What a load of cr@p

[MrCheekyMonkey]

Is it just me, or is Tim Collins being wheeled out like John Nicol and all those other ex-military 'names' by a nrewspaper with space to fill?

Have a read of this, then discuss

Tim Collins 'article' (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=482)

[Plumber]

Maybe he needs to be reminded of those famous words "never has so much been owed by so many to so few". It must be great living in his world where everything and everyone is so simple.:PDT_Xtremez_25:

[Captain Pugwash]

I for one am barely clinging on to what morale I have left, try to make me a pongo or fishhead and that will be endex, sod the pension.

[Twonston Pickle]

The reason that the RAF formed is that the other 2 "more important" services paid lip service to air power. I respect Tim Collins but if we follow his suggestion, i believe the same would happen again and we would have learn nothing from history. Winston's words ring very true and are as equally valid today as 60 years ago.

[MrMasher]

Someone stop his pension!!

"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. "

-- I think you may find the reason the RAF's Harriers are on the boat is because the Navy had massive problems retaining their own aircrew who were jumping ship and going to fly for airlines. Take them away and you might as well scuttle the fleet!


"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."

--Naturally I wont be going anywhere near the "other" services! And as for 10 per aircraft rather than 20???? Where does this bloke get his figures from? I don't think I have worked anywhere where you could divvy up the number of techies against aircraft and come up with 20. We struggle along with an ever decreasing number of between 10 and 15 for 3 aircraft where I work!

"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."

--Well theres an idea! Perhaps make some of those lot redundant without their ridiculous pensions. Give em pensions like we get!!!

Makes I mad when people like that get listened to and policy is made by people who havent got a clue what we really need. :PDT_Xtremez_34:

[monobrow]

There is only one service whose work can be undertaken by the other two: the RAF must go

talking to an old mate who went on to harriers, RAF SAC(T)/JT's out qualify navy sgts for the same trade. That kind of expertise (sp?) can't just be wasted!

[MrMasher]

Thats news to me, being an ex plastic puddle jumper myself, I didnt find that.
They did have mixed trades though and far better promotion prospects than us. Just a matter of taking exams. Petty officer by 25 or so seemed to be the norm.
Then again I believe that they have gotten rid of their "super techs" now.
Funny though to have people on the Sqn who had more "boat time" than our navy counterparts!:PDT_Xtremez_30:

[monobrow]

mind you that quote could be (and possibly was) taken out of context.

We are renouned for placing trust in every member of the service. from LAC to WO. it could mean that the amount of trust given to sac's / jt's is the same as a sgt, or because of quick promotion, navy sgt's have less time in.

[grumpy sumpy]

I have 100% faith that our top brass will defend us to the hilt. Not!
I think I'll throw myself into an intake.

[Stax]

Oh Dear Oh Dear. I know a few Army lads who inform me that he was a "glory hunting cnut, only out for himself and f@ck everyone else" when he was in. Problem is your average politico who knows nowt about the forces will take note of this winker because he is a "name". I agree we need to work closer with the other 2 forces and we DO need to be fitter and better in the field and OOA, but the army and the navy cannotdo what we do, how we do it or as well, thats a fact!

[monobrow]

I have 100% faith that our top brass will defend us to the hilt. Not!
I think I'll throw myself into an intake.

at max dry? that'd make a mess!

[rover014]

Hey guys, pay no attention to the prick! He is only famous for a speech...Which he did not write! The Daily Mail Journo who got exclusive right to the speech wrote it for him!

[Wing boy]

1. He did write the speech

2. What the **** do we need a Navy for?????

[8:15fromOdium]

Ladies & Gents,

standby to repel borders. Col (rtd) Collins has designs on our service:

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

very interested on your thoughts on this article. Having had recent experience of the other 2 services, happy with the Army (I look damn good in green) , but the Navy ... God Help US All !!!!

[POB]

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=988

The thread has already been started...The man is supposed to be a forward thinking hero, of vast experience. In this instance he just seems to be a c0ck.


