Good letter in the Telegraph

[ChristopherRobin]

Sir - I am sure that, as an RAF officer working in the MoD, I am not alone in noting the silence of our current Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Air Staff regarding defence expenditure, despite the concerns expressed publicly by the Chief of the General Staff and now the First Sea Lord in this most important of debates. With two of his service chiefs now publicly calling for an increase in defence spending, surely it is time for the head of our armed services, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, to give us his views ?
RAF personnel appreciate the difficulties faced by military officers in Whitehall. However, they and their families look to our Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, to express publicly, as well as in private, our concerns at this time of ever-reducing budgets.
Name and address supplied
Link is here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=A1&targetRule=0#head1)
He has a point though - Army first, now the Navy - how much leadership does the RAF actually need?

[Kitbag]

Sir - A radical solution to the problem of defence costs would be to remove the Royal Air Force as a separate organisation (report, February 17). The last time we had a possible need for a third force was before the Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrent from the RAF in 1979. Since then, the only war scenarios for which we have been preparing could be categorised as a land battle, commanded by a general, or a sea battle, commanded by an admiral.

Air assets committed to these would have passed out of the hands of the "light blue" chain, to be used by "dark blue" or "brown" as required.

If this seems like sacrilege, I have put the suggestion to three old friends, a wing commander and two squadron leaders, expecting an argument. To my surprise, they were largely in agreement. We had far more fun talking through the problem of what to do with the pieces.

My answer would be to give the Navy the lion's share. A natural synergy exists between the two blue services (they both find it easy to think globally) and Dartmouth is a first-class training establishment.

I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat.

We would be in a position to give the men on the ground the things they need and deserve, including top-quality weapons, armour, transport and good pay and conditions.

When should this happen? As it could take some time to implement fully, I suggest that the final date should be April 1, 2017. That would have a nice symmetry and would be an honourable end to a force in which I was proud to serve.

Sqn Ldr Peter Severn, Totnes, Devon

I know we've been round this particular buoy before (several times no doubt), but seeing as the author indicates to the general public (Telegraph readers presumably wash) that the middle ranking officer corps are in favour what do the rest of you think?

[MrBernoulli]

I wouldn't expect too much from Glenn Torpy ................. :*

[Aeronut]

Sounds like Peter Severn feels like he wasted his entire time in the RAF! (No ret'd after his name?) Anyone know what branch he was?
He shoots himself in the foot halfway through his letter:
"I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat."
errr......we could provide that capability with a unit that specialises in erm......airborne matters, errrrr... RAF maybe?

He and his bitter mates thought it a good idea so thats OK!


What an utter fool.

[Wrathmonk]

Not sure what is special about 1 Apr 2017, apart from it being the 99th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force. Perhaps Mr Severn (he doesn't deserve to use his rank) is a current or ex-member of the "Mr Whippy" squadron.:E

[Stuff]

Sir - A radical solution to the problem of defence costs would be to remove the Royal Air Force as a separate organisation (report, February 17). The last time we had a possible need for a third force was before the Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrent from the RAF in 1979. Since then, the only war scenarios for which we have been preparing could be categorised as a land battle, commanded by a general, or a sea battle, commanded by an admiral.
Yes, a brilliant point and utterly impossible to see any flaws in this thinking. After all the threat posed by the 6 Iraqi patrol boats in 1990 was enough on its own to justify £1bn. Don't get me started on the fearsome threat posed by the afghan navy either!
Air assets committed to these would have passed out of the hands of the "light blue" chain, to be used by "dark blue" or "brown" as required.
Using assets where they are required? That sort of thinking will never catch on. Jointery anyone?
If this seems like sacrilege
Nope, so far it's only just stupid.
I have put the suggestion to three old friends, a wing commander and two squadron leaders
Well blow me. A focus group!
My answer would be to give the Navy the lion's share. A natural synergy exists between the two blue services (they both find it easy to think globally) and Dartmouth is a first-class training establishment.
This would imply that Sandhurst is not a first-class training establishment. I beg to differ.
I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat.
That's right, why didn't I see it before! Helicopter launched nukes :ugh:
We would be in a position to give the men on the ground the things they need and deserve, including top-quality weapons, armour, transport and good pay and conditions.
How exactly are we achieving this impressive feat? All you have done so far is swap a light blue uniform for a dark one. Are the newly repainted Navy VC-10s significantly more plentiful than they are now, do maritime SA80s fire more accurately? Do tell.
When should this happen? As it could take some time to implement fully, I suggest that the final date should be April 1, 2017. That would have a nice symmetry and would be an honourable end to a force in which I was proud to serve.
Ah jolly good, some bunting and a nice parade. That's all sorted then, I'll pop off to stores and get my new kit right away. :ok:
Do we really need another, "my Service is better than your Service" slanging match? Can we not agree that we all do a vital role, different to either of the other services, and we specialize in that role for a reason?
Lets also not forget that manpower cuts hurt, no matter who you remove there will be an impact. There's a powerful lot of blunty bashing going on in some areas of this board but look what happens when you remove TG17 staff. A quick glance at the JPA thread tells me that there's a lot of aircrew out there either leaving or intending to leave as a result of a pile of distractions that weren't there when they joined up. Could it be that these distractions were dealt with by the very people they were deriding only 10 months ago allowing them to get on with their primary task?

