Two services in ten years 'entirely plausible', says Sir Jock

[Mick Smith]

CDS has just told a press briefing on the Green Paper that it was entirely plausible that there could be only two services in ten years.

[Jumping_Jack]

...the Boy Scouts and the Brownies...:ok:

[airborne_artist]

...the Boy Scouts and the Brownies...

More like AA and RAC - there won't be enough money for defence :sad:

[Mick Smith]

Sounds to me like he thinks that the bean counters see it as plausible and has decided to drop a stick of dynamite to get it out in the open and rubbished as soon as possible.

[Jackonicko]

I'm a big admirer of the RAF Regiment and the Royals, but don't we still need an independent, separate Army as well?

[Jabba_TG12]

I'm inclined to be with Mick on this one; Maybe I speak ill of him (for once) but I dont honestly think Stirrup will give a fig whether theres 2 services or ten.

He'll have retired on his more than adequate pension by that point, so he'll be past caring.

[Not_a_boffin]

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/790C77EC-550B-4AE8-B227-14DA412FC9BA/0/defence_green_paper_cm7794.pdf

Could be summarised as do even more with even less because we tell you to and will magically make savings through restructuring of "head office" functions....

Alternately, we can do without some capabilities and reconstitute them as necessary (!!!!) given sufficient warning.

And laughably, the large scale operations appear to require more ships and aircraft than we actually have now!

Oh and none of this is to do with underfunding because since 1997 spending has risen in "real terms" by ~£2Bn. How could we possibly have failed to recapitalise the equipment budget given such munificence from the one-eyed forces friend.........?

[airborne_artist]

I'm a big admirer of the RAF Regiment and the Royals, but don't we still need an independent, separate Army as well?

I suggest you go to Poole and ask :E

[dctyke]

So be it, I guess we will have to resurrect the Marine Branch ;)

[hval]

Gordon Brown states that he will maintain army staffing levels at approximately 100,000. Do you think he means decrease the RAF to 30,000 number personel, decrease the army by 30,000 and then amalgamate the R.A.F with the army. Bingo an army of 100,000 persons.

After all Gordon Brown never promised anything when it came to R.A.F. manpower levels.


Hval

EDIT: - 2010/02/03/13:58 for spelling correction

[skippedonce]

IF the decisiion were to go down to 2 Services, I just hope that our Airships and the Admirals can get their act together. A 100,000 Army and 50,000 Naval Service (RN, RM, RNAS) has got to be more attractive than a 130,000 Army with the AAC as possibly the largest cap badge and a 20,000ish Naval Service. Halcyon days for the 200-series RAF sqns!

[navibrator]

Canada amalgamated their Services and then spent a fortune reversing it. I think it is called Lesson Learned!

[Mick Strigg]

Bang goes the "Save the BBMF" thread!

[Storminnorm]

Navibrator, could you E mail G Brown with that info please.
He's still at 10 Downing St, at the moment anyhow.

[knowitall]

"Two services in ten years 'entirely plausible', says Sir Jock"

aparently not

Defence News: Defence in the Media: 3 February 2010 (http://bit.ly/c4OhJv)

[endplay]

I saw somewhere today (can't recall where) that there is a planned cull of the top brass in all 3 Services. Can't help but feel that this is a long overdue exercise. Anyone know what the the current 1-4 star population is?

[Jabba_TG12]

Typical Stirrup.

When asked the question is there likely to be three services, he says its plausible.

Any other CDS worth his salt would have said of course there is going to be three services. By saying its plausible, he is, by default, giving rise to the question of well if it is plausible that there will be three, is it possible that there will be less?

[top_cover]

Couldnt you see this coming?? All our admin, all our rules and regs and an awful lot of our training is done together already, we even look like the Army on many stations now. Was on an RAF station yesterday and their was more green than blue. This is not something new, the amalgamation is something that has been looked at for a while now. This green paper and the SDR will bring it all a little bit closer.

[parabellum]

Seriously, I have heard that in the SDR there is talk of, "much closer cooperation with the French Navy" - is this old news?

