The RAF finally gets it !

[c130jbloke]

I know the impending SDSR + cuts have been done to death before, but it's nice to see CAS finally taking the gloves off and starting to counter the BS coming from the rest of defence.

RAF chief: Don't cut fighter jets - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7245465/RAF-chief-Dont-cut-fighter-jets.html)

I for one am fed up with both the Army and Navy moaning about how the RAF should take all the pain - as for disbandment :ugh:

[Kengineer-130]

I fear it is far too little, far too late :(

[StopStart]

Erm, it's far too little far too long ago.... That article is dated 15 Feb 10 :hmm:

You might mean this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7924797/Air-Chief-Marshal-RAF-as-key-now-as-in-1940.html)?

[Al R]

General Sir David Richards, the head of the Army, has argued that future planning should focus on the ground troops that lead the mission in Afghanistan and would do so in similar conflicts in future. Sir Stephen challenged that view, suggesting that Afghanistan may be the exception, not the rule, for future conflict.

We're out of Afghan soon - I wonder where else then, Richards sees the army deployed in similar escapades? Perhaps the political incentive just isn't there to repeat the 'mistakes' of the past bushfighting decade. And it probably doesn't matter when it was written - it adds weight to the (timeless) theory that too much time is spent re-fighting the last war, and not enough anticipating the next (however different it might be).

[Faithless]

"Yer doomed I tell ya.....Yer ALL DOOMED!" :E

[Jetblast Jim]

For good or for ill, air mastery is today the supreme expression of military power and fleets and armies, however vital and important, must accept a subordinate rank.

— Prime Minister Winston Churchil


How little we have learned. The only thing the RAF is lacking in order to be great, are some Senior Officers who will have the spine to stand up and be counted, but Knighthoods appear more important than the service that has given them so much over the years. The days of the Royal Air Flight draw closer.

[engineer(retard)]

"The Army is pressing for the RAF to be given cheaper fighters such as the propeller-powered Super Tucano, which cost only £5 million each."

Well someone is showing an outstanding understanding of requirements. We could also replace the SA80 with a super squirter water pistol.

[minigundiplomat]

Despite all the bravado, banter and general idle speculation from the other 2 services, I suspect all three branches are going to have to bend over and take it like a man in October.

It will, of course, be quite a challenge for the RAF having been raped in other recent defence cuts.

Fighting amongst ourselves achieves nothing.

[gsa]

"The Army is pressing for the RAF to be given cheaper fighters such as the propeller-powered Super Tucano, which cost only £5 million each."

Well someone is showing an outstanding understanding of requirements. We could also replace the SA80 with a super squirter water pistol.

But both Tucano and Squirter might be the appropriate tools for the job at a given time depending on what substance is discharged from either.

[Union Jack]

The RAF finally gets it !

C130J - Oh dear! Isn't that statement just a teeny-weeny (no pun intended) ambiguous .....?:confused:

Jack

[flipster]

MGD is right - back-stabbing and in-fighting is totally counter-productive. It really saddens me to see all these generals, admirals and airships being so parochial and puerile. Yes, its all about capabilities and, like-it-or not, airpower is a damn-important force-multiplier and here to stay, as WSC said. Airpower is far too important to be left to the dark-blue and brown. After all, us crabs shouldn't dream of lecturing the others on how best to use an MBT or a submarine, so why should the RN and Army pontificate about use of aircraft and space?

Why, oh why, can't our senior types agree on trying to define the threat and planning our Services accordingly - rationally and together? Or at least, they could have a 'best guess' to the threats and the appropriate size/ability of our Armed Forces - and then advise the Gov't what capabilities we will lack as a result (and maybe how long it would take to ramp them back up); then the Gov't takes a carefully measured risk, rather than the MoD looking like a bunch of school kids arguing over a packet of sweets!:ugh::ugh:

[thunderbird7]

Dunno, but I blame the fish heads and the pongoes :8

[NURSE]

well air policing by tornado worked so well in the Balkans, Kosovo Afghanistan, Iraq need I go on it needed boots on the gorund with CAS not IDS to actually get control of many of the post cold war conflicts.

[Wrathmonk]

it needed boots on the gorund with CAS not IDS to actually get control of many of the post cold war conflicts

You are quite right Nurse - to control a non-compliant local population you need boots on the ground. But would you have wanted to go into these countries without CAS / AI above (and in front) of you?

Of course you could always rely on our NATO partners to provide it.....

[TurningFinals]

The Army is pressing for the RAF to be given cheaper fighters such as the propeller-powered Super Tucano, which cost only £5 million each.

The Army should shut up. :ok:

[Melchett01]

I for one am fed up with both the Army and Navy moaning about how the RAF should take all the pain - as for disbandment


I for one think that the Army being on the constant offensive is all down to the fact that they feel threatened in the longer term. Although Afghanistan is the current focus, with the expected draw down in the next 5 years, what exactly will the bulk of the Army be doing once out of Afghanistan?

By that stage, I really can't see the UK having the political or public appetite, financial resources or military capability to embark on another foreign adventure which will invariably mean lots of time in barracks or on exercise. However, the RAF and the RN will still have an active role to play in the defence of the UK through policing of airspace and sea lines of communication, not to mention the ability to demonstrate and project UK air and sea power through the deployment of relatively small force packages (assuming they ever let the RN host some of the infamous cocktail parties!) where required.

