View Full Version : Is it time to abolish the RAF - Tim Collins (merged)
Part Time PFOM
14-01-2007, 14:41
Have just read this on First Post. Couldn't get a link to work to it so I have copied the whole thing.
It’s time to abolish the RAF
We’d have a more efficient, streamlined armed forces without the air corps, says tim collins
It was a Labour Government under Harold Wilson that perfected the ruse of taking pressure off the defence minister by setting the three Armed Services against one another. The art was encapsulated in a doctrine known as 'equal pain', in which defence cuts and savings would be imposed equally across the three services. The effect was to provoke bitter inter-service rivalry, which left the Ministry of Defence appearing as a detached and honest broker. It was also a clever and effective way to divide and rule.
One can have a certain sympathy for the Treasury however, as defence is the one public department that regularly comes in over budget - thanks largely to the disastrously inefficient way in which sub-standard equipment is procured. But salaries are also expensive and, in the face of pressure on manning the front line, we need to radically re-address how the cake is sliced.
There is only one service whose work can be undertaken by the other two: the RAF must go
With wars running out of control in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the pressure on forces elsewhere from Africa to the Balkans to who knows where next, we have to take drastic action. A conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach. The defence of the UK now centres on defending our interests overseas. There is no prospect of any significant increase in the share of public money for defence, so we have to come up with a radical way for the armed forces to do what we ask of them within the budget available. I believe this can mean only one thing: we have to lose one of the services.
There is only one service whose work can be undertaken by the other two: the RAF must go.
This would allow us to concentrate the existing Defence budget on just two services and use the vast savings, on infrastructure, senior officers and staff, on the front-line.
The measure would also present us with a terrific opportunity to make savings by rationalising procedures and how we buy our kit. Standardisation would mean economies of scale. The inefficient Defence Logistics Organisation would be much more sharply focused.
In the new expeditionary defence forces, the Navy would continue to shoulder the responsibility of our nuclear deterrent as well as taking over all strike operations - from land and sea. Existing strike aircraft would initially come under the Royal Navy, with interim command going to newly-transferred RAF officers. The procurement of future aircraft would demand an expeditionary capability. The emphasis would be on the ability to launch from aircraft carriers and limited overseas bases as opposed to high-tech interceptors for a war - the Cold War - that is long over.
The Royal Navy would also run all the transport aircraft that go into harm's way, again retaining RAF expertise initially and then evolving its own specialist branch. The remaining air transport tasks, such as carrying stores and passengers would be put out to private contract. (Many of them are already, and the policy brings huge savings.)
The Army would absorb all Special Forces and helicopter operations as well as performing their normal function of seizing and holding ground. This would be the least painful of the changes as helicopter operations have already been rationalised under the Joint Helicopter Command.
Naturally the servicemen and women who make up the RAF would need to be either re-assigned to the other services or given a reasonable redundancy package. There would be little scope to absorb the manpower except for the expensively trained pilots and other specialists. Such a rationalisation should achieve the sort of ground crew to aircraft ratios that are achieved in the Israeli forces for instance, more like ten per air craft than twenty, with a commensurate reduction of senior officers across the remaining services. At present there are more General-rank officers than there are squadrons, in the case of the air force, and ships in the case of the navy.No doubt such a concept will cause a sharp intake of breath. But the Labour administration has left us no choice. We cannot back out of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with honour. Who knows where they will involve our nation in a war next. Like a ship in a storm we have to consider chopping down a mast if we are not all to capsize. We can't function without an army or navy, but we can manage without the RAF.
Anyone care to comment???????
I Look Like Kevin Costner
14-01-2007, 15:10
Have just read this on First Post. Couldn't get a link to work to it so I have copied the whole thing.
Anyone care to comment???????
What the Armed Forces of GB?, The Canadians did it and everybody there F****** hated it!! I would be surprized if many specialists would transfer. I joined the Air Force because it was that. I had no intent of training to be infantry (although such a task could fall on us) or to be a Rating! Tried and test methods formed over years in the RAF are being binned because the Army have more officers on the Committees that the experts on that field!! Joint Service regs really do my head in!!Off Topic
Captain Gatso
14-01-2007, 15:11
They way things are now. I would bet money, that the government have already considerd such a thing. I mentioned in another thread that the RAF self destruct button has been pushed. I think it's only a matter of time.
I Look Like Kevin Costner
14-01-2007, 15:36
They way things are now. I would bet money, that the government have already considerd such a thing. I mentioned in another thread that the RAF self destruct button has been pushed. I think it's only a matter of time.
If it is then, the RFC and RNAS will be back. However, I bet it would not be too long before they will be fighting to be independent again like in 1917-18!
Bring it on is what I say, gratuity and pension now please and I will walk out the door without an argument at all.
I am sure there are plenty other folks feel like this too...................
Captain Gatso
14-01-2007, 15:47
Here is a thought. if something like this was to happen. ( I pretty much think it could.) How are they going to keep bods such as techies or aircrew from walking out the door straight away?. What could they offer, to any of us to make us stay. When things are so **** now.:PDT_Xtremez_28:
Here is a thought. if something like this was to happen. ( I pretty much think it could.) How are they going to keep bods such as techies or aircrew from walking out the door straight away?. What could they offer, to any of us to make us stay. When things are so **** now.:PDT_Xtremez_28:
Why would you want to stay if the Army are in charge, regardless of what they offer you? Having seen the way their managment system works I wouldn't work for the clowns full stop.
Realist78
14-01-2007, 15:51
Given that we can't (as yet) change the laws of physics and have people in more than one place at once, how the f@ck can wallahs from our 2 sister services carry out the tasks we do as well as their own? Everyone is already at minimum manning. However, it would not surprise me in the least if that bunch of myopics in Westminster tried to go down this route. As already pointed out, the Canadians did this in 1968 and it took them 17 years to get back to sensibility, but we Brit's know best don't we?
Captain Gatso
14-01-2007, 16:07
If it did go down this route. I say, "here you go. Here are all the bulging F 700's for the jets with the ADF's and Lims. The worn out tools are in the back, of our leaky, worn out hangers. What's left of the spares are in stores. We can't order any new ones, as there's none. Lits is'nt working at the moment, don't know how to fix it. Knock yourselves out, as we ain't staying".:PDT_Xtremez_17:
NotFlippinFixed
14-01-2007, 16:28
What an appalling thought. Like many I joined the RAF not the bloody army. I would be happy to take early retirement on a change of conditions as I would certainly not stay.
It would save bugger all in cash and achieve nothing. The army are already struggling to operate the Apache as they think aircrew officers are in it for a career so they are only there for a tour or two, and the SNCO crew they treat like ****e. The Apache should be moved to the RAF and flown and maintained by aviation specialists... they can keep their landrovers, tanks and horses!
