Abolish the RAF

Maskhadov

The title of this thread is a nonsense. There is no way any right thinking western nation is going to do away with its air force. A responsible nation takes care of its nations security and doesnt have to ask someone else.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

The title of this thread is a nonsense. There is no way any right thinking western nation is going to do away with its air force. A responsible nation takes care of its nations security and doesnt have to ask someone else.

You mean like the US which has three of the world biggest airforces, the USAF, USN, USMC was able to take care of its nation security? :rolleyes:

Maskhadov

Exactly. The USA went on the offensive post 911 after the terrrorists. The war in iraq may be wrong but Bin Laden hasnt been up to much in Afganistan since american ground forces went in there.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

Exactly. The USA went on the offensive post 911 after the terrrorists. The war in iraq may be wrong but Bin Laden hasnt been up to much in Afganistan since american ground forces went in there.

So having the 3 biggest airforces in the world was usless for defending their airspace but great for bombing other countries, especially those without a credible airforce. So which country would you like the Air Corp to bomb?

Dub13

Maskhadov wrote:

There is no way any right thinking western nation is going to do away with its air force.

The Canadians did.

IrishAirCorps

cork1 wrote:

Harriers take off vertically most of the time so why did they have a ramp for launching aswell.

Wrong, Harriers only take off vertically when in training and on an empty payload, they have the ski jump as its called on the carriers as the harrier wastes an awful amout of fuel if it trys to take off vertically with a payload so its economical to use the length of the carrier for take off and the ski jump gives the aircraft an added boost to get airborne with a payload much like the USN uses the Catapult to boost the Aircraft to get her airborne.

IrishAirCorps

Dub13 wrote:

The Canadians did.

Wrong, the Western nation that got rid of its Airforce was New Zealand, Canada still operates FA-18's etc and deploys overseas.

TempestSabre

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Wrong, Harriers only take off vertically when in training and on an empty payload, they have the ski jump as its called on the carriers as the harrier wastes an awful amout of fuel if it trys to take off vertically with a payload so its economical to use the length of the carrier for take off and the ski jump gives the aircraft an added boost to get airborne with a payload much like the USN uses the Catapult to boost the Aircraft to get her airborne.

Did you disagree with what everyone else posted or something?

Dub13

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Wrong, the Western nation that got rid of its Airforce was New Zealand, Canada still operates FA-18's etc and deploys overseas.

The Canadian and New Zealand setups are similar.

Canadian Forces Air Command (AIRCOM) is the air force element of the Canadian Forces. AIRCOM is the descendant of the Royal Canadian Air Force.In 1968 aircraft and bases of the Royal Canadian Air Force were scattered across several different commands of the newly unified Canadian Forces.

Maskhadov

Dub13 wrote:

The Canadians did.

They didnt get rid of their F 18 fighters did they ?

TempestSabre wrote:

So having the 3 biggest airforces in the world was usless for defending their airspace but great for bombing other countries, especially those without a credible airforce. So which country would you like the Air Corp to bomb?

I would like to see the Air Corps being able to properly defend its airspace and also participate in foreign UN missions where modern fighter jets and helicopters are required.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

...I would like to see the Air Corps being able to properly defend its airspace...

Somehow I think if the US couldn't...

Maskhadov wrote:

... and also participate in foreign UN missions where modern fighter jets and helicopters are required.

For example?

Maskhadov

of the top of my head Liberia..

The USA has a lot of problems with departments not communicating with each other.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

of the top of my head Liberia..

The USA has a lot of problems with departments not communicating with each other.

Its not a USA only problem.

Whats needed in Liberia? What UN air forces are there currently?

Maskhadov

Its particularly noted in the US though.

Lots of helicopters are needed. Fighter jets were required in Iraq for years.

TempestSabre

You mean Ireland doesn't? This from the place that has a national aquatic center that leaking water out of it, and a port tunnel thats leaking water into it.

Actually they needed fighter bombers, not fighters. Big difference. The fighter squadrons F15c's in irag actually had to be rotated home more often as they were getting rusty having nothing to do over there. They were actually more active on when at home training.

Bombers and Helicopters have nothing to do with defending airspace.

bostonian

isn't there a massive administrative cost involved in eliminating the RAF? new uniforms, paperwork issues, business cards/letterheads... it would cost more unless they eliminated staff.

OS119

bostonian wrote:

isn't there a massive administrative cost involved in eliminating the RAF? new uniforms, paperwork issues, business cards/letterheads... it would cost more unless they eliminated staff.

not really, the savings involved in 'slimming' the both over-officered and over-ranked RAF would be considerable. i read somewhere that 1 in 13 members of the Army is an officer, wheras 1 in 3 members of the RAF is an officer. that costs, particularly given the apparent tradition within the RAF that almost all jobs are staffed by people of significantly higher rank than those in equivilent jobs in the Army or Navy. bringing - over time - the rank/age structure of the RAF into line with the other services would save a staggering amount of money.

thats not to say i think its a particularly good idea - purely because no Navy or Army has yet demonstrated that it can manage the control of Air Doctrine without being partial to its own doctrine - and therefore allowing both 'pure' air doctrine, and the needs of the other service to suffer.

the current debate is brought about by two factors: firstly that currently pretty much 95% of RAF activity is directly in tactical support or Army activity - SH, AT, CAS, ISTAR - so the argument goes "why have a seperate air arm when the Army is, in effect, the command authority for the RAF? - its almost like the Royal Artillery being a seperate service - which would be ludicrous"

secondly its Army dissatisfaction with the RAF, both on a doctrine level - SH almost non-existant, AT on the verge of total collapse, CAS as an apparent very low priority while the RAF is spending massive amounts on an Air Superiority Fighter - which a few BEAR H's to the contrary, we aren't going to get much use out of - all 20 years after it became very apparent to the UK defence establishment that expeditionary warfare was going to be the 'next big thing' and whats needed for Expeditionary Warfare is Air Transport, Support Helicopters, Intelligence Surveilence Target Aquisition and Reconnaissance, and Close Air Support - effectively that the RAF is still trapped in a Cold War mindset. on an individual level you'd be hard pushed to find a soldier who hasn't been fcuked around by the RAF, everything from being left in Afghanistan for three weeks after your tour has ended because the RAF can't find an aircraft to bring you home, to the moronic and jobsworth attitude of the RAF Police and RAF Movers when soldiers use their 'services'


as you can imagine, the nuances of a discussion on AirPower and its role on the modern battlefield can get put to one side when such things happen, in the 'should the RAF exist as a seperate service' debate, the RAF is usually its own worst enemy...