Talk:Royal Air Force/Archive 1

message: On BBC Radio I heard an account of the origins of the RAF dull blue uniform that is so distinct from most other miltary and naval wear appart from airforces modelled on the RAF.  The evolution of the  RAF evolved in the First World War at the same time as the Russian Revolution.  A large amount of the Blue cloth had been made in England ready for Cossack uniforms in Imperial Russia.  Needless to say, the order was not fulfiled and the huge stock of cloth needed to be used somewhere.  Enter the RFC/RAF!  I have been unable to find another source for this (and need more to put it on Wikipedia) and wondered if anyone could help
-I've heard the above as well; no idea on a source I'm afraid. Also, AFAIK, Rapier isn't a comparable system to the US Patriot; It's a much shorter-range system, with some versions optically tracked. A better comparison is probably the US Advanced HAWK system. Jakob
-I have also heard this account, but I've also heard that it's apocryphal.  It it were to be included then I think it would need to be backed up by credible references. 217.34.229.213 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer the original question, a source for the blue cloth story is Air Publication 3003, A Brief History of the Royal Air Force, HMSO, Chapter 7, Cultural Identity, p 366, 367. Greenshed 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of Royal Air Force uniform?

message: The Rapier Field Standard C is only a short range surface to air missile while the Patriot has a longer range capability.  Most versions are also no longer just optically sighted.  Plus, has anyone heard anything about the control of the Rapier systems being handed over from the regiment to the Army?
---FuturePilot
Yes Rapier FSC will go to the Army. 88.105.128.238 00:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapier FSC

message: As there are separate articles for these topics, might it be better to remove these sub-sections and put a sentence or two (with links) into the Personnel section? 217.34.229.213 15:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Officers and Other Ranks

message: Although the RAF template has an entry for the History of the RAF, it redirects to the main page.  This is clearly not a satisfactory state of affairs and the history section in the main article could easily make an article in its own right.  I would be in favour of such a move but we would then need a precis of the history article for main RAF page.  What do people think? 88.105.128.238 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitley be for it. Rob 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to have a go at doing this - hopefully people can expand the history in the new article, as it seems quite short for 88 years of history. Sc147 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the RAF

message: This britsh area bombing directive nr. 42 lead to a systimatical attacking of the geman civil populatiuon. the british attacks were concentrated on workingclass quarters and midivael citycenters. The goal was pure terror against civilians. The amount of civilian loses were enormous. In Hamburg (55.000 dead, in Dresden betwenn 25.000 and 35.000 dead, in Pforzheim 20.277 dead ,31,4 % of all inhabitants, in Darmstadt 12.500 dead, 66.000 homeless out of former 110.000 inhabitants, Kassel 10.000 dead, Heilbronn 6500 dead, Würzburg 8500 dead etc. Churcill, Harris, Lindmann and many other bristish politicians and military personell was not sentenced for his warcrimes after the war.
--Kastorius 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SYSTEMATICAL ATTACK ON CIVILIANS

message: It would be good to see a rationale as to why RAF stations should be merged with this page.  For what it's worth, my view is that the RAF stations page is not useful as it stands, but would be better if it were merged with List of RAF stations.  I'll wait for other comments and if there are no dissenting voices then I will move the merge templates to RAF stations and List of RAF stations. 217.34.229.213 17:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RAF Stations - Merge

message: Do you think there would be utility to adding a section (with images) showing the evolution of RAF roundels? - Emt147 Burninate! 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article on the various RAF roundels here: Royal Air Force roundels. Ian Dunster 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF insignia 

message: -I'm doing a project for English. Does any one know who wrote the article we are discussing?
:Read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia - Emt147 Burninate! 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  author 

message: I have seperated these into two headers as the two aircraft types carry out quite different roles. Yes the MR2 carries out search and rescue however as aldeady stated its primary role is currently that of ASW and ASUW. Gearfinger 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maritime patrol / Search and Rescue Aircraft 

message: I was trying to link to this but there doesn't seem to be an article for it. There is some history on the official site here. Arniep 15:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Auxiliary Air Force

message: Should their be a piece here on the RAF Benevolent fund, or should that be held in a separate page? I have started something on a personal stub page, which you can find here User:trident13/RAF Benevolent Fund Rgds, --Trident13 10:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RAF Benevolent Fund

message: I have made a start adding references to some of the facts and figures given in the article, which I shall continue doing when I have time.  It would be useful if others could join in, too.
Sc147 17:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Recently, the section on commands was removed.  STC and PTC still exist and as and when the RAF goes to a single command I think there is a good case for mentioning commands in the structure section.  Currently the contents box gives the impression that groups are the highest formation in the RAF.  Greenshed 22:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commands

message: Are all RAF pilots officers? Or do members of the "other ranks" also fly? Any idea on the minimum rank held by a pilot in the RAF?
You have too be an officer to receive the training (and the salary) to become a pilot in the raf. law9181
Please see my comments above.  This page is only for discussing the article. Greenshed 15:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who flies? 