[spectre150]

What utter tosh. Perhaps Mr Severn should consider why the nuke deterrent was passed from the air force to the navy in the first place (why submarine basing of the alert was preferred to air delivery).

I wonder what our army colleagues would think if all their air support was owned by the navy. IOf course, come the day of the Ball, they would be apportioned on the ATO (unless it is a litoral op and the Navy wants to keep them to support the booties) :ugh: No p*ssing contest there then.

[BEagle]

Isn't Severn's comment about the RN taking over the nuclear deterrent role about 10 years in error?

After Skybolt was binned in 1962, the UK went for SLBMs, with the Resolution class coming into service at the end of the decade. The deterrent role was assumed by the RN on 30 June 1969.

Oh - and it's a very naive letter, by the way!

[teeteringhead]

Anyone know what branch he was?
the (unclassified open source) RAF Retired list shows a PJ Severn born in 1942 who retired 1 Jul 77 as a GD Flt Lt. There is no officer named Severn currently on the active list.

It may be that he was an acting sqn ldr who may have been allowed to retain his rank on retirement.............;) .... to be fair the 1 Jul retirement date may support this possibility.

As to not using "RAF Ret'd", it's not strictly necessary. In the absence of "RAF" after the name, retired status might be assumed. That said, it would be normal where confusion with a serving officer might be made for "RAF Ret'd" to be used.

[An Teallach]

shows a PJ Severn born in 1942 who retired 1 Jul 77 as a GD Flt Lt
One doesn't need the brains of an Archbishop to see why he didn't make it any further up the greasy pole!

As to CR's officer working in the MoD, do you think he got a bollocking for putting too many sugars in Sir Glen's tea?

[The Burning Bush]

So are we going to have a reply to the good 'Sqn Ldrs' letter, signed off PPRuNe, name and address supplied.

[Bladdered]

Retired in 1977...................wonder when his focus group of ring demanders and squabbling bl**ders retired!!

[insty66]

It couldn't possibly be a member of one of the other services hoping to catch one or two for breakfast could it?

[TonkaEngO]

I certainly hope that this guy is having a laugh, not sure at who's expense, but as previously said - notwithstanding light blue bias - a particularly naive view.
Perhaps we do need a review to change our strategic structure - after all haven't had one for at least 6 months now.........

[Aeronut]

More from the sage that is Peter Severn: Telegraph 2004:
"SIR - Little has been made of the beneficial effect that good intelligence and analysis can have on world peace. Knowledge of what the other fellow is up to both deters nasty surprises and helps to prevent disastrous misunderstanding.
During the Cold War, Nato and the famously paranoid Soviet Union exchanged details of military exercises so that a conflict might not get "hot" by misunderstanding. Today, the Open Skies treaties with our old Warsaw Pact opponents allows short-notice mutual surveillance overflights.
So if spies are peacemakers, what do we call those such as Clare Short, who would make their job more difficult?
Peter Severn, Totnes, Devon"

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Funny to watch another group of "really should know better" types fall for the old journo letter ploy :=

[Shack37]

Agree the man (and his pals) needs to swallow his bile before he chokes on it but wasn't 1st April 1918 the RAF's birthday?

[XV277]

You just know the next issue will have letters along the 'Why don't we follow the Canadian example and have a unified Armed Forces' line.........