NFF
Quote:
Existing strike aircraft would initially come under the Royal Navy, with interim command going to newly-transferred RAF officers. The procurement of future aircraft would demand an expeditionary capability. The emphasis would be on the ability to launch from aircraft carriers and limited overseas bases as opposed to high-tech interceptors for a war - the Cold War - that is long over.
So let me get this right, to save money the RN would take over the A/C that we have to operate on A/C carriers.
1st Problem the majority of RAF A/C dont operate off A/C carriers:PDT_Xtremez_32: so new A/C would have to be sought at great expense to operate off the carriers.
2nd We dont have the carriers to operate off :PDT_Xtremez_35:
Im glad that this bloke has thought it through before he decide to write his article and let it loose on the nation.:PDT_Xtremez_42: what a chodder!!!!
And dont even get me started on the pongo's
PSFbeatch
14-01-2007, 17:03
i agree...the self destruct button has been pushed, hand over the readies and let the bender boys and the illiterate grunts get on with it, best of luck.... you'll need it!
Who is this Tim Collins who wrote this??
What a fcuking pr1ck!
The day that happens I will definitely be walking out the door as willl countless others no doubt.
Its bad enough having to work with grunts and popeyes as it is without being told to wear their uniform and cap badges too. If I had wanted to do that I would have joined them in the first place.
This will be the final nail in the coffin for any of the experience the RAF has left already. They will be left with youngsters who know nout...hello civvy street!!
Captain Gatso
14-01-2007, 17:20
Right this is me, being a right sad git. This guy, who wrote this. Is,I think that ex Colonel in the Irish guards, who used to smoke all those cigars. He got hung out to dry by the brass. For some incident that happend in Basra. He wrote a book apparently. Does not make any difference. He is Army, and should keep his opinions to the service he knows. Keep out of stuff he knows vert little about.:PDT_Xtremez_32:
Whilst fully agreeing with all the points raised above and I also don't agree with almost everything that the former Col Collins has to say except:
At present there are more General-rank officers than there are squadrons, in the case of the air force, and ships in the case of the navy.
Now here is an area which should have been hammered in the last redundancy phase. I still struggle to understand how in an airforce of approx 40,000 people we still need the Group structure - lets cut out a whole level of management the potential savings here alone must be significant. We have cut everything except HQSTC - High Wycombe- granted me've moved lots of stuff out of HQSTC but what has been cut/removed or LEAN'd is it not time to spread the pain??????
We have paid a fortune to Betts, and Kinsey and all the other 'consultants' and what have we gained - I would argue that it is not a better or more fit for purpose Air Force surely were over managed but under led!
Thanks I feel better now
...The Apache should be moved to the RAF and flown and maintained by aviation specialists...
Fully agree NFF, while the Army insist on thinking along the lines of soldier first, tradesman second they will never be able to match the RAF technically. Having seen a REME tiffy ORDERED to do something patently wrong and then doing it, something a 'tradesman' would have questioned, I fear for the safety of the drivers in anything more complex than a Scout.
MrMasher
14-01-2007, 17:43
MrMasher raises his hand............
Dont mean to sound stupid, but isnt S.H. already under army command? Even the news channels get it because they always refer to RAF helicopters as "Army helicopters"
When I did plastic puddle jumpers our CinC was navy.
Its already happening boys n girls!
I Look Like Kevin Costner
14-01-2007, 17:51
If it did go down this route. I say, "here you go. Here are all the bulging F 700's for the jets with the ADF's and Lims. The worn out tools are in the back, of our leaky, worn out hangers. What's left of the spares are in stores. We can't order any new ones, as there's none. Lits is'nt working at the moment, don't know how to fix it. Knock yourselves out, as we ain't staying".:PDT_Xtremez_17:
REDS and GREENs do need compressing once in a while!:PDT_Xtremez_31:
I Look Like Kevin Costner
14-01-2007, 17:53
MrMasher raises his hand............
Dont mean to sound stupid, but isnt S.H. already under army command? Even the news channels get it because they always refer to RAF helicopters as "Army helicopters"
When I did plastic puddle jumpers our CinC was navy.
Its already happening boys n girls!
When 3 Group went, so did HE!!
MrMasher raises his hand............
Dont mean to sound stupid, but isnt S.H. already under army command? Even the news channels get it because they always refer to RAF helicopters as "Army helicopters"
When I did plastic puddle jumpers our CinC was navy.
Its already happening boys n girls!
The Army have always had control of SH, the RAF merely operated them.
grumpyoldb
14-01-2007, 18:07
Right this is me, being a right sad git. This guy, who wrote this. Is,I think that ex Colonel in the Irish guards, who used to smoke all those cigars. He got hung out to dry by the brass. For some incident that happend in Basra. He wrote a book apparently. Does not make any difference. He is Army, and should keep his opinions to the service he knows. Keep out of stuff he knows vert little about.:PDT_Xtremez_32:
Quite right, CG.
Col Tim Collins OBE is now an after dinner speaker who charges £7K per night.
He needs a bit of bullsh*t to make people listen.
This article was written several years ago for one of his engagements.
It shouldn't even be in current affairs. Its not news, it's history.
Vim_Fuego
14-01-2007, 18:15
If everyone walked ( not 'everyone' but a large percentage) I doubt the coffers could cope with the unexpectedly huge payout due to you all!
Interesting article in the Telegraph today about how the armed forces need lots more cash (duh!) but also it highlighted some areas where we are spending money brashly e.g. £190,000 on basically servants (cooks, gardners etc.) to look after 37 properties occupied by Generals...£130 million on the boarding school allowance which surprised me a little as the idea is for it to be supplied to families who experience lots of disruption due to service life to give their kids some schooling stability but apparently it's getting abused something wrotten...Apparently a General on £140,000 pa gets the same £4500 a term allowance as say a captain on £45,000...Obviously the senior bod could and should afford his own fee's...
Also £1000 for a single chair (times how many I don't know) at MOD...I buy the chairs for our office from a catologue supplied by stores and they cost circa £130 each and do the job so someone somewhere needs an arse kicking...
For us to get back to functioning properly again we need to very honestly seek out these abuses of public money and re-route them to the needy and deserving...Too many fingers in the honey jar by the sound of it.
Does anybody know how many Air Ranks we have and what their jobs are? I was once quoted a ridiculous figure but can't remember what it was.
metimmee
14-01-2007, 19:58
130 million on the boarding school allowance which surprised me a little as the idea is for it to be supplied to families who experience lots of disruption due to service life to give their kids some schooling stability but apparently it's getting abused something wrotten...Apparently a General on £140,000 pa gets the same £4500 a term allowance as say a captain on £45,000...Obviously the senior bod could and should afford his own fee's...
Its not only officers who are entitled to boarding school allowance. I think you'll find that the 4.8K is the maximum entitlement (senior children) having paid 10% of the fees. BSA doesnt cover the (sometimes substantial) additional costs incurred throughout the term.
