RAF RIP?

[Guest]

Story here.

With the current economic climate and the country needing to make savings it seems that there could be moves to get rid of the RAF.

THE RAF could be axed as a separate force in cost-cutting measures, it was feared last night.

The concerns followed remarks from the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup was asked if it was "plausible" Britain would still have three armed services a decade from now.

He said: "Certainly, it is plausible." However, he went on: "There are interesting issues to be debated.

"Any very large organisation has to be broken down into certain elements. So there are separate issues here."

It was seen as a hint the RAF could merge with the Army. But Ministry of Defence sources later played down the suggestion.

To me this makes sense as we will always need an army and being an island nation the Senior Service should always be retained. It would be quite easy to merge the RAF into the Fleet Air arm and reinstate the Royal Flying Corps saving a fortune in administration of the junior service.

[Johnboy]

I think it would be a sad day for the RAF, and one brought about by the two pointless and very costly wars Tony Blair dragged us into.

Costly in more than monetary terms, too.

[Guest]

I think it would be a sad day for the RAF, and one brought about by the two pointless and very costly wars Tony Blair dragged us into.

Costly in more than monetary terms, too.

What is the point in military forces if you are not going to go to war? No war means they are an even bigger waste of money than they are now.

I can see what you mean but if we were a peaceful nation then we would not require the forces at all and we would have billions of pounds to spend on the country.

[Heilandee]

From a sentimental point of view (being ex crab air) it would be sad to see the RAF as a seperate entity disapear but practically and financialy it's probably a wise move.The Navy have the Fleet air arm and the Army have the flying corp so a merger and extension with savings on administration and saving of man power in some cases would be wise in the current climate (plus they could get the pongo's to do all the airfield gaurd duties)

[latviaman]

As an ex Airy-Fairy, I do not see a problem with the merging of the RAF and FAA both talk the same language air wise and being more streamlined might get rid of the old *ankers in MOD from both sides!!!

[Georgeios]

we wouldnt be gotten rid of, just the army do things that we do.. we do stuff they do, they will be looking at what we do, and what the Army do and for example, We have TCW, Tactical Communications Wing, the Army have the royal Corp of Sigs, so they will for example be merged, they both do comms in the field so makes sence, Fleet air arm as it stands now carry RAF jets and drivers, (Harriers) the Army air corp fly Apchies, both are ment to be in a close air support roll so well more than likely lose the Harrier as the JCA will be canned before replacements for the Harrier are brought in, to the Army will Deal with the Close Air Support side of life. This is what is also bringing the Carrier Replacements in the question, the new replacement jets are too big for the MK1 drawing for them, At the end of the day the RAF drop bombs, yes yes before birdog bites so does the Fleet air arm but they are wee bombs. Its a massive subject to be discussed to b honest, but at the end of the day for me, I'll still have a job just under a differnt name.... Kinloss witll close though IMO, again thats another story...

[DAM]

I think it would be a sad day for the RAF, and one brought about by the two pointless and very costly wars Tony Blair dragged us into.

Costly in more than monetary terms, too.

What is the point in military forces if you are not going to go to war? No war means they are an even bigger waste of money than they are now.

I can see what you mean but if we were a peaceful nation then we would not require the forces at all and we would have billions of pounds to spend on the country.

"we would not require the forces at all" - how would we defend ourselves then? Get real!

[Oz647]

I think it would be a sad day for the RAF, and one brought about by the two pointless and very costly wars Tony Blair dragged us into.

Costly in more than monetary terms, too.

What is the point in military forces if you are not going to go to war? No war means they are an even bigger waste of money than they are now.

I can see what you mean but if we were a peaceful nation then we would not require the forces at all and we would have billions of pounds to spend on the country.

Fair point Birdog but unfortunately even if we were a peaceful nation we would still need forces to defend ourselves against the not so peaceful nations. Otherwise we would all be speaking arabic by now. :021:

[Georgeios]

We are a Deterrent for nations that fancy having a pop, its the "just in case" that costs us so much, look at the Nukes the Navy have... they Deter other nations from starting on us.. like France n that....

PS Birdogs just looking for bites and is on a big wind up here !!

