I have no love or favour for the Regiment.
But am wondering where the hostility towards it on here comes from?
Like i said.
Bin off the following first.
All MOD music.
All MOD cermonial.
All separate and pointless uniforms
All the little nonsense posts… like Head of RAF Ceremonial… can you even believe this is a full time reg post with a staff team! Convert all that into actual military effect.
Then fully Tri service
Medical.
Dental
Police
Only after cutting these wastes should actual front line forces be cut.
Thats all my point is.
Sooooo much waste in the MOD before we cut front line troops.
Well tri-service is already here (under a different name) for cyber and medical, with 3/4 more trades (in old terminology) due to follow this year and next
The RAF regiment has been cut to the point of irrelevance, they once had a major role to play, but having lost their armour, their air defence role and now their CBRN role they don’t really bring anything to the table,
The budget could be better spent by the Army on their own infantry component.
As a Guin, I have on a couple of occasions defended HM’s Corps of the RAF Regiment to pongos who were ignorant of what the Rocks actually do.
The Army generally only view defending an airfield in terms of real estate. They understand perimeter guards and digging in to defend ground etc. They don’t get dominating the approach and departure air lanes, searching and checking for SAM launch points and mortar base plates which could harm air assets. In my conversations with the Army, they genuinely didn’t understand ‘air minded ground defence’.
Of course, anyone could be trained to do this, but at the moment, that’s what our long-armed, knuckle-dragging friends in the Regiment do very well. Why they weren’t used on Op PITTING is probably political and has absolutely nothing to do with capabilities.
When the decision was made to cancel the Nimrod MRA4 and accept that we would have no maritime air capability there was no intention or plan in place to restore it. In spite of this the seedcorn project was created to embed crew with other nations in order to retain a nucleus around which a future maritime element could be formed.
The seedcorn team had to fight against very strong opposition from the Army who argued that the RAF were seeking funding for a project that did not comprise part of an existing policy. Fortunately they won the argument and when “Call me Dave” realised what he’d done we were in a position to regenerate a maritime force. Without seedcorn it would have been a much longer and more difficult process.
When you contemplate deleting a capability you must always consider how to recreate it, just in case your crystal ball has let you down. FWIW, I feel it was a significant mistake to relinquish the SHORAD role. I hope we don’t come to regret it.
Before WW2 the Army were tasked with defence of R.A.F. airfields,come WW2 they discovered that they couldn’t do it hence the formation of the R.A.F. Regiment,history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
That’s rather the point, there’s nothing the reg do that another formation couldn’t do equally well if not better.
So you teach them. They’ve got enough bodies and sway in the AAC to be able to convert folk over.
Part of our USP is we do flying. How’s that one working out…?
We mirror our parent organisation. If they don’t do green, neither should we.
There’s also the side point that if we say “we require cadets to do green stuff, we should provide them green uniform”, currently we don’t and this is a major discrepancy.
I realise there’s some crossover here, but considering we have a “RAFAC of the future” thread it would be great if we could try to keep them separate where possible please.
You can quote across from one thread to another by starting a post in the thread you’re quoting from, highlighting and hitting the “quote” button, then navigate to other thread and when you hit “reply” it will give you an option of which thread to post in.
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.
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.