I dont think you should celebrate the cut of any allowance. The loss of BSA would be what amounts to a pay cut. That said, any one with 3 kids at boarding school stands to up to a maximum of circa £36K in allowances per year.
I think the fact that BSA cost has risen substantially is because everyone is entitled to it and good schools are hard to find. More folk are signing up and sending their children to boarding school. Its a great leveler between the ranks, allowing lower ranks to be able to access quality/stable education for their children.
The quality of your kids education shouldnt be left to the postings drafter.
If it is discontinued, it'll be the lower ranks that suffer, not the generals.
I think the point being made is not to remove it from everyone, just from those who could well afford the fees themselves.
Vim_Fuego
14-01-2007, 22:40
I think the point being made is not to remove it from everyone, just from those who could well afford the fees themselves.
Yes...that was my point.
fatbaldchief
14-01-2007, 23:12
What an appalling thought. Like many I joined the RAF not the bloody army. I would be happy to take early retirement on a change of conditions as I would certainly not stay.
It would save bugger all in cash and achieve nothing. The army are already struggling to operate the Apache as they think aircrew officers are in it for a career so they are only there for a tour or two, and the SNCO crew they treat like ****e. The Apache should be moved to the RAF and flown and maintained by aviation specialists... they can keep their landrovers, tanks and horses!
NFF
I have great experience in dealing with Army Aviation and have often had Green Jobs say to me
'Well that's great FBC but I was fixing Landrovers last week what the F*ck are you talking about'
The Air Green Jobs are top blokes but leave the Aircraft to the Airforce.
Oh and ask anybody at Cottesmore how the Dark Blue are getting on with the Harrier.
Blind_beggar
14-01-2007, 23:46
Off Topic slightly, but if the RAF is disbanded, what will happen to the Air Cadets? we all hate the ACF and matelot cadets as much as you lot hate the regulars, and I suspect hell will have to freeze over before we even think of transfering/joining them.
DrunkenMonki
14-01-2007, 23:49
God, i've left the army once already, twice if you count a bit in the TA between forces! Its like some evil magnet pulling me back...
To be fair i'd walk immediately if we went sandbag. I wanted to work on jets and decent size choppers, not the army lawn mowers. Imagine how big the bleeding REME would be with all the RAF techies in it!
Tashy_Man
14-01-2007, 23:54
Off Topic slightly, but if the RAF is disbanded, what will happen to the Air Cadets? we all hate the ACF and matelot cadets as much as you lot hate the regulars, and I suspect hell will have to freeze over before we even think of transfering/joining them.
BB sorry for being frank but i'm guessing at the mo 99.99999% of the RAF couldn't give a flying fcuk about the cadets. We are tring to secure (well not me as i'm out anyway in less than 13 months !!) our future as a fighting force. I have a feeling you will be well grown up before any of this takes place as it is all "rumour" at the moment !
Live your life as a child then grow up...if you have sense it won't be in this country or with any of this countries armed forces.....your choice though....CRACK ON......:PDT_Xtremez_09:
Gunnerrock
15-01-2007, 00:26
BB sorry for being frank but i'm guessing at the mo 99.99999% of the RAF couldn't give a flying fcuk about the cadets. We are tring to secure (well not me as i'm out anyway in less than 13 months !!) our future as a fighting force. :
Sorry, but I thought Cadets are the future of our fighting force
Tashy_Man
15-01-2007, 00:34
Sorry, but I thought Cadets are the future of our fighting force
Maybe they were when we had a fighting force......now we are just mudling through....the RAF is finished as we know it...just a matter of time till it's pronounced dead :-(
holedweller
15-01-2007, 21:11
The Cadets are and should be important to us, they are a major part of the public profile of the Military, these days probably the closest thing most of the public get to the military is through a cadet these days.
Just look a the number of rememberance parades these days that have no military representation other than veterans and cadets.
Some cadets have locally valuable people as their parents e.g. company owners, councillors etc.
Although a small number of cadets actually join the military, their experiences in the cadets are looked upon favourably by employers and they may go on to success later in life, which may help our cause later on in life.
MrMasher
16-01-2007, 03:43
Just look a the number of rememberance parades these days that have no military representation other than veterans and cadets..
Ummmmm
Because there arent enough people left in the RAF to do a parade?
Seriously, where I work we'd be buggered if we had to provide for a parade! Their Lordships would miss out on flying and thats bad apparently! We'd probably struggle as well to get enough numbers to make up a decent sized flight.......
whitbylad
17-01-2007, 15:13
I had no intent of training to be infantry (although such a task could fall on us) or to be a Rating! Tried and test methods formed over years in the RAF are being binned because the Army have more officers on the Committees that the experts on that field!! Joint Service regs really do my head in!!Off Topic
I agree with you. There's probably around 40,000 people in the RAF who would not have joined the Armed Forces if it was a choice of the Army or the Navy. We do things differently, recruit different people and it generally works, although there could be improvements.
Personally I would like the RAF to adopt Combat 95 as working dress: It would cut down on the space required in my room for the various types of uniform for a start. Additionally it would give me the chance to get used to wearing boots. It would streamline logistics too. The arguement against Combat 95 is the loss of identity, but surely the aim of wearing uniform is to promote the esprit de corps by all looking the same.
I am starting at an army regiment on Monday and not looking forward to it at all. I'm sure that the CO would rather have a regiment of soldiers, all fit and trained for field operations rather than an ageing Crab. It is well-known that the Army cannot recruit enough soldiers.
Tanktops
17-01-2007, 17:30
Does anybody know how many Air Ranks we have and what their jobs are? I was once quoted a ridiculous figure but can't remember what it was.
Copied this from an old post - 2004 figures, but you get the idea...
Figures were from this source - Air Force website http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/docu...ftoday2004.pdf
2004 RAF AIRCRAFT STRENGTH (edited to show fast[-ish] jets only!)
Tornado F3 - 91
Tornado GR4 - 112
Jaguar GR3 - 39
Jaguar T4 - 7
Harrier GR7/7A - 51
Harrier T10 - 9
Canberra PR9 - 4
Canberra T4 - 1
Total a/c - 314
Air Rank Officers in 2004 - 132
Ratio of fast jets to Air Ranks - one Air Rank for every 2.378 pointy jets
But it's all right, we've still got these too...
Spitfire Mk IIa/Vb/IXe - 3
Spitfire Mk XIX - 2
Hurricane IIc - 2
holedweller
18-01-2007, 08:44
Ummmmm
Because there arent enough people left in the RAF to do a parade?
Seriously, where I work we'd be buggered if we had to provide for a parade! Their Lordships would miss out on flying and thats bad apparently! We'd probably struggle as well to get enough numbers to make up a decent sized flight.......
