The RAF of the 21st century does not require fieldcraft skills or the RAF Regiment, discuss

That’s why I started this thread in the first place, because of a tangential reply elsewhere.

1 Like

No issue with that, but now we have the two - albeit related - it’s just cleaner and easier to follow if we differentiate and isolate with cross-referencing if needed.

6 posts were merged into an existing topic: What do you think the ATC/CCF(RAF)/RAFAC will be like in the next 50 years? What are your predictions?

So, still not hearing any reasonable defence of the Reg.

Bin them off, close their bases, save on the manpower costs. Job jobbed.

Talking to people who were involved with the MRA 4 at the AVRO museum, the project had multiple problems which started to emerge as the project developed, one of the was that being a 50/60s aircraft was that they were ‘hand built’ and no two aircraft were exactly the same. Unlike today, you can take parts from A like wings and mount the on B all due to modern construction techniques. Also, they had lateral stability problems as well, I believe.

The other problem they had was the production run was too small and spares availability was also a problem, plus if an aircraft goes tech in say the USA you have to send home for parts, whereas the P8 you go to the nearest Boeing user for parts same for the E7 in the future.

This is still a problem with American aircraft too bizarrely. Their models of Chinook are completely different to ours, and piece part spares can’t simply be taken from American suppliers.

There is also the issue that we can not fit parts that haven’t been certified. Which means unless you have the parts with you in a deployment pack-up, you need to send for them from the UK.

You could be flying a Chinook, from an American Chinook base, and still need to send back to the UK for a screw.

Thing is how far do you take it? If the RAF no longer requires in house ground forces to help deliver air power, then does the navy need theirs to deliver navel power? :thinking:

Technically no reason why they couldn’t be put into the Army as ambitious infantry.

It is however a very different concept, the ability to fight littoral actions with dedicated ambitious units is very different to what is (now) essentially a specialist ground defence unit.

1 Like

Thing is, if the RAF Reg were disbanded the specialisation that they offer would have to be transferred to a different force, so we probably wouldn’t even save that much money, just change which command they fall under🤔

Not really, you just put the knowledge into the Infantry manual.

The only real loss to the RAF would be that the regiment provide all of the GDT (arguably the only real job that they have left to do).

It would fall to an existing formation, the only additional cost is on the relevant training, which wouldn’t be that much, especially noting that the Regiment’s main use hasn’t been used since the 60s.

You make a good point, and honestly GDT could be transferred to the army if the regiment were disbanded, but having a dedicated force to protect air fields does allow the army infantry regiments to maintain a more aggressive posture rather than taking on a more force protection orientated role

Not every Army formation is about aggressively seeking contact, there are easily formations that could take on this role.

And let’s not forget, the Army has their own aviation units, there is easily scope for this kind of unit and training to be available in the AAC.

1 Like

Admittedly no airfields have been taken in decades, but the force protection role which the RAF Regiment provide is still definitely necessary, in recent years the battle of bastion could be a good example :thinking:

Yeah, that’s not the Regiment’s finest hour, the news of it and the exploits of some afterwards haven’t shown them in very good light at all.

1 Like

If the RAF was to loose the RAF Regiment, then would the army still need the AAC? It might be more economically viable to adopt a model based off the Canadian armed forces where all air power is provided by the air force, all ground forces are provided by the army and all navel forces by the navy🤔

There’s no way the Army would give up their Apaches.

No, the RAF Regiment and the AAC are not comparable, one being lost does not mean the other is irrelevant.

1 Like

Oh definitely, the engagement certainly embarrassed the RAF but it shows that a dedicated force protection force is required :thinking:

That we know of? Remember there have been many operations in the Middle East we are yet to heat of, maybe we will in the future.


I would suggest that in the modern age things like that would be all over YouTube or a book would be out by now.