(Not so serious, addition to RN Staff College syllabus, "Surrendering, how not to lose half your fleet to friendly fire").

[Herc-u-lease]

I'm sure it's been said before but it is called a "green" paper for a reason. the white paper should probably be re-branded the purple paper

[Alex HH]

Seriously, I have heard that in the SDR there is talk of, "much closer cooperation with the French Navy" - is this old news?

Coded speak for a single, Rafale equipped RN carrier.

[Jackonicko]

Operated by the RAF Marine Branch, as the RN will have been disbanded.

The Trident boats will go to the Royal Artillery.

[163627]

Why have as many as two services? If we converted the Royals into an organisation with the power, capabilty and reach of the USMC we could manage with just one and we'd have some great bands to boot. So everyone would feel part of one happy family we could make the standard uniform that new "duck hunter" style camouflage!:ok:

[glad rag]

we could make the standard uniform that new "duck hunter" style camouflage!

wozthathen??

[Pete268]

wozthathen??

This possibly:

BBC News - British Army to get new uniform camouflage design (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8421768.stm)

Albeit it the title doesn't say the RAF will get it!

[163627]

Glad Rag

It's actually called Multi-Terrain Pattern (MTP) and will start being issued (hopefully) later this year. It is apparently based on a commercial design by US company Crye Precision and is said by some to be similar to that worn by many US duck hunters. As it's new I thought it would be ideal to help everyone bond together into the one service as I proposed (tongue in cheek) on my last post.:ok:

[incubus]

Seriously, I have heard that in the SDR there is talk of, "much closer cooperation with the French Navy"
Are we increasing the size of our submarine fleet? ;)

[TyroPicard]

Don't US duck hunters get shot by other hunters? When the French go hunting they wear Dayglo jackets - and the rest of the population stay indoors!

[Jumping_Jack]

'It's actually called Multi-Terrain Pattern (MTP) and will start being issued (hopefully) later this year. It is apparently based on a commercial design by US company Crye Precision and is said by some to be similar to that worn by many US duck hunters. As it's new I thought it would be ideal to help everyone bond together into the one service as I proposed (tongue in cheek) on my last post.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif'

And it is on its way from China to us......:ugh:

[glad rag]

It's actually called Multi-Terrain Pattern (MTP) and will start being issued (hopefully) later this year. It is apparently based on a commercial design by US company Crye Precision and is said by some to be similar to that worn by many US duck hunters. As it's new I thought it would be ideal to help everyone bond together into the one service as I proposed (tongue in cheek) on my last post.'



Multicam is actually very good. Have a flick through these.

MultiCam.com Images (http://www.multicampattern.com/gallery.html)


And it is on its way from China to us......

Sounds like Crye have given up the battle to stop the chinks ripping it off then :hmm:

[sitigeltfel]

When the French go hunting they wear Dayglo jacketsLots of shooters in the orchards round here, most of them lurk in hides. I wear a bright orange ski hat when walking the dog and was asked to remove it as I was scaring the pigeons!

[TyroPicard]

Must have been a different bit of France, then..

[ORAC]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01571/0402-MATT-web_1571553a.gif

[Doors Off]

That new cam looks bloody terrible:yuk: it looks like something from the former soviet bloc inventory that has been passed too many times between forces from Bongo Bongo land, mind you that is proabably what Brown wants, a force that resembles a good socialist one. :(

Doors Off

[Vie sans frontieres]

Bongo Bongo land

Not very P.C:=

[vecvechookattack]

That new cam looks bloody terrible it looks like something from the former soviet bloc inventory that has been passed too many times between forces from Bongo Bongo land, mind you that is proabably what Brown wants, a force that resembles a good socialist one.

Doors Off

I'm not quite sure that you understand the concept or requirement of camouflage.

