It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Abolish the RAF

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 03:09 PM
Seeing as my CVF post was moving this way I thought I would start a dedicated thread for this discussion.

CVF Thread

Now don’t get me wrong. I am a great fan of the ‘junior’ service. I have had relatives serve and fly in both world wars as well as an uncle who was a navigator on DH Victors. I myself have flown a dozen odd times at RAF Wyton with the CCF when I was at school.

However times are tough, the Royal Navy and Army are under huge financial and deployment pressure. Rather than subside into oblivion like many other nations. Why not reorganise the aerial units into the other two services, thus reducing the cost of having three independent branches. Both the Army and the Navy already have aerial units and equipment, and in the case of the RNAS there are already bases equipped with runways and support infrastructure.

Remember the whole of the First World War was fought with only two services each with its own aircraft which specialised in certain missions, why not now.
Here is an article by former SAS man Tim Collins on the subject.

Tim Collins Article


posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by jensy
However times are tough, the Royal Navy and Army are under huge financial and deployment pressure. Rather than subside into oblivion like many other nations. Why not reorganise the aerial units into the other two services, thus reducing the cost of having three independent branches.

Another point worth considering is the ratio of officers to men in the RAF now compared to back in WW2.

Right now, its extremely top heavy. Since turkeys do not vote for christmas, it is unlikely the RAF are ever voluntarily going to sort this out from within.

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:09 PM
Having been a pro - RAF nutjob ever since I could first say the word 'plane' ("its not a plane, its an aeroplane!") This a very strange thread for me to be interested in. And yet I am. Ever since the idea was mentioned on the CVF thread there was one central thought that I didn't voice on there as I wanted to rationalise it more.

It is this;

The RAF was the first Air Force in the world. It was created in 1918 with the SOLE PURPOSE of bombing the crap out of Germany with a large strategic bomber force. A force, and a mission, that had no parallel in the Army or Navy and was not in support of the operations of either. Thus was created the worlds first independant Air Force.

The first moves to abolish it duly followed in 1919 as such a force was no longer needed. Except that Lord Trenchard argued that it was and despite shrinking the home defence fighter squadrons to the same level we have today, ie bugger all, the strategic bomber force was maintained throughout the 1920's and into the 1930's when the rise of Hitler led to the reorganisation that gave us Fighter Command and Bomber Command. Even then Hugh Dowding had to fight bloody hard to prise resources from the clutches of the Bomber boys in order to get the Radar, Hurricanes and Spitfires that saved democracy long enough for America to wake up and join in.

And thus it has ever been, the primary reason for the existance of the RAF ever since it was founded, except for a few weeks in 1940, has been to bomb the crap out of the other fellow, a strategy that it took to a new and terrifying level by the time the war ended with 1,000 bomber raids as the norm dropping every kind and weight of bomb imaginable, except for the atomic one of course which we were not going to use in Europe even if we had the choice, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Even following WW2 the prime reason the RAF existed was strategic bombing, Britain was unique in developing *and operating* 3 different types of nuclear armed strategic bomber when the V-Force was created, even Russia and the USA didn’t go that far.
So, Forty years since the strategic deterrant was passed to the Royal Navy (who you might say have made a better job of it than the RAF did when they had it, not ever having used it an’ all) and ten years since the RAF disposed of its last nuclear bomb, before you decide to scrap it, you have to establish what is it FOR exactly?

[edit on 9-7-2009 by waynos]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by waynos]

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:45 PM
The reality is this: you can abolish the RAF but perhaps not the missions they undertake.

So you may save a bit by intergrating the RAF into the Army and navy, but Im at a loss to see where real signifigant saving would occur

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:54 PM
reply to post by jensy

Let's just stop funding Prince Andrews flights around the world playing golf, and that's the RAF taken care of financially.

But seriously, if there would be no significant reduction in tactical effectiveness by having the Army and Navy have their own air respectively, then the only other issue would be the historical importance. I suppose a token squadron could be kept for ceremonial and airshow purposes.

But like a previous poster said, it would just be a change of paint, uniforms and signs on bases, but in the end, they'd still need same number of planes to carry out the missions. Maybe even more as each branch would need there own, so in fact, it may cost more.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by kiwifoot]

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:34 AM
Personally I think this is most rediculous idea I've ever heard!

Why would combining the different forces equal cost savings? We'd still need the operational airfields we have now, we'd still need the ground crew, we'd still need the security provisions, we'd still need the pilots, we'd still need the means of supporting all of this.

The only way integration would save costs is if we lower the overall capability.

I work closely with the MOD, and particularly the RAF and Navy. Over the last few years the forces have been running lean programs to run each capability as efficiently as possible. Thus, the only way we'll drastically reduce costs is to reduce capability.

The army do what they do, and they're one of the best in the world at doing it, the same can be said for the Navy and the RAF.

A combined force = A jack of all trades, but a master of none!

As for the comment regarding 'top heavy' structures, that is due to the highly technical nature of the RAF. The fact that a higher proportion of staff are better educated, (and are therefore commissioned) than in the other forces should only be a good thing surely?

Our government has shown time and time again that the larger the enterprise the harder it falls. I'm sure that if we tried to go purple, it would end up costing the tax payer more for the same level of capability!



new topics

top topics

log in