P

[wobbly]

Can't you people see that the end of the Royal Air Force is nigh, and we will be the last ones told about it. Ive been saying this for the last 4-5 years, and people still don't see it. :PDT_Xtremez_42:

[Rigga]

I saw "The end" coming 9 years ago (think about that date) and took prompt actions to avoid it!
I saw only one action remaining in 1999, and took it.



...and then you all became the "Captains".


If you don't know the joke, please ask.

[shoutingwind]

"There would be little scope to absorb the manpower except for the expensively trained pilots and other specialists."

well last time i checked the army can't even fix their own helicopters... i wonder if any transport fleets will ever let him fly home again?

[Captain Black]

Col Tim really dosn't like us


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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/14/nraf14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/14/ixuknews.html

[MrMasher]

Col Tim is an ass as far as I am concerned!

"But his outburst drew a furious riposte from Air Commodore Eric Wright CBE DFC DFM, who flew Hurricanes with 605 Squadron in the Battle of Britain. "If we didn't have the RAF in the 1940s we would all be saying 'Heil Hitler' now," he said."

God bless the Air Commodores!:PDT_Xtremez_30:

[TheHogwartsBEngO]

Col Tim is an ass as far as I am concerned!

"But his outburst drew a furious riposte from Air Commodore Eric Wright CBE DFC DFM, who flew Hurricanes with 605 Squadron in the Battle of Britain. "If we didn't have the RAF in the 1940s we would all be saying 'Heil Hitler' now," he said."

God bless the Air Commodores!:PDT_Xtremez_30:


I do not agree with Col Tim in the slightest, but it seems that the only counter arguments are precisely these jingoistic heritage-based ones. It stinks but if this gets picked up by ministry types it could run.

Please! senior RAF Offrs with a way with words - counter these arguments sensibly - and not just with references to our finest hour or the Ruhr valley.

[chiefy]

I agree with Hogwarts, a rationalised argument is what is needed not harking back to to the heroics and sacrifice of a previous generation! or slagging off the other services with misinformed nonsense (who is that idiot : navy sgt's less qualified than Jt's!!!)

Don't agree with old Tim, in fact he obviously has something against the Air Force because his argument would actually lead you to the requirement of a single Defence Force much like Canada or NZ.

[oldhamboy1967]

How arrogant and in love with himself is this guy!

If he needs evidence of what a bad idea abolishing the RAF is, he should come have a look at our training programme and see how many pongos and fish-heads go on our courses for anything and everything from NEC, Airpower to Flight Safety. We're the experts Mr Collins on so many things that you couldn't fight a war without us!!! :PDT_Xtremez_25:

As for our jobs! The last time I was OOA, the pongoes couldn't understand how our remote det could be looked after by a Chf Tech and no officer on site. Trust, professionalism and other words leapt to mind when I was asked by some RSigs Major why this was!

But on a less strident note, this is a typical attitude of green jobs and all we can do is keep smiling and doing our jobs. They'd soon miss us if we weren't there. :PDT_Xtremez_30:

[TheHogwartsBEngO]

Don't agree with old Tim, in fact he obviously has something against the Air Force because his argument would actually lead you to the requirement of a single Defence Force much like Canada or NZ.

Exactly! very well put Chiefy.

[FOMz]

Nothing to do with his flight home being delayed and he's never forgiven us of course..:PDT_Xtremez_14:

[Bluntend]

But his outburst drew a furious riposte from Air Commodore Eric Wright CBE DFC DFM, who flew Hurricanes with 605 Squadron in the Battle of Britain. "If we didn't have the RAF in the 1940s we would all be saying 'Heil Hitler' now,"

Tragically no furious riposte from any serving Air Commodores – I won’t hold my breath.