My point was that the cadets are now the visible face of the military that the majortiy of the population have access to on a regular basis, so we should put effort into supporting them and where possible give them our 'sound bites' to quote to their parents.
If everyone walked ( not 'everyone' but a large percentage) I doubt the coffers could cope with the unexpectedly huge payout due to you all!
Interesting article in the Telegraph today about how the armed forces need lots more cash (duh!) but also it highlighted some areas where we are spending money brashly e.g. £190,000 on basically servants (cooks, gardners etc.) to look after 37 properties occupied by Generals...£130 million on the boarding school allowance which surprised me a little as the idea is for it to be supplied to families who experience lots of disruption due to service life to give their kids some schooling stability but apparently it's getting abused something wrotten...Apparently a General on £140,000 pa gets the same £4500 a term allowance as say a captain on £45,000...Obviously the senior bod could and should afford his own fee's...
Also £1000 for a single chair (times how many I don't know) at MOD...I buy the chairs for our office from a catologue supplied by stores and they cost circa £130 each and do the job so someone somewhere needs an arse kicking...
For us to get back to functioning properly again we need to very honestly seek out these abuses of public money and re-route them to the needy and deserving...Too many fingers in the honey jar by the sound of it.
Here Here Vim,
I remember a few years ago a fiasco of major taxpayers money being spent on a set of curtains for some air officer at Benson. This is what we need to crak down on, not spares and people.
Pikey Mikey
18-01-2007, 12:32
If the Army and Navy think they're upto the task of taking over RAF tasking an maintenance then let them try it, and all te RAF lads and lasses should PVR on mass!
I did a little bit of time under JHC, and I foooking hate the Army!
wankers!::/:
Reading through lots of threads of late, it seems that moral and faith in our airships is at an all time low. Lots of the threads have started me thinking of what the heck happened!
I remember when I joined the RAF back in 1990, we had somewhere in the region of 98000 people in the RAF. Options for change followed by the Strategic Defence Review (or was it the other way round) decimated the RAF, cutting it almost in half and closing many stations around the UK. Many people accepted the change due to the end of the Cold War etc. But many people were of the opinion back then, that things were more dangerous than ever due to our friendly ruskies not running the bad guys anymore.
After a posting away from ISK, to HQ the first thing that struck me was that we had 4 times as many things going on, with half the manpower and half the stations. This was before '97 when Labour came to power! Since Labour things got steadily worse, the PC brigade came on full force, the Human Rights act, more privatisation, and then a war in Afganhistan followed by Iraq. But what Labour have done, the first time in my knowledge it's ever been done, is continue with their cutbacks - with 2 wars going on, we're cutting spending left right and centre, this just doesn't make sense to me!
Then the thought occurred to me. WW2 they rationed people and took money from the people to pay for the war. The current government would never do that, so the only way they can pay for these unpopular wars is by taking the money away from the military back home. Thus more cutbacks, more reductions in manpower and more stations closing.
It would take someone like Churchill to turn this kind of thing around as he done after WW1 when, the then government cutback on all defence, but I don't see a Churchillesque person waiting in the wings anywhere. I can only see more cutbacks and more PC brigade ruining the TRUE ethos of the RAF.
Now I am proud of the time I've done. I have honestly loved it! But I was watching a program the other day that was talking about WW2 and the RAF. I said to my missus after watching it - "The sad thing is, I don't feel like I'm a part of THAT Air Force"! Of course the RAF has moved on and I fully understand that, but it does not feel to me that I belong to THE Royal Air Force! Can someone tell me where it went?
Some e-goaters might not know that the last mutiny by the British Military was the RAF back in 1947! It spread from India through to the Far East after serviceman there felt forgotten by the Government and weren't being brought home after WW2. Now I'm not advocating a mutiny, the mutiny itself, according to historians, was one of the reasons that Indian Indepence occurred. But our leaders need to remember this! If people are p****d off enough, a backlash will occur, and then our public profile will go the same way as our Fireman. But our government needs to realise that morale, is at breaking point!
Recently I was speaking to a RAFA member, a former WW2 WAAF, she looked at my shoulders and said that she couldn't get used to where we wear our ranks now. "It looks Cheap" she said!
I think that sums up what's happened to the RAF!
As stated earlier, the Tim Collins story is old and he need to raise his profile now and again to keep his appearance fee up. Same as that Ex Tornado Nav John Nichol (also ex-Baghdad Prison Central) crops up everytime the RAF is mentioned which then supports his book sales.
All these people shouting disband the RAF need to realise the Goverment would not stop at us but would disband the Army and Navy at the same time to form a single defence force.
Whilst losing the tradition, ethos etc, there must be massive savings in Headqurters type areas I should imagine. Certainly Treasury logic would also suggest that Vehicle Techies, Aircraft Techies, Movements, Stackers, Adminers (OOOPPSSS too late), Cooks, Drivers, PTI's, Scuffers etc could all become Joint Service. As the future Joint Engineering School at Saints suggests, people are lookiong that way.
fatbaldchief
18-01-2007, 14:45
Army take all Rotary.
Navy take all Fast Jet.
Branson takes Pax / AAR / Maritime.
RAF keep Gliders.
All other jobs for Purple Civvies.
Job done.
See you in the B&Q recruiting line boys. :PDT_Xtremez_08:
Talk Wrench
20-01-2007, 17:59
Army take all Rotary.
Navy take all Fast Jet.
Branson takes Pax / AAR / Maritime.
RAF keep Gliders.
All other jobs for Purple Civvies.
Job done.
See you in the B&Q recruiting line boys. :PDT_Xtremez_08:
FBC
Trouble is, what happens when B&Q stop recruiting cos of" elff n safferty" cos no one is allowed to do it when you B&Q it anymore.
Will we all have to join the military again? Preferably the RAF, who need good qualified engineers to service its dilapidated fleet! With all the knowhow of drilling, plumbing, hammering square pegs into round holes, we could be onto a winner here mate!!!!!
But, I think there is a bigger task ahead, when the Green ones wish us to assimilated to their way, It will be up to the EX RAF types to teach them how to put round pegs into square holes.
God help the RAF from being trolleyed.
TW
True Blue Jack
20-01-2007, 18:55
Whilst losing the tradition, ethos etc, there must be massive savings in Headqurters type areas I should imagine. Certainly Treasury logic would also suggest that Vehicle Techies, Aircraft Techies, Movements, Stackers, Adminers (OOOPPSSS too late), Cooks, Drivers, PTI's, Scuffers etc could all become Joint Service. As the future Joint Engineering School at Saints suggests, people are lookiong that way.