This is bad camouflage

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/29500/Bad-Camouflage--29802.jpg

whereas this is good (in many respects)


http://veryveryfun.com/pics/Urban-Camouflage/Urban-Camouflage-10.jpg

[ORAC]

Or a bit of dazzle camouflage as used during WWI. ;)

http://love.hollybliss.co.uk/uploaded_images/RTEmagicC_guilty-yacht-jeff-koons-1.jpg-784034.jpg

[chopper2004]

DO what ze Belgians do, one for land, one for sea and one for air......and

3 = 1

:ok:


Et pour le deuxieme,

H.M Customs / Boder Immigration Agency, MCGA and police = 1

[glad rag]

http://love.hollybliss.co.uk/uploaded_images/RTEmagicC_guilty-yacht-jeff-koons-1.jpg-784034.jpg

Different I suppose....mind you if I was offered the keys for 6 months I wouldn't be rushing to knock it back either:)..

[glad rag]

That new cam looks bloody terrible it looks like something from the former soviet bloc inventory that has been passed too many times between forces from Bongo Bongo land, mind you that is proabably what Brown wants, a force that resembles a good socialist one.

Good grief, you ARE having a laugh, the new pattern was designed/picked by those who will have to actually wear it when fighting for their Queen in Afghanistan, what better endorsement do you need?

[Exnomad]

If there is to be a combining of services, I just hope someone has the sense to talk to the Canadians. They made an awful cock-up originally, but I gather it worked in the end.

[Lima Juliet]

I gather it worked in the end

Yes, but their Air Force got that shocking Dark-Turquoise uniform instead of the old "crab fat" blue - what a shocker!

http://mpmuseum.org/securuniform/airdeu/airdeu2.jpg

[Two's in]

I gather it worked in the end

If by "worked" you mean left it completely ineffectual at procuring anything that costs more than a bullet; and completely at the mercy of whichever shower is camped out in the Parliament building in Ottawa (the Canucks are worse than the Italians at changing Governments), yes, it worked splendidly.

[Dengue_Dude]

What's more . . . you'll have to move your brevet from the left to the right . . . one wonders if that is deeply Freudian . . .

[pasptoo]

In these dark days of "extreme bean counting" and HESS programs to aline with civil industry standards will it be a case of last in first out? Or will there be a big redundancy pay out with jobs found for the upper management? I'd speak to the union about it...........


Doesn't the Army require to be 100000 or greater to retain it world status as a 1st Class Army?

PAS

[Melchett01]

IIRC, modern doctrine puts an Army at anywhere between 60-100,000 personnel. Just as well there is a bit of flex these days otherwise the British Army would theoretically become a Corps in terms of pure numbers.

I suspect that might be somewhat politically embarrassing though and might be frowned on by CGS. If nothing else, they'd have to re-do all their advertising and stationery to reflect the changes! And can you imagine trying to recruit for the British Corps? Sounds like some sort of 1930s Mosley-esque organisation!

[Pontius Navigator]

"Two services in ten years 'entirely plausible', says Sir Jock"

aparently not

Defence News: Defence in the Media: 3 February 2010 (http://bit.ly/c4OhJv)

CDS on Services
It is being misreported by some media outlets that Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, said today that it was 'plausible' that there could be only two Armed Services. This is not the case. The following question was asked: "With regard to the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review and the requirement to save a lot of money, do you think it's plausible that we will have three Armed Services?" CDS replied to this question by saying: "Certainly it's plausible." He was not saying that the idea of two Services was plausible.

OTOH . . .

But at what cost?

The cost of all the new hats, caps, beret, gloves, shoes, socks etc. Lucky to get any change out of £1000 per officer and not much less per WO/SNCO. You need to change the uniform if you are to do what Mountbatten started all those years ago.

Anyone for purple pants?

[SirToppamHat]

PN

Thanks for clearing that up, but let's not make a habit of having the truth impinge on future threads!

I spent a couple of weeks with the CAF after they'd gone through the big change, and ISTR the CAF achieved their uniform colour by blending green, light blue and dark blue in proportion with the number of pers in each service. This resulted in more of a dark green verging on black colour rather than turquoise (but I agree it was a disgusting result).

Back to the thread. I would like to see the British Army merge into one Service before merging the rest of us ...