Edited February 4, 2010 by Georgeios

[Guest]

I think it would be a sad day for the RAF, and one brought about by the two pointless and very costly wars Tony Blair dragged us into.

Costly in more than monetary terms, too.

What is the point in military forces if you are not going to go to war? No war means they are an even bigger waste of money than they are now.

I can see what you mean but if we were a peaceful nation then we would not require the forces at all and we would have billions of pounds to spend on the country.

Fair point Birdog but unfortunately even if we were a peaceful nation we would still need forces to defend ourselves against the not so peaceful nations. Otherwise we would all be speaking arabic by now. :021:

Sorry, never put my point across very well, the point I was trying to make is that our forces are set up as an aggressive force and therefore going to war is just what they need to do. Regardless of what the government would like us to believe we had no reason to side with the Americans in this so called "war on terror" other than it was a good excuse to get our hands on the oil in Iraq and the opium in Afghanistan, aggression. Of course we would need a much smaller armed forces if we were a peaceful nation but throughout history we have always been aggressors, otherwise we would not have ruled 30% of the globe at one point, forcing English to be the second most widely spoken language on the planet.

[starchief]

Fair point Birdog but unfortunately even if we were a peaceful nation we would still need forces to defend ourselves against the not so peaceful nations. Otherwise we would all be speaking arabic by now. :moon2:

And what Arabic nation has ever attacked the UK?

Now what Arabic nation has been attacked by the the UK?

[Oz647]

Fair point Birdog but unfortunately even if we were a peaceful nation we would still need forces to defend ourselves against the not so peaceful nations. Otherwise we would all be speaking arabic by now. :moon2:

And what Arabic nation has ever attacked the UK?

Now what Arabic nation has been attacked by the the UK?

Unfortunately it's the extremists that live in the UK that I'm referring to. If they had their way we would be a Islamic state. I'm not going to get too drawn on this as I feel fairly strongly about this and it could become a bit heated. If you don't agree with my view, not a problem it is your right as it is mine to hold that view. Nuff said.

PS: I count the London/Glasgow bombings as an attack on the UK

Edited February 4, 2010 by Oz647

[Johnboy]

Unfortunately it's the extremists that live in the UK that I'm referring to. If they had their way we would be a Islamic state. I'm not going to get too drawn on this as I feel fairly strongly about this and it could become a bit heated. If you don't agree with my view, not a problem it is your right as it is mine to hold that view. Nuff said.

PS: I count the London/Glasgow bombings as an attack on the UK

Don't you think that the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, during Tony Blair's illegal war in Iraq, which clearly showed Iraqui people being tortured by their US captors, might just have had something to do with the radicalisation of young muslims in this country?

Those "extremists" you refer to that live in the UK may very well be extremists now, but they weren't always extremists.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Johnboy

[ictchris]

Don't you think that the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, during Tony Blair's illegal war in Iraq, which clearly showed Iraqui people being tortured by their US captors, might just have had something to do with the radicalisation of young muslims in this country?

Those "extremists" you refer to that live in the UK may very well be extremists now, but they weren't always extremists.

Maybe those pictures did radicalise people. However, in the real world things very rarely work in such a cause and effect manner. The social process of a British Muslim becoming a jihadist/Quitdist/salafist etc isn't quite a simple as reading a particularly harrowing edition of the Independent. For example, some of the 7/7 bombers were pushed towards radical Islam by the perception that the West stood by as Muslims were massacred in Bosnia. Social factors also play a big role in radicalising people - many Muslim communities that have seen radicals emerge are very conservative, run by traditions imported from the villages where many emigrated from decades before. Young people, faced with archiac rules and community leaders have looked for more modern role models, which often come from radical preachers. Again, I think I'm right in saying that one of the 7/7 bombers was estranged from his family becuase he wanted to marry an African woman - his traditional family wanted him to marry someone whose family coudl be traced back to the village they originally came from. Radical Muslims are many things but they are cut off from the partiality of customs - all races are welcome, as witnessed by the different racial backgrounds of British Muslims who have committed, or attempted to committ, terrorist attacks.

[Oz647]

Unfortunately it's the extremists that live in the UK that I'm referring to. If they had their way we would be a Islamic state. I'm not going to get too drawn on this as I feel fairly strongly about this and it could become a bit heated. If you don't agree with my view, not a problem it is your right as it is mine to hold that view. Nuff said.