Ok, I may not be a Senior Officer as Hogwarts BEngO recommends but I’ll give it my best shot at addressing some of the Colonels points:

The defence of the UK now centres on defending our interests overseas. True. But we cannot ignore the defence of our own shores. A lot can happen in a relatively short period of time. Who is to say that in 10 years time the world will look the same. Who foresaw Kosovo? Who foresaw Siera Leone? Britain, as head of the Commonwealth, has an obligation to defend our fellow members and as such needs a defence force that is both capable and flexible.
There is only one service whose work can be undertaken by the other two. What? The Army’s air power (such as it is) is maintained by the REME. If the REME were to take on the maintenance of all ‘UK Defence Force’ ac, its manning would have to be increased to the point where it would rival that of the RAF – where is the saving in that?
The measure would also present us with a terrific opportunity to make savings by rationalising procedures. Again, WHAT? This is the Army we’re talking about. I’m afraid our Green Suited comrades have little experience of rationalisation let alone competency at it. Both the Army and Royal Navy beat the RAF hands down when it comes to hanging onto costly and time-consuming traditions.
The emphasis would be on the ability to launch from aircraft carriers and limited overseas bases. And of course aircraft carriers are two-a-penny. And exactly how do you launch a Herc from a carrier?
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. Why evolve a ‘Specialist Branch’ – one already exists – its called the Royal Air Force!
Such a rationalisation should achieve the sort of ground crew to aircraft ratios that are achieved in the Israeli forces for instance. Israel stands alone when it comes to defence – its current security situation is unique and its foreign policy worlds apart from that of the UK. To attempt to draw parallels between our respective Military capabilities and objectives is a waste of time.
No doubt such a concept will cause a sharp intake of breath. Yeah, no sh!t Sherlock!
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. Manage? Perhaps, but operate effectively – not a chance. A ship without a mast might well survive a storm, but be dead in the water should an enemy try to engage them in open water warfare. All Col Collins is advocating here is the wilful crippling of our Armed Forces and the deliberate loss of the Defence of our Country to meet budgetary constraints. And he feels he can criticise the current government with these views?

Personally, I’d rather subscribe to the collective opinions and views of military men, planners and tacticians who over the last two thousand years or so have moulded a military doctrine that doesn’t just advocate the use of air power but prescribes it as a pre-requisite for Military success.

If you want to win a battle you need control of the air – this has been the case since way before the Second World War. Modern ground based forces rely on CAS as well as airborne battlefield surveillance, comms, command and control. The Sentry, Nimrod and Sentinel ac all play their part in this. These in turn require fuel – this is provided by our Airborne refuelling ac. As ‘Force Multipliers’ these ac need to be protected, so you need some form of escort. And let us not forget our communications satellites that need to be operated effectively too. Before you can even start your battle you need to position your troops in theatre so we use Hercules ac and C-17s. God, it really isn’t that complicated to counter Tim Collin’s argument. My gut instinct is that either he is using some interesting reverse psychology to prompt debate on the value of an RAF or simply he’s become another media whore like John Nichol – someone who uses his notoriety in the press to line his pocket. I know which I believe. Sad really as I used to quite respect the man.

Interestingly, opinion over on ARRSE ( http://www.arrse.net/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=38107.html )isn't exactly supportive of the Colonel:

"It's a shame to see someone whose opinions I generally respect coming out with such drivel."

[Bluntend]

Don't agree with old Tim, in fact he obviously has something against the Air Force because his argument would actually lead you to the requirement of a single Defence Force much like Canada or NZ.

In fact, although NZ has a Defence Force it still retains a seperate Air Force, which, although going through a rationalisation programme is now taking control of assets previously operated by its dark blue colleagues. 6 Sqn, for example, has recently been re-instated by the RNZAF to accommodate the Sea Sprite helicopters that have been transferred over from the Navy.

[Twonston Pickle]

I have to concur with all Bluntend's counter-arguements. We may be able to become more efficient and rationalise; as mentioned, we are more likely to achieve that than the Army (can anyone tell me why we retain so many "paratroopers" if we don't use them?).

I actually would have chosen the Navy, if we were forced to go to 2 services. I have nothing against the RN; my future brother-in-law is in the Navy. We could actually absorb them into the RAF and be nearly as large as the Army.

"Ships!!! In the RAF!!!!", I hear you say, but it is not as daft as it sounds. We have operated ships before until approx mid-90s I think. There has also been a great discussion around the purpose of the RN and RAF, with the carriers being the RN's main reason for being (someone please give me the french phrase please). We would need a naval branch but we could base it around 2 carrier groups. Fishery protection and anti-narcotic ops could be given to an expanded coastguard (along the USCG model).

