Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
#1
This is not a wind up but something that has been proposed elsewhere,the plan being for the strike force being handed to the Royal Navy and the transport and helicopter force to be transferred to the Army.This would result in savings on admin and stores of several billions of pounds.Bearing in mind the RAF was formed from from the air wing of the Royal artillery and the Royal Navy air service.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#2
Who would handle air defence and air superiority over UK air space?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
this is an interesting one.
could not the head of the armed forces make decisions relevant to uk air space?
#4
The words Get A Grip spring to mind, pointed towards whoever thought that one up.
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
#5
The same branch of the services that protects the shoreline of this country. Sorry that was a bit tongue in cheek in reality none of the current land based air defense assets would be reduced in anyway just dressing in dark blue rather than light blue but there would be more cash available for them.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
#6
Bern as far as i know this has been under serious consideration since the AAC took on the Apache attack helicopters that the RAF wanted.
beer the food of the gods
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
whilst we are on the subject of the raf, the telegraph today carries a report that 7000 personnel and 295 aircraft will be cut.
the ministry of defence deny any such thing but something has to give once they have found reductions of between 10% and 20% in their budget.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
#8
I'm told, with an annual saving of around 27 Billion £'s over the next five years this is something that the MOD is looking at seriously. With maybe all rotary aircraft under the auspices of the AAC and the Fleet Air Arm taking on all jet-propelled aircraft.
#9
Scaremongering again. No British government would dare scrap the RAF, it would be political suicide. This is yet another "out of government party supporters'" ruse to stir up trouble. Only a fool would take it seriously.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#10
UKIP is for keeping all 3 armed sevices as they are today and i agree with that, we have already lost some of our great corps in the army.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
#11
Agreed, I'm not taking it seriously but just passing on the rumours, let us hope it's just chinese whispers.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Howard - at the moment its all options, options only. The press like to repesent options and if they are going to happen - it makes a better headline.
The disbandament of the RAF has often been discussed, usually being put forward by Army or Navy general staff officers. I also doubt that it will happen but with savings to be made if Ministers think it will work and help keep more front-line combat capability at the expense of admin then you never know it may happen.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#13
Related to this thread, there was a 1955 film on Film4 this afternoon, "The Court-martial of Billy Mitchell", about a US General who was court-martialed in 1925 for insubordination after accusing Army and Navy leaders of an "almost treasonable administration of the national defense" by ignoring the need for a proper air force with decent planes, and advocated an air force separate from the army and navy. I wonder if tghe programming was a coincidence or someone at Film4 planning reads this forum!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_MitchellGuest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
The US air force was the US Army Air Force during WW2. In fact the US did not have a seperate Air Force until 1947 - they did not do too badly during the war after all.....
Here is Wiki about Billy Mitchell:
""""""William Lendrum "Billy" Mitchell (December 28, 1879 - February 19, 1936) was an American Army general who is regarded as the father of the U.S. Air Force.[1][2][3] He is one of the most famous and most controversial figures in the history of American airpower.[1]
Mitchell served in France during the First World War and, by the conflict's end, commanded all American air combat units in that country. After the war, he was appointed deputy director of the Air Service and began advocating increased investment in air power, believing that this would prove vital in future wars. He argued particularly for the ability of bombers to sink battleships and organized a series of bombing runs against stationary ships designed to test the idea.
He antagonized many people in the Army with his arguments and criticism and, in 1925, was returned to his permanent rank of Colonel. Later that year, he was court-martialed for insubordination after accusing Army and Navy leaders of an "almost treasonable administration of the national defense."[4] He resigned from the service shortly afterward.
Mitchell received many honors following his death, including a commission by the President as a Major General. He is also the only individual after whom a type of American military aircraft, the B-25 Mitchell, is named.""""""""""""
So he did not see the actual creation of the US Air Force, dieing 12 years earlier.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
reading between the lines of your posts barry i am reaching the conclusion that that the demise of the name "raf" would not be a bad thing necessarily.
i am warming to the idea of one cove overseeing all of the armed forces with the proviso that he/she is surrounded by experts in the field of land, sea and air combat.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 August 2010
07:2164755#16
I am open to the idea provided it means that combat power get preserved. Mind you tradition is important in the armed forces and a major motivator, undermine tradition and you also undermine the fighting effectiveness of the forces. If they decide to do that then it must be done with care.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
10 August 2010
16:2164774#17
It's about time that hundreds of planes less be built than originally planned! The Cold War finished long ago. Also, I like seeing Barry Blue get annoyed when it comes to these matters: he's for keeping a massive military force, but doesn't explain who's supposed to pay for such luxuries!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
10 August 2010
16:2264775#18
The less war-planes there are to play around with, the less likely they will be used!
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
10 August 2010
17:1164779#19
I wonder if you asked most of the white population of British people, to say what thought`s come to mind regarding the history of the RAF, I feel sure it maybe the Battle of Britain, Spitfire`s, Hurricane`s or Lancaster`s amongst the leading contender`s, all part of our past glory and heritage, from 65 plus year`s ago! I personally couldn`t tell you the name of the latest fighter plane or bomber, nor one`s from recent decade`s. The RAF has a history to be proud of, and until Guzzler brought the comment up he`d heard above, I do wonder if any threat to amalgamate it with the Royal Navy and army to save a few billion pound`s, would cause an uproar due to the loss of another British tradition? I of course am totally out of my depth in whether it`s a financially beneficial idea, but at the same time, what would we have to show in year`s to come where the money saved went? Nothing, I`m sure. It`d just go in the proverbial national pot. One thing we would have to show though in year`s`s to come, would be picture`s and memories of another British institution which has gone forever. Of that you can be sure.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 August 2010
17:1964781#20
i share your concerns on this one colin, so many times we have seen cost savings but the money never seems to resurface anywhere else.
a bit like road fund licence, how much of that is spent on roads?
very little i would have thought.