How does the RSAF compare to UK's RAF?
-
As above. I am interested in finding out how the RSAF compares to the RAF. Anyone? Thx.
-
compare what?
-
Very hard to compare as we don't conduct regular joint exercises with the RAF. If we have exercises at least we can have comparisms based on the outcome of these exercises. Anything else will be just be based on specs of aircraft which is not accurate as we have neglected the skill of the pilots.
-
I come into contact with RAF officers for various reasons.
They have very good experience in 2 areas:-
1) Support of expeditionary forces
2) Ground interdiction
The other thing is that they have been in wars conducted far away from the UK, and these are recent wars against reasonably capable enemies (fighters and SAMs). In 1982, they were up against the Argentinians. Mirages and Skyhawks against Harriers. Altho' the Harrier was a more modern aircraft, its capabilities were about the same, except for the V/STOL part. Their dog fighting skills were pretty good. In Bosnia, in the 90s, they flew support missions in the face of deadly advanced Russian SAM systems.
I need not go into the missions conducted in Gulf Wars 1 and 2.
Safety is also very high in the RAF and the conduct of "safe air" missions is a good indicator of how disciplined an air force is supposed to be. By "safe air" it means not only accident prevention on ground and in the air, but also prevention of "friendly forces" hits. They are a bit more disciplined than the USAF in this regard. -
RAF has a long air combat tradition since battle of britain... one of the finest air forces
-
Less of flight jockeys and more of the cool headed type I guess.
-
Yupp... less gung ho attitude, which sometimes makes the US soldiers look silly. The Brits are more level-headed ... not sure if the documentary series about the British forces training Iraqi policemen was shown in S'pore. From the series , which is quite in-depth, they have a wry sense of humour and are very cool under fire.
-
Yeah, they shot down Argentinians aircrafts almost effortlessly. They used mainly Harriers.
The Argentines used an assortment of aircrafts like French Mirage III, Israeli Dagger, US Skyhawk and French Supere Etendard. The Israeli Dagger is like a version of the Mirage III. It bore the brunt of the fighting and suffered a lot of losses. The Mirage III were quite new to Argentina at that time (and very expensive) and they stopped using them after 2 missions. Probably they saw that even with the Mirage III they are not going to win the war so they decided to cut their losses and keep them for "next time".
The Harrier isn't especially fast but supposed to be more manoeverable. But needless to say, the Argie pilots cannot match the British pilots in skills and experience. -
think its bcos the sea harrier had more superior radar too....fitted with the blue vixen radar system.....Originally posted by tvdog:Yeah, they shot down Argentinians aircrafts almost effortlessly. They used mainly Harriers.
The Argentines used an assortment of aircrafts like French Mirage III, Israeli Dagger, US Skyhawk and French Supere Etendard. The Israeli Dagger is like a version of the Mirage III. It bore the brunt of the fighting and suffered a lot of losses. The Mirage III were quite new to Argentina at that time (and very expensive) and they stopped using them after 2 missions. Probably they saw that even with the Mirage III they are not going to win the war so they decided to cut their losses and keep them for "next time".
The Harrier isn't especially fast but supposed to be more manoeverable. But needless to say, the Argie pilots cannot match the British pilots in skills and experience. -
Which is why the SAS , SBS and the 1st Para Regiment of the Royal Marines are still the benchmark for US Spec Ops Jockeys to learn how to maintain peace and calm in occupied territories.
Heck, they've been doing Empire building for more than 400 years.
From this to ..
This..
-
yea cos they were the grandaddies of specops in the world....Originally posted by LazerLordz:Which is why the SAS , SBA and the 1st Para Regiment of the Royal Marines are still the benchmark for US Spec Ops Jockeys to learn how to maintain peace and calm in occupied territories.
Heck, they've been doing Empire building for more than 400 years. -
Their Submarine commander training is also more 'human software' based too...
taken from Submarine written by Tom Clancy....
'The US Navy system creates superior submarine drivers and engineers; the Roayal Navy system is designed to produce pure leaders like a Nelson, Rodney, or Woodward(these 3 are one of the best submarine commanders in history more abt them can be read in the book).'---found at page165 of Submarine (Tom Clancy) -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
"Which is why the SAS , SBS and the 1st Para Regiment of the Royal Marines" ??
[b]Which is why the SAS , SBS and the 1st Para Regiment of the Royal Marines are still the benchmark for US Spec Ops Jockeys to learn how to maintain peace and calm in occupied territories.
Heck, they've been doing Empire building for more than 400 years.
Aren't the Paras and RM Commandos from different services? -
My bad..it should be "and"Originally posted by bcoy:"Which is why the SAS , SBS and the 1st Para Regiment of the Royal Marines" ??
Aren't the Paras and RM Commandos from different services? -
nelson had submarines?Originally posted by Rockhound:Their Submarine commander training is also more 'human software' based too...
taken from Submarine written by Tom Clancy....
'The US Navy system creates superior submarine drivers and engineers; the Roayal Navy system is designed to produce pure leaders like a Nelson, Rodney, or Woodward(these 3 are one of the best submarine commanders in history more abt them can be read in the book).'---found at page165 of Submarine (Tom Clancy)
-
Vice Admiral Horatio NelsonOriginally posted by sgFish:nelson had submarines?
very legendary......
wasnt actually a sub commander(ancient u noe he...)
but he did think up alot of Navy tactics in the Royal Navy....
Horatio -
Rodney is not a sub commander as well. He is an 18th century british admiral. As for woodward, Admiral Sir 'Sandy' Woodward was a sub commander and coincidentally the Falkland Task Force Commander. As for the Harriers, Britain also raided the NATO European inventory for a more advanced version of the sidewinder missiles to give them a combat edge over the Argentines. The Argentine Air Force is a not a duce as many would think. Operating at the limits of their operational range and with limited support (Exocets don't grow on trees in Buenos Aires; There were only 5 Exocets in Argentina during that war), inferior aircraft and forced to depend mainly on dumb ordnance, they inflicted considerable damage on the fleet which even the British acknowledged.Originally posted by Rockhound:Their Submarine commander training is also more 'human software' based too...
taken from Submarine written by Tom Clancy....
'The US Navy system creates superior submarine drivers and engineers; the Roayal Navy system is designed to produce pure leaders like a Nelson, Rodney, or Woodward(these 3 are one of the best submarine commanders in history more abt them can be read in the book).'---found at page165 of Submarine (Tom Clancy) -
RSAF cannot be compared to UK's RAF..
RAF has war experience, plus more fighters backed by more established aviation industry which have engineers and designer who can come up with newer fighter planes. Besides, UK is a major power with the means to deliver nuclear warheads..
RSAF don't have such.. it relied on outside purschase from UK, US, France..