STH

[Doors Off]

I'm not quite sure that you understand the concept or requirement of camouflage.

This is bad camouflage

I never said it was bad camouflage, I just said it looked terrible. :yuk:

I understand the requirement. After being forced to wear DPM in the Desert and one of my muckas being annoyed that he we was being shot at because he looked like a tree, in a treeless desert. About time HM Squaddies got something they wanted.:ok:

[Jack Stohl]

Chaps,

Hate to get off topic but there have been a number of factually incorrect ststements made about the new MTP to be fielded from this year (ops only).
It is derived from the Crye Precision Multicam and was actually designed by Crye for the UK to incorporate the existing DPM pattern. Crye Multicam is already used by 'others' and it was ONLY because of their persistence with DC DT that MTP became a reality. Whilst it will initially be fielded on ops only in the current fit/form/function of existing CS95, it will eventually be rolled out as part of the PECOC programme in due course.
It is an excellent cam replacement - fact. This has been proven by a combination of scientific research, user trials, operational feedback from 'others' as well as applying that good old fashioned sound military judgement. At a distance of approx 5 metres, there is no discernible difference between MTP and Multicam (pattern is not as important as colour and contrast).
Happy to field any further queries relating to MTP should you wish - I know a little bit about it.

...Right...back to the original thread

[Melchett01]

At a distance of approx 5 metres, there is no discernible difference between MTP and Multicam (pattern is not as important as colour and contrast).

How does it fair a little further out than 5m .... say for example the range of a Taliban fighter with an AK-47? Does it still work well then? Having been on Salisbury Plain this week with 4 Mech, in various moments of extreme tedium, this was one of the topics that cropped up and one of the SO2s there - having been drafted back in to the field from DSTL / QQ (I forget which - I was cold and bored by this stage), apparently what we are getting is not what we origianlly ordered / wanted. Allegedly the company couldn't deliver the colour / pattern combinations we originally asked for so we ended up with a fudge solution.

Not sure if this is correct, and a bit of thread creep, but as ever, there are probably 2 sides to the story.

[rmac]

Jack Stohl,

I like the cam, I really do and it makes sense, similar to what the US has done...

However,

Did the chap in the BBC interview really lead with the concept of the corporate image as the first point :ugh:

Although maybe he has a point if you consider that the new US cam looks suspicously like WW2 waffen SS DP cam, which coupled with the coal scuttle helmets gives out an interesting corporate image :E

[Impiger]

One piece of misreporting by Mick Smith of the Telegraph and you chaps drift off on a rant about camoflague kit!

Surely if there is to be a question about how many Services there should be it should be handled incrementally:

First - lets have only one Army (sorry Rocks and Bootnecks); then only one naval service (bang goes the RLC Port Sqn etc) and only one air force (sorry FAA, AAC, JHC, RA UAV Regt, and the Royal Marine Air Wing or whatever they call themselves).

Once we've got that squared away we can then look at combining all three in to one after a decent interval - say another 100 years or so.

At the same time HMT should ask why we have so many separate Police Forces, Ambulance Services, Fire Services - there are plenty of potential amalgamations out there which would all save a bit of dosh to spend on buying votes at the General Election - or paying some more allowances and expenses to our democratically elected representatives.:ugh:

[Ivan Rogov]

Impiger I was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today and just about to make a post, some other minor nations have already done it!
As for all this talk of what constitutes a Force, Corp etc. I don't give a stuff, virtually every established nation has 3 arms to its services, Force is just a name (NZ Air FORCE is 2,500ish personnel and there are many other small Air FORCES). Many of them have already made painful cuts to match their Forces to the real world too, maybe we should study their experiences a little to avoid making the same mistakes.

[JFZ90]

misreporting by Mick Smith of the Telegraph

LOL - Mick will appreciate that. Probably who he should be writing for.

Do you think he misheard what CDS said (and doesn't feel inclined to correct his error), or do you think he really feels the kind of spin he put on the statement (without explaining that spin to his readers) is acceptable?

