Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Bring the forces out of Belize, Cyprus, Germany, Gibraltar and the Falklands as it's a complete waste of money.

    Merge the RAF into the Army and Navy.
    I'm going to ignore the second part of your post as it gives me a nervous/angry twitch just reading it let alone your explanation.

    I am however interested to know what on Earth you think the result of taking out the bases in Belize, Cyprus, Germany, Gibraltar and the Falklands might be? I suggest you maybe read up on what those stations are there for.

    Q_M
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Theo1977)
    My bad - I expressed it poorly. Al Qaeda pose a threat; if the Taleban were in power it would provide Al Qaeda with a more secure base from which to operate, and therefore increase the threat level to the UK. The Taleban might not pose a direct threat, but they could facilitate it if they held power.

    Is that any better? :p:
    Mmm, maybe. However, I ask you - what is Al Qaeda? I'd argue that it doesn't exist, or at least not as it is popularly misunderstood.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Five five six-although al qaeda are not a homogenous group, the cells that they have are full of not very nice people who are capable of commiting mass murder both on our shores and the shores of the United States.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FiveFiveSix)
    Mmm, maybe. However, I ask you - what is Al Qaeda? I'd argue that it doesn't exist, or at least not as it is popularly misunderstood.
    And one could argue in turn that the reason for that is that we've denied them a safe haven in Afghanistan for the last eight years!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wzz)
    If you want to chop some unnecessary parts of the armed forces, I'd say there's a lot more sensible targets than the entire RAF. Get rid of all the London-based ceremonial regiments, which have no war role.
    The Foot Guards regiments are routinely conducting tours in Afghanistan as are the Household Cavalry.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ub2008)
    Five five six-although al qaeda are not a homogenous group, the cells that they have are full of not very nice people who are capable of commiting mass murder both on our shores and the shores of the United States.
    Al Qaeda is a name misapplied to a variety of Islamic fundamentalist groups that may share some common goals, but are broadly split on a variety of issues. There is no centralised organisation coordinating the efforts of the 'cells', but since the Western powers in their ignorance have inflated Al Qaeda's status to far beyond that which it deserves, every nutty Mohammad and Abdullah realise that by claiming affiliation with or membership of Al Qaeda, they raise their profile and take a shortcut to grabbing the front page.

    What most people understand as Al Qaeda only existed in loose form between 1996 and 2001 anyrate. Nice to see you've ceased the bone posts on ARRSE btw!

    (Original post by Theo1977)
    And one could argue in turn that the reason for that is that we've denied them a safe haven in Afghanistan for the last eight years!
    Possibly. I'm a newcomer to the study of Islamic fundamentalism, and it's cause and effect. What I would argue though is: A - if we've been battling the Taliban for eight years without a decisive victory, what makes you think we could deny ground to an organisation like Al Qaeda, if it is as: B - well funded, organised and globally reaching as most sensationalist journalists or supposedly well informed sources would have us believe?

    It's an interesting debate, and I'd whole-heartedly suggest you pick up a copy of Jason Burke's 'Al Qaeda', followed by the slightly heavier 'Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern' by John Gray (although take this one with a pinch of salt, especially his relating to positivism and modernism)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wzz)
    What a ridiculous thread.

    No-one in the Army wants to join to fly tankers or transports, because it's not an "Army" job. And which service would get them anyway? Or most of our ISTAR assets? Do people who want to be in the Navy really want to fly Sentries in circles at 30 000ft as a career? Nope.

    Likewise, no-one in the RAF wants to fly a helicopter off the back of a boat for years on end. And none of us want to follow the Army's rather inefficient career paths for aircrew.

    I'd also like to see where the savings will come from. There's no capability left to cut, really. If you still need the same number of aircraft, you'll need the same number of bases, and you'll need the same number of people. If all you're doing is blowing a bunch of cash on changing their names and technically making them part of another service, where do the savings come from?

    If you want to chop some unnecessary parts of the armed forces, I'd say there's a lot more sensible targets than the entire RAF. Get rid of all the London-based ceremonial regiments, which have no war role. Get rid of the AAC before you touch the RAF, as I remain convinced that the RAF would operate its assets in an infinitely more efficient way.

    More importantly, if anyone can show me a successful first world nation that doesn't have a separate independent air force, then I'll start thinking about how it might be sensible.
    Fair point.

    What's about the Canadian Armed Forces? Or, do they not meet the criteria as they have their own Air Command within that?

    Not that I support a purple force, I just thought I'd ask.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yoof the Fifer)
    Fair point.

    What's about the Canadian Armed Forces? Or, do they not meet the criteria as they have their own Air Command within that?

    Not that I support a purple force, I just thought I'd ask.
    Or the USMC...
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    The Canadian Forces Air Command has practically re-created a smaller version of the RCAF that was there before unification.

    The USMC - they might be big, but the USAF is certainly an Air Force.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    Those arent my words im quoting someone.
    Douhet by any chance?!
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    Why have infantry when you can have planes? If theres cuts it should be to the army and they should make the RAF bigger.
    Because what are you going to do when you stop dropping bombs on everything? Assuming you even know what's useful to hit? Then assuming you manage to destroy those things? 'Strategic bombing' as a stand-alone strategy is not really considered a good idea. (See Op Enduring Freedom: Kosovo '99, for a good example among many-ahh, APS, how you've indoctrinated me). The RAF is there, ultimately, to support land based forces. If you think all land forces do is hearts and minds 'nicey nicey', then, er, think again.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FiveFiveSix)
    how will the AAC's assets be better served under the RAF?
    I don't think he's saying that directly, he's saying that would be a better option than handing RAF assets to the AAC.

    The RAF already provides most of the SH for the Army, admittedly the Apache is best remaining an organic Army asset since it's role as the "flying tank" suits them down to the ground.

    The Army tends to be quite narrow minded when it comes to air power and the beauty of having an independent Air Force allows for independent thinking and breaking away from stiff traditions and ideologies that integration into the Army or Navy would impose.

    I don't understand all this rubbish about binning the RAF and merging it with the others. Surely all that would happen is everyone would turn up for work as they did the previous day but just be wearing expensive new uniforms and cap badges and driving past lots of expensive news signs on their way?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,163

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Articles:

Guide to the armed forcesGuide to the Royal Air ForceA job in the Army

Featured recruiter profiles:

Army logo

The Army is recruiting now

"With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

Quick Link:

Unanswered Armed Forces Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.