Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Disband the RAF?

There is certainly a case for looking at their force structure, particularly for rotorheads and fast jet. There are some things that only the RAF can do - long range heavy transport and tanking and some of the high-end ISTAR bits. You could never do them any other way, so get them some more heavy airlift and FSTA and let them crack on.

On the r/w front, the situation is less clear. The CHF & TWA (as was) seem to be able to generate large numbers of aircraft / sorties from one base and three and a bit squadrons, flying very old a/c. Not quite the same from Benson & Odiham - they probably manage the sorties, but with a lot more manpower. At the end of the day, they support and are tasked by troops - why not put them there.

More controversially, do we need a land-based fast jet force that cannot (in the main) deploy aboard ship? The capability argument is largely due to our legacy CVS and STOVL fleets - the same did not apply in the 70s when Crab Air was potentially highly deployable (Phantoms & Buccs anyone?). It certainly wouldn't apply against a US CVW with F14/E2/F18 (preferably A6) - would you back a bunch of Tornados (F3 and GR4) against that? The argument that only the RAF can defend the UK is daft - we've just retired the best radar/missile combo from the RN. If the RN flew F14 or the like, no-one would raise the issue.

Their final argument tends to be that they can get to theatre quickest. Problem is, all their F34 (should be F44) and munitions come by sea, unless they are fortunate enough to get full HNS (it's not just runways required). With a carrier, it all comes with you (and the RFA).

Problem is that we've once again missed the boat as Typhoon is too late to cancel. There will be 2 RN squadrons (plus up to two RAF) with F-35 that can go to sea, from a total of ~20 squadrons. If we're still putting people in fast jets in twenty years, we should be looking to buy high-performance aircraft that can fly off ships and form ~12-15 squadrons of em total. If the RAF don't want to go to sea occasionally then tough, re-badge them. It would also give the WAFU fraternity some sort of sustained break between ops/deployments (ditto CHF who are even busier). Shut down some of the RAF stations and you might also save some money.

It'll never happen, although its funny seeing the light-blue boys going ape on the PPrune forums, banging on about how only the RAF understand application of airpower doctrine etc - very joint thinking.....
 
PartTimePongo said:
I was a young Staff Cadet at Malling back in 19depressing when 618VGS were there.

The pub I remember at the time was the Startled Saint.

Have you seen the ghosts yet CheefTiff? :)

Nope, no ghosts yet matey.

Didi I stir up a hornets nest with my talk of RAF West Malling etc. I wasn't harping on about it you know. It was just that in another forum guys were discussing the lack of attention this year to VE day which reminded me of the part the crabs played.

As for todays lot, well I know nothing about them and bow to the better judgement of those who do. That said, I have to say that in the modern war, it must make sense to maintain a strong air force along with a strong Fleet air capability.

As I said once before elsewhere, it makes sense to get maximum bang per buck and to that end they should be making sure that our equipment can operate in any theatre. By this I mean that new aircraft coming on stream need to be able to multi task, land on carriers, take off in a field etc etc.....you know what I am talking about !

The more capable and flexible our equipment, the better the chance iour lads will have when the balloon goes up. Lately though the opposite seems to be the case if I can believe what I see in the press.. You tell me active servers - are you sent out to fight with poor kit, missing kit etc etc. I can only say that as the Falklands kicked off - a constant stream of choppers were hovering over our deck dropping on cargo nets full of the goodies we had been asking for months/years. Suddenly they became available.

These days I just hear of lads going to war without flak jackets, guns that jam (old story) etc etc. All through piss poor procurement it seems to me....oh and penny pinching !
 
But punisher, the thread is Disband the RAF? I think that suggests a debate as to whether the RAF are viable in todays military thinking, not the guards or the para's and today not WWII or the Falklands!
 
capt-ahab said:
Some of you have probably already seen this - been on arrse already but wondered what the feeling would be over here?

It’s time to abolish the RAF according to Col Tim Collins

"We’d have a more efficient, streamlined armed forces without the air corps" apparently - what you reckon to this?

Edited to add the link I forgot to put in!

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=482

Just a quickie to confirm things: Was Col Collins referring to the RAF or the Army Air Corps?.
 
Old_Hand said:
capt-ahab said:
Some of you have probably already seen this - been on arrse already but wondered what the feeling would be over here?

It’s time to abolish the RAF according to Col Tim Collins

"We’d have a more efficient, streamlined armed forces without the air corps" apparently - what you reckon to this?

Edited to add the link I forgot to put in!

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=482

Just a quickie to confirm things: Was Col Collins referring to the RAF or the Army Air Corps?.

Whoops, perhaps I should have had a look at the link before entering the above. All is now clear.
 
It would be a hateful world without Crabair. Who would we look to for a better example of Conditions of Service? We may have taken the mighty p*** out of the light blue for their penchant for hotel accommodation, but it was really only because we thought that we should get the same. Their messes are almost always better appointed than ours and their married quarters usually bigger, better and more comfortable.

OK, so anytime you want to fly anywhere the crew are always "out of hours" and they will insist on wearing growbags in the messes, but that's a small price to pay for the entertainment value!
 
Just a reminder to Not a Boffin , reference Buccaneer and Phantoms, sorry mate they were crewed by the RN,or FAA if you like, the only RAF guys were on exchange ,as were some French and other Nationalities.They were Naval aircraft, not Crabair.
 