[Bismark]

Problem is Impiger, neither the FAA nor AAC have any desire to fall in under the RAF and its way of doing business. Whilst I am sure both organisation hold RAF aircrew and engineers in very high regard, something happens to RAF officers once they reach Group Captain and above. They seem to have a brain implant which says "hate the FAA and AAC, they are out to shaft us so we had better shaft them first!" It starts at the top and all below follow like lambs.

[Impiger]

Journalists aren't the only ones who get it wrong! In my defence he was writing for the Telegraph before his current role with the Sunday Times but I'm blaming it on the lunchtime claret!

The mis-reporting of CDS isn't really the issue - its all about camoflague apparently!:ok:

[Mick Smith]

I'm sorry guys I was just reporting what one of my colleagues from another outlet had rushed to the telephone to tell me and what the BBC was initially reporting. I was not actually there because the press briefing was called too late for me to cancel what I was planning. But even if he said precisely what the MoD later claimed he was saying - and there are still those disputing that - it was scarcely 'dont be silly of course there will still be three services'. As I said very early on in this thread, and again today in the STimes, I think he was deliberately letting the idea be out there so that it could be rubbished by others as stupid. I'm told, though I havent seen it, that there is a clip around of him being asked immediately after the briefing by the BBC's Caroline Wyatt about the possibility of there only being two services and him very definitely not saying, no you misunderstood me that is not what I was saying.

The story was around all week and there is no doubt that there are people out there lobbying for it, not with my backing I might add!

Writing for the Telegraph is of course not an insult, it's what I used to do!

[JFZ90]

In my defence he was writing for the Telegraph before his current role with the Sunday Times

I thought it was a subtle dig - you could have got away with that!

[MaroonMan4]

Some interesting posts - some drivel I am afraid (and still I am trying to work out what the uniform aspects of the thread added to the discussion?)

But however my heart makes me proud of my own service, the people I serve with and the aircraft I operate, my head knows that Mr Osborne's words in Parliament last week sadly made me recognise that whatever we discuss on this thread is pure semantics.

I believe that we have been de-sensitised by the figure £178 billion, Mr Osborne helped me recognise the reality in that this figure equates to a debt being run up at the 'rate of £1.2 million per day since the birth of Christ'.

I am apolitical, and a true servant of H M Queen, but even I know that this is a truly amazing figure that will result in us all reviewing our previous paradigms, including single services. Lets be honest here (in the myopic but topical world of JHC), anyone post DHFS is already joined up, it is only some of the more senior officers (and admittedly Bismark,above Group Captain is where the line appears to be across all 3 services (not in all cases-but certainly a trend).

Taking this stark reality and truth to the next level, the rumours circulating that the Fisheads are actually getting our mighty wokka instead of the Freak's Merlin is a tough pill to swallow, although I can see the financial sense (in that why re-train our Merlin force onto Chinook and then re-train the Fisheads onto Merlin, when the relatively quicker and cheaper option is to just take the Fisheads straight from their current flying shed direct onto the new Chinooks inbound?).

I dont like it anymore than the next man/woman, but if the Times article has any truth in that the second new carrier will be used in the helicopter role, then if it means I do not have to go to sea then it is a bitter pill that I can swallow.

As to going Army - again, aren't we (JHC) already under Army/Land control - and however much I long for the Gutersloh/RAFG days,they have gone :sad: I am currently spending the majority of my working life in DPM anyway (already mentioned in previous posts) :(. So again semantics I am afraid as I do not think that H M Treasury care 2 hoots what any of us think - all they want is to cut that £178 billion debt and do not really care how they go about doing it - and will be colour blind for single service colours and agendas.

[NURSE]

Obviously Euroforce don't want 1 of our armed services as if you read the Green paper much is made of closer EU cooperation/integration. Yet the premise at the start wants to expand our defence relationships.