This is not a serious suggestion but just using some of Mr Collins' evidence to come to a different conclusion. I respect our 2 sister services and their traditions. This leads me to believe that Mr Collins is now of the "Know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" brigade, as well as lining his own, gilt-edged, wallet, of course.

[Bluntend]

...with the carriers being the RN's main reason for being (someone please give me the french phrase please).
Raison d'être

Well, you did ask...:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[zipfish]

I'm all for it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/14/nraf14.xml

:PDT_Xtremez_19:

[Stax]

Looking over on the Arrse they seem fairly split. Some see the sense in merging and some are against it. If you look at mergers in the Army (the Scottish Regt) and the furore it causes you can see why people rail against this publicity seeking eejits coments. That said, inmmay ways we are our own worst enemies, the "check in, not dig in" comment springs to mind. We need to get away from that tired old adage and show the Fishheads and Pongoes that we are an integral part of the armed forces for the future.

[Mighty_Wokka]

So when the Army Air Corps were signing up to get the 'sophisticated' Apache :PDT_Xtremez_31: ...where did they try and recruit from?

Yes the good old Royal Air Force!

Grrr its bad enough as it is trying to correct the press when they give the Army credit for another successful Chinook mission. It might be a green helicopter but its not army!!! :PDT_Xtremez_32:

[wobbly]

Looking over on the Arrse they seem fairly split. Some see the sense in merging and some are against it. If you look at mergers in the Army (the Scottish Regt) and the furore it causes you can see why people rail against this publicity seeking eejits coments. That said, inmmay ways we are our own worst enemies, the "check in, not dig in" comment springs to mind. We need to get away from that tired old adage and show the Fishheads and Pongoes that we are an integral part of the armed forces for the future.

After reading all 9 pages over at ARRSE there seems to be one thing that 90% of the Army is good at, and thats talking total $hi7e. They talk as if they are educated in the way we work but their views of the Royal Air Force seem to be based on black and white movies and the Commando comics they saw as a kid. Apparently we stay in hotels all the time :PDT_Xtremez_25: . If so I want to know where my Sqns fecking hotel is in Basrah then as we havent found the fecker in 3 years of being deployed there. The Sqn hotel in Afghanistan seems to have vanished as well.

The Royal Air Force is a service to be proud of, but ultimately if the Army took over you would be left with a service that would be 'static display' only as any current serving personnel would pack their bags. The Army and Navy take on the role of the RAF? yer right, don't make me laugh. This is the 2006, not 1920......The role of air power is a tad bigger nowadays fellas. Wise up, we are not conscripts and we joined the RAF for a reason!!!

If I met this pillock a swift kick to the knackers would be in order. Why don't these people just stfu and stop spouting all this bum custard?


Get your heads out of the comics lads, it isnt real, honest!!!

http://www.bookpalace.com/acatalog/AchtungCommando1.jpg

[Almost_done]

Over in the Torygraph they have a Blogg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2006/05/15/ublview15.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/16/ixuknews.html) page where Joe Public can share his feelings, this subject seems as emotive there as here.

[dkp1]

A Sumpy JT on Harriers is more qualified to operate ie ground run the jet than a non artificer sgt sumpy in the navy....Fact! been there done that.......

:PDT_Xtremez_25:

[Mighty_Wokka]