No mate. I know 809 and 892 were FAA with the odd crab supplement.

I was talking about the rest of the RAF that ended up flying naval aircraft as their much-vaunted procurements (TSR2, then F111) fell through and they had to buy and fly Phantom FGR2 and the Bucc S2 - both of which were eventually retired in the late 80s and early 90s. Not before the last of the Buccs had done a sterling job on Granby.

I forget the exact totals, but at one stage I think the RAF had at least 10 Phantom squadrons (they also absorbed the RN FG1 variant when 892 decommissioned) and another four or five Bucc sqds.

The initial crab Phantoms didn't have the extended nosegear to get sufficient AoA to use the cats on Ark & Eagle, but that would not have been a major drama to sort. The Buccs should have been fine from the off.

The point I was making is that back then, there was the possibility that (only!) if needed, a large proportion of crab aircraft could have been operated off a carrier (standfast carquals etc). Now, with the exception of GR7&9s (~50 airframes out of 300+), none of them can.
 
higthepig said:
Just a reminder to Not a Boffin , reference Buccaneer and Phantoms, sorry mate they were crewed by the RN,or FAA if you like, the only RAF guys were on exchange ,as were some French and other Nationalities.They were Naval aircraft, not Crabair.

So after the flat tops went, why did my brother, Pilot Crabair fly a Bucc all over Europe, Africa and Canada whilst part of the strangth of RAF Squadrons, Not on Exchange.

Because the Crabs took over the Bucc's so Not-a-Boff had his facts correct.

Nutty
 
Errr the RAF are the best Airforce in the world? Don't think so ole' chap. They may be in spirit and they may have some top-hole chaps and chapesses in their ranks but seeing as Monsieur Bliar and his turds have cut them to ribbons in the last few years, they are hardly a force to be reckoned with.

It doesnt matter how good you are as a pilot, in the modern tecno world your dead without even seeing your enemy and we just don't have the bells and whistles to put up much of a fight against another major airpower.

Shame we just bought the Typhoon and forgot to put any guns in it, seems like the MOD has forgotten about Vietnam methinks.

Although I think it is absolute bollox that anyone should think of disbanding them. They should be getting more money and be given something that can mount a decent Close Air Support role....errrr like the Harrier.
 
Yes Nutty,until the flattops went,they were navy, after that the RAF took them over and flew them for over 25 years,buthey were navy first thats the point im trying to make. where could the navy use them without any carriers?It was originally the NA39(blackburn)NA standing for Naval Aircraft.
 
H-t-P

We're all agreeing furiously here. The reason the Phantom (Navy FG1 and RAF FGR2) and the Bucc could have been deployed aboard ship was that they were originally designed by McDonnell-Douglas to fly off carriers. The RN got about 30 Phantoms, the RAF got another 90-odd.

The Navy (or crabs for that matter) could use them aboard ship or from land - depends what the Op calls for at the time and is pretty much how the USMC operate their F-18s/Harriers and (when they had them Phantoms and A-6s). If the US Navy is short of a squadron to go on a carriers particular deployment, they can basically put a Marine squadron into the carrier air wing in no time at all. The converse is also true - the US Navy were operating EA6's out of Aviano airbase throughout the Balkans ops and the USN fighter squadrons were all flying ADIZ patrols on 9-12.

The lunacy of the current situation is that the UK will in effect run two parallel fast-jet fleets. The junior partner (Joint Force Harrier) gets a limited number of airframes to run four squadrons (including 800/801NAS) that can truly go anywhere - not because they're STOVL necessarily, but because they're carrier compatible. Even if we buy the F35C (the Proper variant of JSF) we'd still have the same situation. The rest of the RAF (likely to be upwards of 16 squadrons) will be running round in Typhoons and Tornados, capable of deploying shoreside only, with HNS. Why not make sure that any future RAF fast-jet is procured from the off to be at least carrier-compatible? As the F14, F18, Phantom and Bucc have shown - you don't get a low-performance aircraft from a naval spec.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the FAA is subsumed into the RAF - we've been there before in the 30s and it was bollocks for a number of reasons (although the gradual slide of JFH into part of Strike Command gives cause for concern). Nor am I suggesting that all the crabs should be made to wear dark blue, it would lead to mass exodus, lower the tone in the wardroom and ACRB and cause a collapse in hoteliers share prices (had to get that one in!).

It's too late to do it in this generation for the UK, but next time round, IF we're still putting men in fast-jets, then it should be considered. Don't know whether the French Air Force variant of Rafale is carrier capable, but they're much closer to that ideal than we are.
 
having read the article now I can see the logic of some of their argument for disbanding the RAF. For instance they could lose a few unneeded senior officers I guess and I doubt anyone would notice.

As for the RN taking over the aircraft and air/ground crew I am not so sure. Wafu's please - would we actually want to ?

After all, what use is a Typhoon right now - can it land on a CVS ?

As for giving the helos' to the Army - well damned fine idea as long as the RN can keep its own - on its own bases.

far more radical I feel though would be to keep the RAF and transfer all the ships and submarines to them, then they can be Senior Service at last a privilege I know the "boys in blue" have craved for years.
 
What we need for all services is more funding, thats it. It wouldn't make much difference if they did disband the RAF, they'd probably use it as an excuse for more defence cut-backs. What we need is a defence minister who was in one of the services!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top