[althenick]

First - lets have only one Army (sorry Rocks and Bootnecks); then only one naval service (bang goes the RLC Port Sqn etc) and only one air force (sorry FAA, AAC, JHC, RA UAV Regt, and the Royal Marine Air Wing or whatever they call themselves)

…Every so often a thread like this comes up saying “get rid of the RAF” or such. Usually what happens is all non RAF types cite operational and cost efficiencies. Pro-RAF will cite the same and usually continuity of air power doctrine.


Cost efficiencies can be achieved by common support and training systems which the military already have in place.
Operational efficiencies – well can someone tell me what is so efficient about an RN Frigate Captain having to signal CINCfleet who then in turn goes to the relevant Air Group in the RAF to get MPA Assistance? How many people does that involve? And if was so efficient then why was coastal command put under the direct control of the admiralty during WW2?
Air power doctrine would probably be maintained and indeed expanded upon as the other to air services will bring their own practices.

But despite the above I would still argue strongly for the retention of an independent air force for 1 reason only -

PEOPLE

Some RAF personnel are not motivated by going to sea for months at a time. Do this and these people will leave the service and also long term there will be a recruitment problem. Also if The RAF were to take over the FAA as some have suggested then at a conservative estimate I’d say 1 in 7 RAF personnel would have to serve at sea and both RAF and RN would end up with recruiting and retention problems. This would cost money – serious money, people are by far the most expensive asset that the military have, forget equipment its people.
When in 1918 the RNAS became the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air force. Squadron personnel consisted of 85% to 15% light to dark blue by 1921 in sea going squadrons that ratio had reversed – why do you suppose? At the time the admiralty could send a man to sea for up to 3 years, I’ll wager that it was the unpopularity of long stretches away from home, Not just Trenchard’s narrow minded views on seapower.
Some smaller countries that have only an Air Force still have flyers from the other two services.

RNLAF – Apache – Flown by Army Aircrew. Orions (when they had them) Flown and maintained jointly by RNLAF but with naval back seaters on board also seen as Naval assets
RDAF – Amalgamated all helicopter squadrons into the RDAF, except it didn’t work with the Navy, They still operate with naval air and ground crew
RNZN – Seasprites – operate 5 of them, come under No 6 Sqn RNZAF – operated by RNZN Aircrew and RNZAF ground crew.
Brazil – Used to have Air force personnel operating Trackers from their carriers but now all Carrier Air squadrons operated by the Navy.

Only 4 countries independent Air forces in the world that I know of operate naval aircraft. Oman, South Africa, and the Philippines, though I’m sure there are more.


Sorry for rambling on - I suppose what i'm trying to say is for the sake of recruitment and retention then lets keep all thre services plus their air wings. Why not place the equipment - whatever it is - where it will be most operationally and cost efficient to do so and try and preserve peoples asperations within their own service.

[skippedonce]

Althenick,
Interesting stat concerning the RNAS in 1918, considering that most of it at the time was land-based, as 'ship's aricraft' generally consisted of a single, single-seat fighter (Camel or Pup) towed on a lighter (read barge) behind a destroyer and the RN's first carrier (HMS Furious) was barely operational. The majority of land-based heavy bomber sqns were ex-RNAS along with a significant number of fighter sqns. Where the RFC had a monopoly was in Army Cooperation (the name's a bit of a giveaway) whcih the RNAS didn't do.

'Only 4 countries independent Air forces in the world that I know of operate naval aircraft. Oman, South Africa, and the Philippines, though I’m sure there are more.'

Okay, let us into the secret, what's the 4th that you know of.:E

Cheers,

SkippedOnce

[Gnd]

Is that SH to the land or AH to the Air? (think I know what will be said)

[163627]

As none of us (however exulted) has a crystal ball and thus is unable to see clearly into the future, the sensible strategy should surely be one of giving us maximum flexibility, the colour of the driver’s uniforms doesn’t matter. Therefore, we should be aiming for an air component that is not tied to concrete; the link below says it all, in particular the last two paragraphs.

www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-why.asp (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-why.asp)

I’m sure many will rubbish the concept saying we have no money but to those I say are all the emerging powers (China, India, and Brazil) wrong in their plans to join the carrier club? To stay in the game we need the right toys.