PS: I count the London/Glasgow bombings as an attack on the UK

Don't you think that the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, during Tony Blair's illegal war in Iraq, which clearly showed Iraqui people being tortured by their US captors, might just have had something to do with the radicalisation of young muslims in this country?

Those "extremists" you refer to that live in the UK may very well be extremists now, but they weren't always extremists.

Just because they saw some photos of alledged torture in Iraq doesn't mean they become Jihadists overnight it is bred into them over a long period. It's not a case of "Oh I don't like that picture I think I'll go and blow myself up and take some innocent people with me".

If those pictures upset you please don't watch all the videos on the net showing those same extremists cutting people's heads off whilst they beg for their lives. On a slightly less violent scale DO you think it right that the muslim protesters that jeered our boys homecoming had nothing done to them but the brits that stood up to them were arrested on the spot?

Edited February 5, 2010 by Oz647

[Georgeios]

Unfortunately it's the extremists that live in the UK that I'm referring to. If they had their way we would be a Islamic state. I'm not going to get too drawn on this as I feel fairly strongly about this and it could become a bit heated. If you don't agree with my view, not a problem it is your right as it is mine to hold that view. Nuff said.

PS: I count the London/Glasgow bombings as an attack on the UK

Don't you think that the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, during Tony Blair's illegal war in Iraq, which clearly showed Iraqui people being tortured by their US captors, might just have had something to do with the radicalisation of young muslims in this country?

Those "extremists" you refer to that live in the UK may very well be extremists now, but they weren't always extremists.

I'm with Oz on this, the Prison pictures were/are wrong but in the same breath Ive seen some horrific treatments of those who the extreamists kidnaped you would maybe see some "exscuse" as to why some are over agressive when we have POW's... its not a reason for it but in those situations it is an exscuse.

have a look at the Ken Biggley Exacution if its still on line...

[Charles Bannerman]

It would be quite easy to merge the RAF into the Fleet Air arm and reinstate the Royal Flying Corps saving a fortune in administration of the junior service.

As long as we retain Biggles and Algy, we can leave the area bombing of Teheran to the Yanks. :D

[starchief]

On a slightly less violent scale I suppose you think it right that the muslim protesters that jeered our boys homecoming had nothing done to them but the brits that stood up to them were arrested on the spot?

Why are you attempting to put words in someone else's mouth? The OP said nothing of the sort but you're trying to make him out to be in favour of Islamic extremists, when it's pretty clear he's against Christian/Western extremism, exemplified by Bush & Blair.

Or should I say how disappointed you are that you can't vote Blair in again as you fundamentally believe 'our boys' should have the right to invade any non-Christian country? Probably not, but you take my point?

Georgios - your posts are very difficult to read and I'm still not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that the torture by Americans was an excuse for the torture of Americans? Or is it the other way around?

Nevertheless, the invasion of Iraq was a huge catalyst for the radicalism of young Muslims and a breeding ground for racists too. Withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia (would Catholics like Muslim soldiers in Vatican City?), a creation of a Palestinian state (to think how close Rabin was - how different the world would have been without that assassination) and a hands-off approach to other countries would take down the extremist threat (both from fascists and islamists) to almost zero. And you know what? It's also the right decision too.

[Georgeios]

I'm not getting dragged in, I was pointing out that the lads and lassies are awaire of what the extreamists will do if they catch any of them, so some react in an overly violent way.. yes yes Two wrong dont make a right, and for the record i am not saying what they did was right but hey thats war, WE just do as we are told.

In 2003 I was in Iraq and spent some time at Shiber, (Our POW camp) the few days I was there, the POW's spent most of the day eating, Praying and Playing football, I'll bet non of the general public will have seen that... just the small number of people that were treated wrong...

[Guest]

I'm not getting dragged in, I was pointing out that the lads and lassies are awaire of what the extreamists will do if they catch any of them, so some react in an overly violent way.. yes yes Two wrong dont make a right, and for the record i am not saying what they did was right but hey thats war, WE just do as we are told.