I long ago resigned myself to finishing my career in a purple beret. A few years ago some senior officer or other wrote a widely circulated document that droned on about the need to retain single services. It used lots of buzzwords like 'ethos', 'tradition', 'competitive spirit', the 'healthiness of inter-service rivalry' and so on. I'm sure it's been stored in File 13 by now.
althenick
22-01-2007, 23:27
Lads and Lasses
I think this is the first time I have posted here so I shall make an effort to be as clear as possible. I’m and ex Dark blue type so what I’m about to say may surprise you.
GET RID OF THE RAF – OVER MY DEAD CARCASS!
Yes – I’m probably the only pro-crab ex-fish head you’ll come across.
I think some parts of the RAF should go over to the other services MPA should be controlled (not operated) by the RN, as with SAR (if it wasn’t being privatised) JFH should not have the personnel cross-pollination that it has – that’s a recipe for mass PVRing, and as for JHC? – Well ALL OF IT should be under direct control of the Pongo’s. I know that most of this wouldn’t go down well with the Air/Ground and Lordships but it would probably arrest PVR’ing in the long run.
I don’t think there is the political will to get rid of a service that has some very well publicised achievements. The only way it could be done without too much controversy by splitting it in two and calling the maritme segment THE ROYAL AIR FORCE OF THE ROYL NAVY and the Ground support part THE ROYAL AIRFORCE OF THE BRITISH ARMY. Where the RAF personell will assimilate in Rank, Uniform and tradition to it’s parent Service.
…Just gone to defence Stations!
taxydual
07-05-2007, 11:10
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=482
The trouble is, it kind of makes sense.:PDT_Xtremez_08:
Thread already done sometime back. When I find it I'll merge your post.
tommo9999
07-05-2007, 11:38
There will be one big purple blob at some point. Absolutely nailed on. The treasury will see the potential savings and force commanders to make the decision.
MAINJAFAD
07-05-2007, 14:30
Lads and Lasses
I think this is the first time I have posted here so I shall make an effort to be as clear as possible. I’m and ex Dark blue type so what I’m about to say may surprise you.
GET RID OF THE RAF – OVER MY DEAD CARCASS!
Yes – I’m probably the only pro-crab ex-fish head you’ll come across.
I think some parts of the RAF should go over to the other services MPA should be controlled (not operated) by the RN, as with SAR (if it wasn’t being privatised) JFH should not have the personnel cross-pollination that it has – that’s a recipe for mass PVRing, and as for JHC? – Well ALL OF IT should be under direct control of the Pongo’s. I know that most of this wouldn’t go down well with the Air/Ground and Lordships but it would probably arrest PVR’ing in the long run.
I don’t think there is the political will to get rid of a service that has some very well publicised achievements. The only way it could be done without too much controversy by splitting it in two and calling the maritme segment THE ROYAL AIR FORCE OF THE ROYL NAVY and the Ground support part THE ROYAL AIRFORCE OF THE BRITISH ARMY. Where the RAF personell will assimilate in Rank, Uniform and tradition to it’s parent Service.
…Just gone to defence Stations!
The problem is that it was tried between 1912 and 1914 and it didn't work. Organisation was called the Royal Flying Corps with a Central Flying School and a Military and a Naval Wing. The reason it didn't work as the Army and the Navy were always fighting ideas from the other service and in the end the Navy took their bit and formed the Royal Naval Air Service. The RFC tag was then nicked by the Brown Jobs. Enter the Zeppelin and the Gotha Bomber and opps, all the RFC aircraft are in France, and the rest of the Navy aircraft are to busy doing other things. Hence the UK is not defended, as it should be. So the Government decided that a new military Arm should be formed to avoid all the problems of the first attempt at 'Jointery'. RAF was the result and the Army and Navy have been trying to kill us ever since. 1940, Battle of France, had the RAF not been formed, we would have lost all of our fighter force, and most likely the War, as the brown jobs would have most likely put ever fighter they had into France to be destroyed.
Tashy_Man
07-05-2007, 14:35
The problem is that it was tried between 1912 and 1914 and it didn't work.
Totally agree with all you said but our ministers and commanders obviously know so much better now and they will learn from previous mistakes......won't they ?
Yeah right.....Crack on............:PDT_Xtremez_09:
Mighty_Wokka
07-05-2007, 16:16
Tim Collins can just f**k right off!
Seymour Tw@tt
07-05-2007, 19:18
Tim Collins is a complete c*nt. Like a lot of gobsh!te ex-officers, he's oh so keen to be heard now, but less so when he was serving, when he could have made a difference. Funny how it's always f*cking officers who drip and bleat once they're out.
Another thing - has anyone actually done a stat for the ratio of officers in the armed services since Options for Change? I am sure that the officer figures have changed only marginally despite the huge numbers of personnel laid off. NOW tell me it's not an officer's RAF/Army/RN...
Loyalty works both f*cking ways, capiche?
::/:
Realist78
07-05-2007, 19:31
Tim Collins was only notorious for one speech which George Dubya has on the wall in the Oval Office at the Whitehouse....
Quote "We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.
It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.
It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.
[Regarding the use by Saddam of chemical or biological weapons] It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
Our business now is north." Unquote
Fine speech but he ought to remain within his area of expertise. It is all too nice to lord it up on the after dinner speech circuit and provoke reaction to sell books but he should examine the past and judge accordingly rather than shoot from the hip.:PDT_Xtremez_09:
Abolish the RAF? He's completely bonkers. :PDT_Xtremez_35:
Although the disturbing part is, in some ways, he may be correct. Aren't Cruise Missiles now taking the place of RAF Fighters and Bombers? It wouldn't surprise me if the RAF is reduced to basically a taxi service for the other two Services. :PDT_Xtremez_42:
Cake or Death
07-05-2007, 22:58
we are/could be just a taxi service but there is one problem, we need to buy a few more taxis. as realist said, colins made one speech that made its way in to the press thats it. think he should STFU and talk all thing pongo, or it may be time for the raf to abolish tim collins!
MAINJAFAD
07-05-2007, 23:14
Abolish the RAF? He's completely bonkers. :PDT_Xtremez_35:
Although the disturbing part is, in some ways, he may be correct. Aren't Cruise Missiles now taking the place of RAF Fighters and Bombers? It wouldn't surprise me if the RAF is reduced to basically a taxi service for the other two Services. :PDT_Xtremez_42:
Somebody had that bright idea as well in 1957 (to save money), guess what, the plan didn't work. UAV's are a great Idea and do have their place, however a lot of redundancy has to be built in to deal with problems that may happen from loss of comms, battle damage or general mechanical failure. Problems that can be easily overcome by a growbag in an onboard seat. Much as we knock down our aircrew, a manned combat aircraft is still the most flexible method of projecting air power, as I can't see an onboard computer matching a human brain for a long time yet, especially when it comes to the point where the man decides that things don’t look right and does not fire.