The purpose of defence procurement is to award contracts. The quality or quantity of weapons provided (or not) is not an issue. The useless Eurofighter being a prime example. What does this cost? You'll never get an honest answer from the MoD but £75m each seems a reasonable guess. Meanwhile, the plane remains incapable of shooting down a pheasant. Am I the only one nauseated by the phoney professions of sadness by successive defence secretaries every time one of our soldiers is killed driving a clapped-out thin-skinned Land Rover? And the media shares the blame, reporting defence contracts as a 'boost to British jobs' and rarely looking at whether the weapons actually work. A particularly recent nauseating example of this was Sky News's defence correspondent Geoff Meade's report on the supposedly now operational Eurofighter. In return for a joyride, he produced nothing short of a commercial for BAE Systems. The BBC's former defence correspondent, before he went on to become a shill for NATO, was openly promoting the Eurofighter. The Eurofighter is certainly the most expensive thing the British taxpayers have ever been forced to purchase. A complete waste of money. Again and again, it is the RAF that spends the most and delivers the least. The blue suiters are a national scandal. Tim Collins is right: they should be shut down and their tasks (and money) given to the Army. The only reliable exception to this feeble defence journalism is The Telegraph. Yours, furiously...
Posted by Jonathan on May 15, 2006 4:21 PM
Report this comment

People like this make me sick! There is more to the RAF than the f**king Typhoon!

[Mug?]

The goon has some points but nothing that can't be changed around to get rid of the other forces and save even more money.

His point=Navy to fly planes.....My point RAF to drive boats.
Got to be easier as they only go forward and back, left and right.
And they are slower and have loads of tyres on the ports(runways) to stop them when they dock (land).

In fact I have driven a boat, you can hire them for a few quid.

I have flown a plane but only when someone had taken off for me and I handed it back when it came time to land. Sure you can hire them out too but not at Butlins or Alton towers...!!

I have also driven a car/ landrover and BVs (amphibian) so can't be much more dificult to drive a tank?
THINK ABOUT IT - you get these remote control tanks and boats at pleasure parks but not any planes so there you go a reasoned argument........

We can get rid of the NAVY and ARMY and Just keep the RAF!!

But wait until I have PVR'd cos I don't want to do the ARMY stuff any more.

[shoutingwind]

i've been doing some research into the battle of crete, and think it is the perfect example of what happens when the RAF isn't around. OK so it was 65 years ago but, the Germans held air superiority over greece, and easliy held the offecive position, the RAF meanwhile where forced into Egypt and could bearly hold a defensive position. The groundcrew, army and a vast number of ships from the navy's fleet got slaughtered. the rescue effort where happered because it was the bad guys flying around bombing, not the good guys on CAP. My poiint- we need the RAF to protect the sky

[theladf]

I have 100% faith that our top brass will defend us to the hilt. Not!
I think I'll throw myself into an intake.


Grumpy my old son your plan is not well thought out, by the time we have chopped you up into small enough bits to go down the intake your protest may have lost its impact, plus if you damage any blades who's gona have to change them!!!

[fat lazy techie]

If all this "Air Power" $hite being spouted by the "Force Development" bods is anything to go by then we could do away with the majority of the army. I mean isn't the use of smart weapons over dumb preferred?:PDT_Xtremez_30:

[The Gimp]

The writing has been on the cards for many years now, I have often said that if we are not melded into one service, then we would be defence PLC by 2020.

If we follow the one service route, then we would all lose out as each service has its own role to play.

We are all specialists in our own jobs and own service. we need eachother, The navy need transport aircraft and fast jet cover for their operations, the army need us to move their troops and kit and to provide CAS when it gets too hot, we need the army to dominate the ground and provide us a (fairly) safe area in which to work and we need the navy to bring the nukes to the party and patrol the sea areas.

Wise up Collins you cnut!!!!!!!!

[Reformed Scribbly]

We had the pleasure of listening to the dear Col Collins as an after dinner speaker in the mess, no doubt he enjoyed the cash stumped up by the RAF, albeit coming from MOD/Govt/tax payers blah blah blah.

Gist of his 1hr 30 speech, in which he informed us of the high esteem in which he held us. Also included how he was to turn a famous car manufacturer's ethos into the same as us, not the army or navy. By that I mean how to ensure that the vending machine repairman? would work without pay out of hours..

This only lasted for 45 mins, the rest turning into a very bitter ad twisted rant about senior officers in the army. He seemed very upset that they hadn't taken up his suggestion to release all the murderers/rapists and arm them to go and dispose of any remaining Saddam loyalists, sounds very sensible, just the kind of man we can rely upon to give a balanced and reasoned suggestion of the future state of the armed forces.
:PDT_Xtremez_09: