4 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?
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.
Exmpa
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.
1 Like
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.
Seems to be a few of those skills in Ukraine…
1 Like
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.
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? 
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