Cake or Death
07-05-2007, 23:17
Somebody had that bright idea as well in 1957 (to save money), guess what, the plan didn't work. UAV's are a great Idea and do have their place, however a lot of redundancy has to be built in to deal with problems that may happen from loss of comms, battle damage or general mechanical failure. Problems that can be easily overcome by a growbag in an onboard seat. Much as we knock down our aircrew, a manned combat aircraft is still the most flexible method of projecting air power, as I can't see an onboard computer matching a human brain for a long time yet, especially when it comes to the point where the man decides that things don’t look right and does not fire.
obviously, sadly doesnt mean a thing if you brain is american!
MAINJAFAD
07-05-2007, 23:26
obviously, sadly doesnt mean a thing if you brain is american! That comes under the heading of a 'Fire and Regret' weapon system, a Spam speciality in both manned and unmanned systems.
I do hope the purpose of Aircrew is never -ever- removed. This may sound a bit odd to some, but it's my firm belief that if you remove the human from the weapon then you just turn the conflicts into a meaningless battle of numbers. There's no 'heart' to it, and certainly skill is no longer a factor when it's identical machines that are doing the jobs...
It also removes the feelings of wanting or not wanting to go to war with a country. If there are no lives of your own that are going to be put at stake, then there will be no reason to not go. It would be a "win-win" situation where you lose little if you don't succeed, and gain a lot if you do succeed.
That is not how a conflict is supposed to be in my absolute personal opinion.
shoutingwind
08-05-2007, 00:26
I do hope the purpose of Aircrew is never -ever- removed. This may sound a bit odd to some, but it's my firm belief that if you remove the human from the weapon then you just turn the conflicts into a meaningless battle of numbers. There's no 'heart' to it, and certainly skill is no longer a factor when it's identical machines that are doing the jobs...
It also removes the feelings of wanting or not wanting to go to war with a country. If there are no lives of your own that are going to be put at stake, then there will be no reason to not go. It would be a "win-win" situation where you lose little if you don't succeed, and gain a lot if you do succeed.
That is not how a conflict is supposed to be in my absolute personal opinion.
it is harder to shoot and kill a freind than a faceless stranger...
i don't think we should get rid of the people either because just maybe someone may stop hostile action when they know they will be killing a person. and for all the times they don't we will put them in their sleeping bags and bring them home.
If we had no RAF our little island would be in danger.
I think we all had the feeling somthing like this was going to happen , I was at a Force development briefing last December and was told they wanted to reduce the RAF to 27,000 which of course would mean we were no longer a force.
I bet with the introduction of so called super camps, there will end up being one camp probably in the falklands with a ship a plane and a tank god bless the defence cutting b*****ds
Perhaps what we need is a proper conflict to get the politicians to realise the error of their ways?
Comms_Lad
10-05-2007, 11:42
Perhaps what we need is a proper conflict to get the politicians to realise the error of their ways?
Maybe we could wake the Germans up or even get the Russians onside again to play the aggressors.
If only a suicide bomber took out a legitimate target (politicians rather than civilians).
If only it hadnt been flour chucked into the house of commons, if it had been something a little bit more potent it would of sorted the politicians out.
Basically what im saying is life is built on "what ifs", because its not going to happen, what will happen is the RAF (and to some extent the army and navy) will slowly be eroded more and more, our jobs will be made harder and harder due to lack of supplys and manpower. And when we cant do the job anymore for those reasons out of our control it will be used as an argument against us to shut the RAF down for good.
Our lords and masters have proved time and time again that they have no ability to learn from history, look how long afghanistan has been in turmoil with fighting and tribal feuding. In fact the whole middle east has been a pressure cooker coming to boil and boiling over on numerous occasions for hundreds of years. Yet they still wont learn that it is an unwinable situation for any force to go there and try and "Liberate" the Afghanis
But hey ho, is anyone with authority gonna read this and think "hang on a minute we are making a collossal fukc up here!!" doubtful, but if only
A/C spares aside. We are supposed to be a 21st century fighting force with a large emphasis on "Electronic Battlespace" why are we still using kit that was built 4yrs ago (computers) running software that was released over 7yrs ago and has actually been improved on.
Also the MOD could save money, by not bothering using MS Office and paying for all those pesky licences when they could just get OpenOffice for free.
For example say there are 30,000 computers all with office on
OpenOffice = 30,000 x £0.00 = £0.00
MS Office 2003 Pro OEM = 30,000 x £299.00 = £8,999,700
Not much of a saving but its a start isnt it??
MAINJAFAD
10-05-2007, 12:15
Maybe we could wake the Germans up or even get the Russians onside again to play the aggressors.
If only a suicide bomber took out a legitimate target (politicians rather than civilians).
If only it hadnt been flour chucked into the house of commons, if it had been something a little bit more potent it would of sorted the politicians out.
Basically what im saying is life is built on "what ifs", because its not going to happen, what will happen is the RAF (and to some extent the army and navy) will slowly be eroded more and more, our jobs will be made harder and harder due to lack of supplys and manpower. And when we cant do the job anymore for those reasons out of our control it will be used as an argument against us to shut the RAF down for good.
Our lords and masters have proved time and time again that they have no ability to learn from history, look how long afghanistan has been in turmoil with fighting and tribal feuding. In fact the whole middle east has been a pressure cooker coming to boil and boiling over on numerous occasions for hundreds of years. Yet they still wont learn that it is an unwinable situation for any force to go there and try and "Liberate" the Afghanis
But hey ho, is anyone with authority gonna read this and think "hang on a minute we are making a collossal fukc up here!!" doubtful, but if only
A/C spares aside. We are supposed to be a 21st century fighting force with a large emphasis on "Electronic Battlespace" why are we still using kit that was built 4yrs ago (computers) running software that was released over 7yrs ago and has actually been improved on.
Also the MOD could save money, by not bothering using MS Office and paying for all those pesky licences when they could just get OpenOffice for free.
For example say there are 30,000 computers all with office on
OpenOffice = 30,000 x £0.00 = £0.00
MS Office 2003 Pro OEM = 30,000 x £299.00 = £8,999,700
Not much of a saving but its a start isnt it??
Open office is on its way at least as the document editing software for use on a certain tactical comms system that is currently being rolled out in parts of the armed forces.
Comms_Lad
10-05-2007, 12:35
Open office is on its way at least as the document editing software for use on a certain tactical comms system that is currently being rolled out in parts of the armed forces.
Is it?? Thats the first I've heard about it, but then again although im in the comms world/trade(whats left of it outside of TCW) im not in the Tactical side of things.
Well good news all round, its a start and it is a decent bit of kit that can save files in pretty much any format you want. So why is the world hooked on MS when open source software is generall a lot better and free???
Talk Wrench
10-05-2007, 13:02
Maybe this article from todays Telegraph will make people think again,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/10/nraf10.xml
TW
metimmee
10-05-2007, 13:23
Open office is on its way at least as the document editing software for use on a certain tactical comms system that is currently being rolled out in parts of the armed forces.