Another way to look at it Geordie is that the "extremists" in Iraq are/were people willing to try to protect their country from an invading force, if the UK was invaded by an army tomorrow and over run would you want to defend it? How far would you go in the defence of your homeland? I don't see nationalistic views as extremist, protectionist yes but extremist no.

Were the military personnel carrying out the atrocities against Iraqi prisoners "just doing as they were told" if so then who "told" them to do it?

[starchief]

Ok. Trouble is what extremists do is try to make everyone else extremists. In truth, I'm sure the vast majority of people just want to live in peace and aren't too bothered what anyone else believes in (religion, territory, hell, the Cold War, at it's heart, was all about which economic system was best - unbelievable!). But these extremists, whether that's Bush, Bin Laden, the BNP or Blair (perhaps we should ban these beginning with 'B' - even Mr Benn used to steal things to keep as souvenirs) are so black-and-white that they force ordinary people to choose sides, picking the most extreme events.

Islamists blew up the twin towers so should America hate all Muslims? Well, a right-winger blew up (Timothy McVeigh) blew up central Oklahoma, so do Americans hate Americans? Should Palestinians despise the US for voting in Bush, even though 49% voted against him? Should the Middle East hate for Britain for Blair's support for the Lebanon invasion, even though the British people were against it?

Bush said 'you're either with us or against us' but life's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. The Iraq march and polls suggest would then that the UK is on the side of Islamic extremism? Obviously not but that doesn't mean we're all marching to the tune of Rumsfeld either.

[Georgeios]

Curiosity got the better of me Birdie, I'm not for 1 second saying these folk were told to treat the POW's that way, and I do not know what the circumstances were and i am not saying for a second they were right in doing it.

My "Told to" line was referring to why I/We were in Iraq in the first place, I went because I was told to, not for the Oil/Sand/Holy reasons, I went because I am brainless and do what I'm told.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Georgeios

[Oz647]

On a slightly less violent scale I suppose you think it right that the muslim protesters that jeered our boys homecoming had nothing done to them but the brits that stood up to them were arrested on the spot?

Why are you attempting to put words in someone else's mouth? The OP said nothing of the sort but you're trying to make him out to be in favour of Islamic extremists, when it's pretty clear he's against Christian/Western extremism, exemplified by Bush & Blair.

Or should I say how disappointed you are that you can't vote Blair in again as you fundamentally believe 'our boys' should have the right to invade any non-Christian country? Probably not, but you take my point?

Georgios - your posts are very difficult to read and I'm still not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that the torture by Americans was an excuse for the torture of Americans? Or is it the other way around?

Nevertheless, the invasion of Iraq was a huge catalyst for the radicalism of young Muslims and a breeding ground for racists too. Withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia (would Catholics like Muslim soldiers in Vatican City?), a creation of a Palestinian state (to think how close Rabin was - how different the world would have been without that assassination) and a hands-off approach to other countries would take down the extremist threat (both from fascists and islamists) to almost zero. And you know what? It's also the right decision too.

Starchief, I was not attempting to put words into anyone's mouth or suggesting that anyone is pro anything. If that is the way it seemed I am sorry. It is obviously the way I phrased my question. I have now edited it so it should fall in the acceptable guidelines of questions. If it is still not to your liking, well hey as the song says "That's life"

Just for the record, I don't agree with the Iraq/Afghan wars, we shouldn't be there but while we are I will defend the boys/girls out there giving up there lives so that we can get a bus/train/plane without the fear of not getting to our destination.

[Guest]

Curiosity got the better of me Birdie, I'm not for 1 second saying these folk were told to treat the POW's that way, and I do not know what the circumstances were and i am not saying for a second they were right in doing it.

My "Told to" line was referring to why I/We were in Iraq in the first place, I went because I was told to, not for the Oil/Sand/Holy reasons, I went because I am brainless and do what I'm told.

I have no problem at all with any service personnel going to a war zone under orders, it's those who take us to war on the back of lies and deceit which I have the problem with. I have only respect for those who sign up to fight for our country because I believe the majority do so through good intentions.

[TopSix]

It would be a shame to see the RAF go but it's a very expensive part of the forces.

I don't think a lot of people realise the extent to which UK plc is going to need to make cutbacks to address the financial situation.