[Wannabe1974]

Whilst it does seem a ludicrous idea, there are one or two elements of sense in it. For example, Nimrod - why aren't they run by the RN? Would seem to make sense wouldn't it? Would be interested to hear (and I'm sure I will), why not...
If you went the whole hog and subsumed everything into the RN and Army, surely it would save a bag of cash and at the same time give what was the world's finest navy something useful to do.
Wannabee

[Jobza Guddun]

For the purpose of the discussion, why should the RN operate Nimrod? Why not the Army?

[Always a Sapper]

For the purpose of the discussion, why should the RN operate Nimrod? Why not the Army?
Because we would, without doubt break it before it even got off the big road.... :E :E :E





As for one 'Sqn Ldr Peter Severn' of Totnes, Devon... talking utter tosh, but then he is from Totnes and probably drinks in the Seven Stars too.... :suspect:

[Ginseng]

Personally, I'm with those who suspect that "Sqn Ldr Peter Severn" is not, and never was associated with the RAF in any way, shape or form. My money is on RN - why else base your argument on your view that Dartmouth is an excellent training establishment. Although I'm sure it is.

Regards

Ginseng

[spernkey]

Hilarious reading the undercurrent of vying vested interest on this and other threads. Poor tax payers - you just know they will never get value for money from you lot. Times coming when the numbers of senior officers in the services with all the obscure, duplicated staffy type jobs(all vital of course!) will easily outnumber the O/R's.
And ,of course, when more cuts are called for - dont forget to boost Staff posts to help analyse how best to achieve things.:confused:

[Wannabe1974]

" For the purpose of the discussion, why should the RN operate Nimrod? Why not the Army?"

Well old bean... the Nimrod is a maritime patrol aircraft. Maritime means 'to do with the sea'. Navies traditionally hang around on the big blue wobbly thing, which is where Nimrod is designed to spend most of its time flying above, generally trying to blow up submarines, gather intel etc. Perhaps given that the army tend to spend a lot of time in muddy fields (ie a long way from the sea), they would perhaps not be best placed to look after an MPA?
Maybe like the US and most other countries, we should consider that we're not so different after all and put Nimrod in the place where it logically belongs?

[Ginseng]

Erm,

Except for the fact that Nimrod now does a lot of its current work a long way from the blue wobbly thing, and rather close to the local equivalent of muddy fields. Isn't it damned inconsderate when people blur the traditional boundaries? You never know where you are. Still "flexibility is the key ..." and all that.

Regards

Ginseng

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Wannabee,

Should that not read Navies traditionally hang around at the big blue Oyster club...............:E

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Ah yes, April 1st 1918, when the RAF was born.

Wasn't that towards the end of the biggest conflict the world had ever seen, where Army and Navy alike had fought on an unprecedented scale?

Yet, after both experimenting with air power in numerous roles, both those Services agreed (now there's a first!) that actually air power would be better delivered, in its various forms, by a new service which specialized in aviation and associated activities...

If the Army and Navy (and their political masters) 90 years ago thought that a separate Air Force would be a good idea - and back then, military aviation was a sideshow compared to the main fighting on land and sea - why should they or anyone else now want to get rid of the air power specialists, when air power has such greater importance than it did in 1918?

[Archimedes]

The Army and Navy thought it a thoroughly bad idea. The first Chief of the Air Staff thought it a very silly idea too...

Lloyd George saw a separate service as being a means of denying Haig control over air power; he and the cabinet were also keen on the idea of creating a strategic bombing force to retaliate against Germany, but which would be limited if the Admirals and Generals controlled the development of their air services, since they'd inevitably (at least as far as the politicians could see) spend the money on aircraft that would be used tactically to support maritime and land operations.

The Smuts report helped this - Smuts wasn't driven by political considerations, but by taking a broad view of air power, aided by input from Sir David Henderson (DG of Military Aeronautics and the head of the RFC [Trenchard was GOC RFC in France]), who'd grown weary of watching the Admiralty and War Office fight each other over the apportionment of resources for developing air power to the extent that they were in fact hindering its development.

[Archimedes]

From today's Torygraph (amongst others):

Sir - So Sqd Ldr Peter Severn (Letters, February 20) has found three friends who agree with him that the RAF should be abolished. In the words of General Charles de Gaulle, when confronted with a similar justification: "Changez vos amis."

Sir Michael Armitage, Air Chief Marshal (Rtd), Bath

and:

Sir - When Sqd Ldr Severn's wishes have been carried out, perhaps he and his chums could be taken outside and shot.

