SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) Seriously, what the hell is wrong with that country that this was even considered in the first place?! Jesus UK, get it together, it's just embarrassing to watch this now... Edited July 16, 2011 by ZmelliFahrdz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,879 Posted July 16, 2011 Just political rubbish - suspect the Army and Navy saw their chance with all the cost cutting going on and made some extra cost cutting proposals. Integration would probably be a disaster, short sighted, deluded, retarded etc etc Interesting how the Libya conflict is now a sales pitch for the Indians! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShrikeHawk 384 Posted July 16, 2011 I recall that when the USAAF broke away from the Army and became the USAF it worked out pretty well for everyone. The Army wasn't left high and dry at all. An airforce needs to stand on its own as a separate branch in order to be most efficient. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
33LIMA 972 Posted July 16, 2011 I recall that when the USAAF broke away from the Army and became the USAF it worked out pretty well for everyone. The Army wasn't left high and dry at all. An airforce needs to stand on its own as a separate branch in order to be most efficient. Tell that to the marines - the USMC to be specific. They have the right idea. Amongst other ill effects, the separate existence of the RAF means the UK defence budget tends to get split 3 ways regardless of actual need, made worse by it then being spent more to protect UK jobs than kit out the services with the best kit the money can buy. Even when they buy the best like Apaches, we somehow end up paying way more than everyone else. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. The French General in WW1 had the right idea, who, when faced with the setting up of an 'Independent [air] Force' to pursue so-called strategic ( mismomer usually, because it tends ot be independent of strategy rather than supporting it) bombing, said, "Independent of whom? Of God?' Airforces' insistence on independence has historically led to the less-than-optimal employment of both airpower and taxpayer's money. I can say that, and my dad was ex-RAF! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,879 Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) Tell that to the marines - the USMC to be specific. They have the right idea. Amongst other ill effects, the separate existence of the RAF means the UK defence budget tends to get split 3 ways regardless of actual need, made worse by it then being spent more to protect UK jobs than kit out the services with the best kit the money can buy. Even when they buy the best like Apaches, we somehow end up paying way more than everyone else. Yeah license built by Augusta Westland - we did a bit of an F-4M/K job on them. The USMC is still a specialisation to support the troops though - it has the USAF to protect Land assets and the US Navy to protect Carrier fleets. The Army operates the Apaches not the RAF The Royal Navy has its own Air Force - the Fleet Air Arm - who will be back in business when the F-35C finally shows up. The RAF is UK air Defence and due to scaling down is the only force that operates fixed wing Jets - I still see this as a specialist role and not something the other forces should concentrate on. Even if you merge the moneys going to be spent on providing jobs for the UK defence industry anyway so its not a solution to that. A merger might improve communication and stop the petty arguments that go on - but I doubt it - we would make it a mess one way or the other! Edited July 16, 2011 by MigBuster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) Tell that to the marines - the USMC to be specific. They have the right idea. Amongst other ill effects, the separate existence of the RAF means the UK defence budget tends to get split 3 ways regardless of actual need, made worse by it then being spent more to protect UK jobs than kit out the services with the best kit the money can buy. Even when they buy the best like Apaches, we somehow end up paying way more than everyone else. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. The French General in WW1 had the right idea, who, when faced with the setting up of an 'Independent [air] Force' to pursue so-called strategic ( mismomer usually, because it tends ot be independent of strategy rather than supporting it) bombing, said, "Independent of whom? Of God?' Airforces' insistence on independence has historically led to the less-than-optimal employment of both airpower and taxpayer's money. I can say that, and my dad was ex-RAF! The Reason the UK Military in general pays more is because unlike other armed forces we end up buying just the airframe etc and giving it the the Old Boys club that is BAe etc and then they install all the kit inside it and charge the UK military for everything and charge it double and saying it does a better job, when in the long term generally it doesn't for example the Chinook HCMK2 which was supposed to be glass cockpit etc but they couldn't get it to work and they sat in storage for 8 years when Boeing had the ones for the US Army with glass cockpits sorted in short order... There are also other things the SA-80 would have been cheaper a lot cheaper to buy the M-16/M-4 and there would not have been any problems, granted BAe do make some good equipment when it works, but when it comes to the UK Military in General they shaft them for every penny they can get. Type 45 Destroyer anyone 3 times the cost of a Burke class DDG with half the weapons etc etc... As to the RAF becoming part of the Army or Navy which one of those 2 services controls it ? Because if either do they will set it for their priorities. Granted the RAF does at times do stupid things Harriers anyone? But it should stand alone as there are jobs it does that the other services dont do, anyhew of my soapbox again... oh and I spent 10 years in the Army and Airforce... Navy made me seasick... Edited July 16, 2011 by Slartibartfast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikeone 4 Posted July 16, 2011 As a current serviceman of the light blue, I can say that this has been ranted about before, long before, the title of this should be, why the hell has it taken so long for it to come to be posted here! lol And it aint just with the RAF, heres an idea from a few freinds in Lakenheath; USMC is top-heavy, and with US debt skyrocketing, they think the USMC should follow more the model of our (UK) Marines...especially as the cost of a squadron of F35s alone would fund much more worth in marine troopers.... sacrilidge! lol Heresey! People on here would scream blue murder, lol but an idea that has as much standing as the one linked above. ....so this sorta thing/argument isn't new :whistle: especially since here each service is such a big sacred cow. Things would really have to be in dire straits for it to be seriously considered... And even then, the only way a Merge can be anyway sucessful is following the model the Canadians used, with a whole arms, dark blue, light blue and green, into one command, CAF. Also, BAe, Lockheed, Boeing...all their kit gets cursed at in the hanger...lol from the J hercs giving me sleepless nights and hatred for all things Lockheed, to screaming blue murder at the Thales/Marshalls kit bodged onto them! XD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