message: Serious suggestions by mainstream commentators are encyclopedic even if controversial or unwelcome, and do have a place in the article. Springnuts 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - it is definitely better balanced now, although I have to say that imho Nick Cook has missed the point rather - nobody is saying you can do without air power or specialist skills.  Springnuts 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and I have resisted all temptations to mention the phrase "utterly utterly useless"!!   Springnuts 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future 

message: There really should be a mention of the E-mail from that British Army Major criticising the RAF for their role in Afghanistan.  
Please sign your comments with ~~~~.
I don't think we should create a new section everytime the RAF gets into the news.  We could include this comment for a few weeks (as a sort of current event), probably near the head of the article, athough that time has mainly passed.  However, I don't think that the "utterly, utterly, utterly useless" comment is worthy of long-term inclusion here - it probably belongs in the article on Operation Veritas.  
However, I do think there is scope for the creation of an article (to be linked from the RAF main page) titled something like The future of the Royal Air Force.  Obviously some of the details of future aircraft like JSF and the use of the Typhoon could go here.  UAVs, space ops and sea basing might also get a mention and well as a more general section on how future British air power might be used.  One element of this article would be to cover the views, both for and against, the continuence of the RAF as a separate arm.  We would have to avoid the temptation to engage in original research, but there is probably enough credible and publically available source material to do a good job. Greenshed 09:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea to me.  Springnuts 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the RAF 

message: i was attached to 80 fighter squadron which flew de havilland hornets in the early 1950s. based at kai tak. why isnt this mentioned.
Please sign your comments with ~~~~.
Why not start the article at No. 80 Squadron RAF?  (You will need to register to start, but not subsequently to edit the article). Greenshed 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 fighter squadron 

message: The total number of aircraft is listed but it would be better if the quantity of individual aircrafts is listed (eg. Tornado - xnumber, Jaguar - ynumber). Htra0497 19:15, 29 November 2006 (AEST)
using this to list airframes before placing on main page. From
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0057.html
As of April 2006 there were approximately 775 fixed wing aircraft of 22 various types in RAF service (including those not in front line service).
Type-active+reserve
Attack/Fighter
Typhoon--24+6
Tornado GR4-60+26
Tornado GR4A-24
Tornado F3-46+20
Jaguar GR3-11
Jaguar T4-1
Harrier GR7/7A/9/9A--22+9
Harrier T10/T12---2+6
Hawk T1A--26 
Trainers
Hawk T1A--69
Tucano T1--67
Recconisance
Nimrod MR2--15+3
Sentry AEW1---6
Transport
Hercules C1/C3/C4/C5--44
Globemaster C-17 ---4
VC10 K3/K4--7	
VC10 C1K--10
Tristar C2/C2A--3
Tanker
Tristar K1/KC1--6
Helicopers
Merlin Mk3 EH101 ---22
Sea KingHAR3/3A --18+3
Puma HC1 ---33
Chinook HC2--24+10
200.108.22.240 11:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many airframes?

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Greenshed 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:RAF}}]]

message: Just saw these pictures on Airliners.net. Does the RAF use the PC-9, or was it a trial? 
Chwyatt 10:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These aircraft are not operated by the Royal Air Force but by BAE Systems in support of Royal Saudi Air Force contracts, the aircraft have UK military serials, either because they are not certified civil aircraft or to let them do non-civvy things like use weapons. MilborneOne 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, thanks for the explanation. Chwyatt 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RAF use of [[Pilatus PC-9]]

message: There seems to be another contender for this title: the Finnish Air Force is claimed to have been formed on 6 March 1918. Letdorf 16:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I have seen a source which states that the Finnish Air Force is the world's first independent air force, I don't believe that this is correct. The Finnish Air Force's first commander (Carl Seber) held the rank of an army captain (= to a flight lieutenant) and the Finnish Air Force recieved its first aeroplane as a donation at some stage in 1918.  Compare this with the newly founded RAF which had over 20,000 aircraft on its establishment, a separate government ministry (the Air Ministry) and a Chief of the Air Staff (Hugh Trenchard) who held the rank of Major General in 1918.  I find it almost inconcievable that Seber reported direct to the Finnish Government regarding the use of one aircraft which they didn't pay for without reference to the Finish Army or Navy commanders. Greenshed 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First independent air force? 

message: We now have "The RAF is the second oldest professional air force in the world (the oldest being the Armée de l'Air) and the first to become independent".  Whilst I think that we've now got it right regarding independence, the aforementioned sentence is not without its problems.  These are:
*The term "air force" implies a significant air power arm (usually, but not always, independent from army or navy control).  It is a matter for debate whether the Aéronautique Militaire of 1910 should be considered an air force.
*Whilst the RAF might claim ancestral rights over the RFC, it cannot be said that the RAF was founded in 1912.  In the same way, the Armée de l'Air might trace its origins to the Aéronautique Militaire but that doesn't mean that the Armée de l'Air existed in 1910.
*I don't see what the word "professional" adds in this context (how many amateur air forces are there?).
I think we should go for something like "Whilst the British were not the first to make use of heavier-than-air military aircraft, the RAF is world's oldest air force indepedent of army or naval control."
The history of early military avaiation belongs in the air force article, not here. Greenshed 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First air force?