Where did you get this info from? We have been trying to get authority to use open source software for years.
mad_collie
10-05-2007, 13:25
Where did you get this info from? We have been trying to get authority to use open source software for years.
OpenOffice has been in use in NATO for years.
No!
I heard of a brief a couple of weeks back that suggested that someone had decided we had cut enough, it was also alluded to that Joint doesn't work properly so a cunning plan was being developed!
JFHelicopter, back under RAF Control BUT some (more) rotary blokes will be working very forward and perhaps you CCS might not seem like enough.
JFHarrier, back under RAF control BUT there will always be a need to carrier Harrier so expect to keep those skills nice and sharp.
It would seem that there is an issue with experience of fast jet/ Complex aircraft that currently only the RAF possesses the necessary expertise for the groundcrew to maintain and operate those platforms. Introduction of JSF could change that from the RN's viewpoint!
If this happens then expect a lot of brown and dark blue whineing and expect if you're on those platforms closely intertwined with our sister Services to spend lots of time with them.
Finally this is not a dig at Dark Blue or Brown, merely a reflection of the differing levels of training between the services.
metimmee
10-05-2007, 13:30
Also the MOD could save money, by not bothering using MS Office and paying for all those pesky licences when they could just get OpenOffice for free.
For example say there are 30,000 computers all with office on
OpenOffice = 30,000 x £0.00 = £0.00
MS Office 2003 Pro OEM = 30,000 x £299.00 = £8,999,700
Not much of a saving but its a start isnt it??
You dont seriously think the MOD pay those prices do you?
You havent factored in retraining costs. You havent factored in migration costs which could be substantial. Fair enough, bog standard word processing tasks wouldnt be affected, but those that maintain large documents and publications could have far-reaching compatability issues.
MAINJAFAD
10-05-2007, 13:30
Where did you get this info from? We have been trying to get authority to use open source software for years.
Thats because you have to work though A6, which is the cause of most our problems.
I SAY Down with BAE system only thing they are good are is swallowing up goverment money!
we would have enough money if it was spent properly and wasn't given to the failure that is BAE systems.
i think the decision to complete the eurofighter and type 45 destroyers which are designed for cold war was wrong .
we should be obtaining more CAS craft. more transport craft . and we could do with get rid of some of the over crowding of high ranking officers in all services.
none of the services should go they just need to be better managed. All the funds and tallent is there is just not used in the right way .
I SAY Down with BAE system only thing they are good are is swallowing up goverment money!
we would have enough money if it was spent properly and wasn't given to the failure that is BAE systems.
Do the Government still have the special £1 share in BAE?
yeah i think so. we should at least have another company to compete with bae systems
Boarderlyne
11-05-2007, 19:49
I have overheard from a scrambled egg source that the chances of us going purple are virtually nil. This was an unguarded comment between two high-ranking zobs and bodes well for us who still believe in the RAF ethos. (Feck are we in single figures already?) :PDT_Xtremez_08:
At the higher levels, the drama is that a certain group believe that purple equals brown and it is a viewpoint that will take a generation to remove.
But let's take the reality check. Who runs our RECTS control? Should be a flavour of Sneck, but usually it's the unlucky two banana. The equivalent, in Pongo land, is minimum a Staffie, but usually a Wobblie of the 1st or 2nd degree. On the brine, who services the expensive toys on Invisible or Herpes? Minimum is a Killick or a member of the old folks home. For us, it's CND Tech, Jelly Tot or a wannabe Jelly Tot.
On the bean-counter front, it's simple. Do you want a force that has your plebes doing the work or one that has middle management doing the work?
Apologies for using so much slang, but I wanted to use Service-speak to get across to as many as possible that we, as Blue Suits, are a lot more highly regarded than we would expect.
As to Tim Collins, an amazing guy who has been places that we would fear to tread, but on this subject, he is uttering Pongo prejudices. That, in no way, detracts from his book, which I would highly recommend to anyone to get from their local library.
IMNSHO we do a fantastic job of projecting Air Power from the wettest LAC to the crustiest Wobbly. We have people that don't wear blinkers and can think ahead and overcome the most bizarre problems with the minimum of drama.
So finally, is it time to abolish the RAF? No, and the time will never come that experts in Air Power are never needed. :PDT_Xtremez_25:
wally375
13-05-2007, 21:54
Not sure if it's been asked before but any thoughts?
How log before the Air Force is disbanded and made into a regiment of the Army?
The Army fly helicopters and the Navy fly jets and Monarch Airways fly you about?
Are we really needed?
Northern Monkey
13-05-2007, 21:58
Wokka land is pretty much there already I would say! The colour scheme is already in place.
:PDT_Xtremez_19:
Comms_Lad
14-05-2007, 10:58
You dont seriously think the MOD pay those prices do you?
You havent factored in retraining costs. You havent factored in migration costs which could be substantial. Fair enough, bog standard word processing tasks wouldnt be affected, but those that maintain large documents and publications could have far-reaching compatability issues.
I see what you are saying their and initially the compatibility issues would be far-reaching, and no the MOD probably dont pay those prices, because they only have to pay for the licences not a copy of software per user, but that means whenever a new copy of MS office comes out they have to buy all those licences again and again and again. Whereas Open source software is free, therefore minimum costs.
ReluctantClerk
14-05-2007, 16:15
I have overheard from a scrambled egg source that the chances of us going purple are virtually nil. This was an unguarded comment between two high-ranking zobs and bodes well for us who still believe in the RAF ethos. (Feck are we in single figures already?) :PDT_Xtremez_08:
At the higher levels, the drama is that a certain group believe that purple equals brown and it is a viewpoint that will take a generation to remove.
:PDT_Xtremez_25:
The problem is than most of us who have any Tri/Joint service experience are constantantly left in no doubt that both these concepts start with a capital A!
Squidward
14-05-2007, 16:57
The problem is than most of us who have any Tri/Joint service experience are constantantly left in no doubt that both these concepts start with a capital A!
It's certainly true in the joint setting that the Army like to make sure everyone knows they're the big kid on the block.::/:
On a slight tangent, I'd be curious to know what people feel about 'comparative worth' issues. I'm ex-Army (sorry) and I'm still amazed after 3 years in light blue at the high level of professionalism and competency of RAF personnel that seems, by my khaki-coloured background, to be at odds with the rank they hold.
Don't you guys get seriously pi$$ed off when you are so clearly of a higher order of competence than your Army 'equivalent' and yet find that said pongo is a higher rank/pay-band than you?
In my dodge (medical) I can think of dozens of JNCOs who could pi$$ all over most Army SNCOs, in terms both of military and clinical experience, but they don't get promoted because, in our smaller organisation, there are less slots into which they might be promoted.
