever take out. if we brought all our troops home we could make a ring around the coast and stop anyone getting in or the guilty home grown radicals from getting out

 

god save the queen and the rest of them can go poke a stick in there sun dried starfish

 

VERY WELL SAID

[wymberley]

Well I'm blowed! BBC teletext:

 

Liam Fox is to re-structure the MoD, ruling out any merger of the armed forces but possibly reducing the number of senior military officers.

 

David Cameron has called in Sir Philip Green (Topshop, etc) to review government spending.

[Ozzy Fudd]

stupid question but has the idea of a combined military (like an american marine corps for example) not been around since the early 70's anyway, it just gets dusted off every few years

[shaun4860]

No axe to grind at all mate,the gay uniform just wasnt my thing i prefered a more manly uniform,hence joining the army (only joking by the way) far too many touchy people use this site and as for being rejected mate,its never happened to me,always been in full time employment ,in a job i like since i was 16,how many people can say that

 

However a top tip for you,the local metalsmith near me has a special deal on at the minute hes grinding axes with 50% off,get yourself down there Obviously you have an axe that needs a new edge BB

 

 

Nah i dont have an axe to grind mate.....

 

Just dont see why people have such a downer on the RAF, as i said my dad did a lot of years in the service and seeing as he isnt alive anymore cant be here to defend the RAF himself.

 

There is a lot of waste in all 3 services at the top, if they reduced whitehall and all the poncing about there the lads and lasses at the front might get what they need but i somehow doubt if that will ever happen.

 

If they brought all 3 services under 1 banner they still wouldnt downsize the old boys at the top....

 

shaun

[Bluebarrels]

Nah i dont have an axe to grind mate.....

 

Just dont see why people have such a downer on the RAF, as i said my dad did a lot of years in the service and seeing as he isnt alive anymore cant be here to defend the RAF himself.

 

There is a lot of waste in all 3 services at the top, if they reduced whitehall and all the poncing about there the lads and lasses at the front might get what they need but i somehow doubt if that will ever happen.

 

If they brought all 3 services under 1 banner they still wouldnt downsize the old boys at the top....

 

shaun

 

And i agree with you on that mate BB

[HDAV]

LEts be realistic they aren't going to make the whole RAF redundant overnight all the assets are owned by the UK government (well most anyway) what they are proposing is a change in strategic command and administrative roles, not replacing the pilots, ground crew and equipment! It will start with the Army and Navy cheifs getting the responsibility divided up and then you loose one senior officer from the RAF (golden parachute no doubt) then they make a next in line high up in navy and army to preserve careers of the top brass and experience, then payroll etc gets changed over for majority of personnel (major ball ache for all involved) then a general streamlining of procurement etc

 

All 3 of the services cross over with RAF regiment, RN Marines, doing soldier stuff, Fleet Air arm and Army Air cor doing air stuff, I'm sure the Army have boats as do RAF (might be a little smaller).

 

Infuriatingly people bang on about why cant we have a force like the US marine Corps..... WE DO and an even better one (if smaller ) The US has huge military forces everything from traditional Land sea and Air to more modern hybrid forces that do everything (US Marine Corps, US Army rangers etc)

 

The RAF provide a critical role but there is no reason they need to be a separate entity same as for the Navy and Army the issue is internal politics and decades of bad attitude between them, at the end of the day they are there to do a dangerous and often under appreciated job sometimes against there instincts and training. It shouldn't matter which badge is on the uniform or what colour it is, what should matter is doing the very best job possible. Its the management that should take the hit not the staff.

[alexr]

There may be more of an argument for reducing the mandarins. There are 80,000 civil servants in the MOD. Also there are common requirements through all branches of the armed forces. They all need to eat, ****, and sleep. Also combined messes might nurture closer co-operation. And the USMC might not be a bad model to follow. However. I have noticed increasing reports in the press of a return to bear heavy bombers prowling the north sea. I suspect the RAF would have to continue in one form or another to perform the role of home land air defense.

The other announcement this week that we were sending two more Tornado's to Afghanistan brought home to me the pitiful resources available. The idea that that would bring the total number of Tornados available in theater to 10...... If that is true then the RAF's fixed wing ground attack capable strength in theater is less than what used to be considered to be squadron strength. It just goes to show what recurrent defense reviews have already done.

[Zapp]

There may be more of an argument for reducing the mandarins. There are 80,000 civil servants in the MOD.

 

It is worth remembering that not all of those 80,000 are "mandarins". There are plenty of MOD civil servants providing intelligence to the troops on the front line, counter terrorist and police forces, developing counter IED equipment and countermeasures etc etc.

 

Any cut to the MOD civil service must be undertaken in line with a rationalisation of the employment of military staff officers in desk jobs. There are huge numbers (thousands) of officers in the various departments of the MOD, being paid 3-4 times the basic rate of their civilian counterparts to do exactly the same work. Some do this work very well indeed, most do not (read the report on the Nimrod enquiry if you dont believe me).

 

They are only in post for 2-3 years, meaning that they barely have time to become proficient in what they are doing before they are posted, in which time they must also make an impact in order to forward their careers, which usually means needless change within the program. This leads to a short-termist attitude, where the results of changes must be realised within the individual's tour in order that they can benefit from it, regardless of whether it negatively impacts the mission.

 

Given that these people are usually at Major/Sqn Leader/Lt Commander level, were you to reassign these people to military roles and move an equivalent civilian into the slot, you would save around £25,000 per head, per annum, whilst achieving greater continuity and stability, with no loss in effectiveness.

[Zapp]

If the RAF was broken up and handed to the army and navy who would operate the transport squadrons (VC10s, tristars, hercs, C-17s and a variety of helicopters such as the apache attack squadrons)? Who would own the pilot and maintainer training schools? Who would own the tanker force? Who would own the chinook force (which operates from land bases, carriers or special ships like HMS Ocean), or the Pumas, or the Merlins? Who would own the strategic intel assets like the awacs.

 

This is one of those rather silly suggestions which do not survive exploration of the detail.

 

As for attcking their own assets by attacking us does that mean bradford and luton will not be targeted?

 

KW

 

Yes, the above makes sense, if you assume that the government intends to continue with exactly the same defence posture but on a tighter budget.

 

If they were to make a radical change to the posture, many of the things you mention could easily be subsumed/axed. Look at what Canada did with it's armed forces a few years ago.

[wymberley]

It is worth remembering that not all of those 80,000 are "mandarins". There are plenty of MOD civil servants providing intelligence to the troops on the front line, counter terrorist and police forces, developing counter IED equipment and countermeasures etc etc.

 

Any cut to the MOD civil service must be undertaken in line with a rationalisation of the employment of military staff officers in desk jobs. There are huge numbers (thousands) of officers in the various departments of the MOD, being paid 3-4 times the basic rate of their civilian counterparts to do exactly the same work. Some do this work very well indeed, most do not (read the report on the Nimrod enquiry if you dont believe me).

 

They are only in post for 2-3 years, meaning that they barely have time to become proficient in what they are doing before they are posted, in which time they must also make an impact in order to forward their careers, which usually means needless change within the program. This leads to a short-termist attitude, where the results of changes must be realised within the individual's tour in order that they can benefit from it, regardless of whether it negatively impacts the mission.

 

Given that these people are usually at Major/Sqn Leader/Lt Commander level, were you to reassign these people to military roles and move an equivalent civilian into the slot, you would save around £25,000 per head, per annum, whilst achieving greater continuity and stability, with no loss in effectiveness.

Yep, Zapp, and not to mention the ongoing saga of the chinook incident.

[berettaman]

Get shot of the white collars first, LEECHES !