Rod Pickles (Former Sergeant, RAF)

More here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BSU3OMWGTZVQNQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?menuI d=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=A1&targetRule=0)

[allan907]

I can't believe that Phil Congdon is agreeing with the twerp. I always thought that Phil was a reasonably decent type not prone to uttering ill thought out, fatuous statements.
In Severn's case et al it probably just proves the point that promotion takes place until the level of incompetence has just passed.
And before anyone jumps on that - yes, it probably applied to me as well (although I did go on to higher things once I left the RAF):ok:

[Aeronut]

Phil Congdon,

Turned his back on both his country and his ex-service


Turncoat.

[BellEndBob]

Wow!

He has three chums who agree with him and, on the other side, there are 4 chums who bothered to write to the Telegraph.

Earth shattering stuff.....lunch I think.......

[Bladdered]

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Widger]

If you went the whole hog and subsumed everything into the RN and Army, surely it would save a bag of cash and at the same time give what was the world's finest navy something useful to do.


Point of order Mr Vice. Up until Feb, 50% of UK forces in Afghanistan were RN.

. Still "flexibility is the key ..." and all that

No that is too rigid...fluidity is the way ahead

[Jobza Guddun]

W1974,
Ginseng :ok: nicely makes the point I was subtly hinting at. Thank you for patronising me anyway :yuk: , but I think I got the most satisfaction from your post.:}
JG

[Wannabe1974]

Blurring traditional boundaries? Like when the Commando helo squadrons deployed to (landlocked) Bosnia? Or the SHAR for that matter (altho I suspect you could argue that it just operated, rather than deployed there).
I didn't hear anyone arguing that they should become part of the Crabs.
The Nimrod, however, is designated as an MPA!

[Wannabe1974]

"Ginseng :ok: nicely makes the point I was subtly hinting at. Thank you for patronising me anyway :yuk: , but I think I got the most satisfaction from your post.:}"

Glad to be of service...

[Wrathmonk]

But as the Booties were working for the Land Component Commander they could be transfered to the Army.:p

And the NAS were working for the Air Component Commander so they could be transferred to the RAF.:p

And the Cdo Helicopters are part of JHC are they not - so they could be transfered to either the Air Force or the Army.

HM Coast Guard can do Fishery Protection. And have the odd jolly to the Caribbean to do the drug thing.

RN SAR - put it out to contract (or transferred to the RAF).

Cancel the carriers before we spend any money. We won't then need all the fleet support. "Sea basing" could be done by the RFA with the force protection carried out by the Army Marines.

Now if we could just find someone daft enough to take over the submarines .... that's the Navy done for!

And of course there wouldn't me as many cat fights on the streets either!:E

[Wader2]

Ladies and Gentlemen you do Sqn Ldr Pete Severn a disservice.

Peter graduated as a GD/Nav on No 42 ANC in 1963. He was posted to Canberras and I believe finished his active service, as pointed out, in 1977 having taken the then golden bowler offered in 1973. He was, I believe, serving on 7 Sqn at RAF St Mawgan at the time.

Sqn Ldr Severn joined the RAuxAF and served, IIRC, as an intelligence officer well into the 1990s. When he retired from the RAuxAF his is quite entitled to the style of sqn ldr and, as Teeteringhead pointed out, should not use the style RAF rtd or RAuxAF rtd as was discussed at length about use of retired ranks a week or so back.

I am surprised however that none of you picker up this error: The last time we had a possible need for a third force was before the Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrent from the RAF in 1979.

The Royal Navy actually took over the deterrent in 1969 although the V-Force maintained a nuclear role until disbanded and the Buccanneer, Phantom, Jaguar, Tornado and Nimrod maintained a nuclear role long after.

No, the real issue is not whether the RAF should be split dark blue or brown, which would probably not make a lot of difference right now, but the Air Staff. Without an air staff that understands all aspects of air power there would be problems. At least with the present arrangement we have an organisation that can evaluate the requirments of the other two services.:D

[Aeronut]

Given the almighty disservice "Auxiliary Sqn Ldr" Severn has paid to the RAF, biting the hand that no doubt still feeds him, he deserves far worse.

[mojocvh]

So is the above Gentleman an HM anywhere? If so who are his CMC's

Nemis is the name of the game.........

alloftheaboveisbanterofcourse



MoJo.