[vecvechookattack]

In that respect, would you ever think that the Future Commanding Officer of HMS Queen Elizabeth would be a Group Captain? Why not?

[Easy Street]

What about the following mix of senior officers to operate aboard HMS QE2? Following the current tradition, why have 1 when you could have 4?

1 x Commodore / Rear Admiral - Maritime component commander
1 x Captain (RN) - Carrier commander
1 x Air Cdre / AVM - Air component commander
1 x Gp Capt - Carrier air gp commander

[vecvechookattack]

No, No, no.....

You can't have a Group Capt in charge of the Air Group when the Carrier Group is commanded by a similar rank.... There has to be a willy waving contest her.... No, the Carrier Group has to be commanded by a Commodore.

[althenick]

Skippy,

I got the info from Antony Preston's book "Royal Navy of the 20th century" I would argue the point about single seater Aircraft as the reason for the 15% dark blue element was for Observers. I'd also say in those 3 years that much more air capable ships came into commission however I will check.

The FOURTH Air Force was going to be the Noggies but having Just seen their wedsite it appears that they are reorganising into a single defence force.

10/10 for spotting the mistake :D

Al

[althenick]

What about the following mix of senior officers to operate aboard HMS QE2? Following the current tradition, why have 1 when you could have 4?

1 x Commodore / Rear Admiral - Maritime component commander
1 x Captain (RN) - Carrier commander
1 x Air Cdre / AVM - Air component commander
1 x Gp Capt - Carrier air gp commander


An Aircraft carrier is essentially a floating air base right therefore logically the Captain of the carrier would be the same rank as a Base commander yes? then surely the senior man involved in air ops on the base would be subordonate to the base commander?

[Gnd]

How could the fleet have Air ranks if we end up with only the Army and Navy? Or is the original thread to put all land componants into the RAF?

[Tourist]

VVHA
"In that respect, would you ever think that the Future Commanding Officer of HMS Queen Elizabeth would be a Group Captain? Why not?"

Erm.....because the Captain of a ship has, ideally, some knowledge of how to drive a ship. And a Carrier is never someones first floating command, thus making it somewhat tricky to fit in the required experience for a Crab?

[Easy Street]

An Aircraft carrier is essentially a floating air base right therefore logically the Captain of the carrier would be the same rank as a Base commander yes? then surely the senior man involved in air ops on the base would be subordonate to the base commander?

Not necessarily. American bases are commanded by 2 colonels - one is the base commander, responsible for providing the infrastructure and support, and the other is the ops group commander, responsible for the flying units on the base. The base cdr is a blunty and the ops gp cdr is a fully current and combat-ready aviator. Neither is subordinate to the other as their spheres of responsibility are different. It seems that RAF stn cdrs are doing more admin and less flying these days, perhaps we could look at this way of doing it?

[vecvechookattack]

Erm.....because the Captain of a ship has, ideally, some knowledge of how to drive a ship. And a Carrier is never someones first floating command, thus making it somewhat tricky to fit in the required experience for a Crab?

Not at all. The Captain of a ship doesn't have to know how to drive it. he would have a team of Navigators for that...

The Captain of a Frigate / Destroyer is the Authorising Officer for the organic aircrafts flying and yet he isn't an aviator.



An Aircraft carrier is essentially a floating air base right therefore logically the Captain of the carrier would be the same rank as a Base commander yes? then surely the senior man involved in air ops on the base would be subordonate to the base commander?

The CVF isn't just a floating air base. its the lead ship of a Carrier Battle Group.

Such as this (Although, we will never be able to muster any where near that size of CBG.) Be aware that there will also be 2 or 3 vessels in that Group which you cannot see at the moment.


http://hzero.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/abraham-lincoln-battlegroup.jpg?w=614&h=392

[SASless]

I cannot but wait to hear the wailing about Hat Badges and Red Trousers!

[Geehovah]

Therein lies the problem. The pic in the CBG above shows the current orbat of the Navy. We cant afford to field a CVF any more; nor can we field adequate ASW cover with 9 MPA