Ergo, what U get on ops is an RAF JNCO working to an Army SNCO, where the crab is senior to the pongo in every aspect EXCEPT rank. Isn't that bonkers?
And I suspect it ain't restricted to medics - tell me I'm wrong!!!!
It's certainly true in the joint setting that the Army like to make sure everyone knows they're the big kid on the block.::/:
On a slight tangent, I'd be curious to know what people feel about 'comparative worth' issues. I'm ex-Army (sorry) and I'm still amazed after 3 years in light blue at the high level of professionalism and competency of RAF personnel that seems, by my khaki-coloured background, to be at odds with the rank they hold.
Don't you guys get seriously pi$$ed off when you are so clearly of a higher order of competence than your Army 'equivalent' and yet find that said pongo is a higher rank/pay-band than you?
In my dodge (medical) I can think of dozens of JNCOs who could pi$$ all over most Army SNCOs, in terms both of military and clinical experience, but they don't get promoted because, in our smaller organisation, there are less slots into which they might be promoted.
Ergo, what U get on ops is an RAF JNCO working to an Army SNCO, where the crab is senior to the pongo in every aspect EXCEPT rank. Isn't that bonkers?
And I suspect it ain't restricted to medics - tell me I'm wrong!!!!
You're most certainly not wrong, but as a rule we tend to be a lot more laid back about these things than the army/navy. Personally I've always found it fookin hilarious just laughing at them and telling them where to get off.
I left the RAF in 1994 and have been working for a/c companies ever since. Mainly working on the Hawk, but also employed by British companies in the Middle East. Both at home and overseas these companies are all making financial cutbacks and everytime a contract is up for re bid they come in with cheaper bids. We all know that jobs will be lost and pay awards are getting smaller but still the aircraft are expected to meet all the tasking.
The future is not so bright in civvy street either!
woollymouse
16-05-2007, 20:35
It's certainly true in the joint setting that the Army like to make sure everyone knows they're the big kid on the block.::/:
On a slight tangent, I'd be curious to know what people feel about 'comparative worth' issues. I'm ex-Army (sorry) and I'm still amazed after 3 years in light blue at the high level of professionalism and competency of RAF personnel that seems, by my khaki-coloured background, to be at odds with the rank they hold.
Don't you guys get seriously pi$$ed off when you are so clearly of a higher order of competence than your Army 'equivalent' and yet find that said pongo is a higher rank/pay-band than you?
In my dodge (medical) I can think of dozens of JNCOs who could pi$$ all over most Army SNCOs, in terms both of military and clinical experience, but they don't get promoted because, in our smaller organisation, there are less slots into which they might be promoted.
Ergo, what U get on ops is an RAF JNCO working to an Army SNCO, where the crab is senior to the pongo in every aspect EXCEPT rank. Isn't that bonkers?
And I suspect it ain't restricted to medics - tell me I'm wrong!!!!You aren't wrong Squid it seems to be the case all over the trades/branchs. Most of the time on Ops the Pongo Snecs try to pull rank (especially on Cpls) only have the RAF guy look at them before carrying on as before.
I'm sure however, there are more pongos transferring to the RAF than there are RAF going the other way, not only does the RAF show more respect (on the whole) for the abilities of the Junior Ranks but the terms of service for SNCO's are better. Think about it Army SNCO kicked out (sorry discharged) after 22 years service RAF Sgt allowed to serve 30 years or to age 55 which ever is sooner no competition is there.
Squidward
16-05-2007, 21:49
I'm sure however, there are more pongos transferring to the RAF than there are RAF going the other way, not only does the RAF show more respect (on the whole) for the abilities of the Junior Ranks but the terms of service for SNCO's are better.
Can't argue with that (me being ex-Army). Although the snag with my line o' work is called JSP 527 Common Terms of Service for Nurses, so whilst it might be true that ToS in other trades is better in blue, it ain't necessarily so for us.
[QUOTE=Squidward;106771] On a slight tangent, I'd be curious to know what people feel about 'comparative worth' issues. I'm ex-Army (sorry) and I'm still amazed after 3 years in light blue at the high level of professionalism and competency of RAF personnel that seems, by my khaki-coloured background, to be at odds with the rank they hold.
QUOTE]
I knew a lot of army that was the same trade as I that held a higher rank compereed to the job i was qualified and did. Also after your 22 they get rid of you rather than the R.A.F. that keeps all the useless fat snco's till they ae ready snuff it
The Helpful Stacker
24-05-2007, 08:46
The problem of rank/experience equivalence between the Army and RAF has been around for a bloody long time.
A tweeny weenie airways sqn based at Odious that works for them has a multitude of storemen with a Staffie running them whereas the sneaky beaky death banana lads only have one Cpl stacker.
The Staffie is the only storeman on the TWA sqn who has half a clue what he is doing, with the other storemen apparently making up the numbers/sweeping the hanger. The Cpl Stacker on the other hand runs around like a blue arsed fly and knows his job inside out.
Defender of the universe
24-05-2007, 12:47
Have just read this on First Post. Couldn't get a link to work to it so I have copied the whole thing.
Anyone care to comment???????
This guy Collins aint got a clue. Who would want to join/ transfer to the navy or army. Not me. Surely the workload for the other two parts of the forces would increase dramatically and the staffing levels would decrease eventually, so this whole idea of restructuring could not work. How could the navy provide strike support from the limited amount of BOATs that they have. More money would be needed to purchase larger Boats/ Ships or what ever you want to call them.
The army would not have a clue as to how the RAF works so we could not transfer to them.
IF it aint broke dont fix it!
Mr Collins raises some good points - our jobs could be done (commanded) by the Army and the Navy. It already is in many circumstances. Of course there would be objections to it at the beginning but as recruitment comes through there would be no difference. I don't see why we don't all wear greens (or light browns!) now, instead of light and dark blues - that would make a H U G E budget cut and give the MoD the money to buy kit that is good enough for it's job!
metimmee
25-10-2008, 09:00
Mr Collins raises some good points - our jobs could be done (commanded) by the Army and the Navy. It already is in many circumstances. Of course there would be objections to it at the beginning but as recruitment comes through there would be no difference. I don't see why we don't all wear greens (or light browns!) now, instead of light and dark blues - that would make a H U G E budget cut and give the MoD the money to buy kit that is good enough for it's job!
I think only the first half of that is probably true ie, give the treasury an excuse to impose a budget cut, end-of. There wouldnt be any dividend for the MoD.
Nec Aspera Terrent
25-10-2008, 10:54
I think only the first half of that is probably true ie, give the treasury an excuse to impose a budget cut, end-of. There wouldnt be any dividend for the MoD.
I am generally amused by folk who whinge about paying too much tax, but when it is suggested that the Defence Mission could be achieved more cost-effectively immediately poo-poo it without consideration.
The future's bright. The future's purple.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.