Seems to me that post 2015, it is the Army who will be scrabbling round for an active role outside of marching up and down Horseguards. Might explain the rather vociferous protestations we are seeing at the moment?

[skippedonce]

While I agree with Melchett01's argument regarding the future of the Army post-Afghanistan, the trick for the RAF will be maintaining enough capability and budget-share until that occurs in order for us to have something to (re)build on. The RN played a blinder last week by getting BAe to do its lobbying for it (CVF = British jobs); pity we don't have the same industrial backing.

[The Helpful Stacker]

.......pity we don't have the same industrial backing.

The RAF does have industrial backing.

The RAF are pushing for F35B (the RN would probably be happier with F35C or even the F18F and traps/cats on the CVFs) and the workshare for British industry is higher in the F35B than the F35C.

If the F136 engine ends up being dropped then the only workshare RR have left in the F35 project would be on the B-model.

Then lets not forget about BAe Systems. They have an interest in the whole lot, B-model, C-model and the big grey boaty things too, they'll want to keep all of them on order.

The reason the RN's industrial backing is so evident at the mo is that the question of "do we really need the CVFs" is the main one being asked right now. If people started questioning whether the country needed the F35B with the same gusto being used over the CVFs I'm sure you'd see BAe and also RR equally defensive over the project.

[larssnowpharter]

Why, oh why, can't our senior types agree on trying to define the threat and planning our Services accordingly -

And therein lies the key and the nub of the problem.

Defining the threat isn't so easy. Difficult to tell what will be happening in 20 years and procurement decisions made today will have that huge effect in 20 yrs.

If we could accurately define the threat the problem would be relativlely easy.

You would have to spend what was needed to neutralise it.

Shades of 30s.

[general all rounder]

Here are a few threats completely off the top of my head:

Russia - not much capability at the moment except all those nukes but a willingness to use what capability it has pretty aggressively (vide Georgia) where will they be in 30-40 years time?

China - busy securing the World's resources on the open market but will they defend their position by force in due course?

Iran - where is that going?

Collapse of the eurozone following a Sovereign Debt crisis and a return to European nationalism?

Regional conflicts which suck us in?

India/Pakistan

Iran/Israel/Syria - whole Middle East?

Russia/Ukraine/Georgia

Various African conflicts

China/South China Sea/Japan/Koreas/Phillipines/Vietnam

and then

AQ sponsored global insurgency
Irish republicanism - still not gone away.

and finally the Argentinians still want the FI.

Actually come to think of it, there is no better time to make massive cuts in defence.

[Two's in]

The fact is that the Army can do its job (whatever that is) by employing relatively inexpensive (in Defence terms) equipment. Amongst the most costly items in the Army's inventory are a Challenger 2 MBT at around £3M each and an AS90 Artillery piece at £1.6M. Now if you decide to get rid of, or seriously downscale, Armour or Artillery capabilities in the Army, the amortized equipment costs of those capabilities would come to about £1B for CR2 and £300M for AS90. If you do the same exercise for the RAF you quickly get to about £15B for Typhoon and £9B and rising for F-35.

Now these numbers have nothing to do with strategic capabilities or Air Power projection, but I suspect the hatchet men in the treasury will be paying even less regard to what capabilities they slash - to them it is simply a numbers reduction exercise.

So CAS finally realising his most precious future assets are under threat is neither "taking the gloves off" or "starting to counter the BS coming from the rest of defence. ". It is a very late recognition that cutting the Army's equipment programs can save well over a Billion, but cutting the pointy jets can save nearly £25B.

The Navy have a couple of obvious targets - CVF at £5B and Trident replacement at anything from £25B - £70B. Cut CVF and JSF is just a bonus saving alongside. Of course Trident replacement depends on this and successive Governments appetite for an independent deterrent. Bottom line is that whereas the Army's future role is clearly up for grabs, the money to be saved in any strategic realignment is chicken feed alongside the massive re-equipment budgets of the Air Force and Navy. The cuts will be aimed at realising the maximum savings, and that money lies between those 2 services, not the Army.

[minigundiplomat]

Two's in,

agree with your post, but .......


Amongst the most costly items in the Army's inventory are a Challenger 2 MBT at around £3M each and an AS90 Artillery piece at £1.6M.


The 'Amongst' is duly noted, but I'll warrant AH64 costs a lot more than £3M per unit. So does Wildcat

[Two's in]

MGD,

I was just coming back to add in an edit that Apache was deliberately discounted as one of the few pieces of defence equipment that the Army is getting tremendous utility and value from, whatever the scenario. And some of those airframes are nearly 10 years old now, so probably aren't worth that much.

Wildcat isn't here yet...

[Melchett01]

Bottom line is that whereas the Army's future role is clearly up for grabs, the money to be saved in any strategic realignment is chicken feed alongside the massive re-equipment budgets of the Air Force and Navy. The cuts will be aimed at realising the maximum savings, and that money lies between those 2 services, not the Army.

Yes, Defence, and especially air and naval forces are expensive. However, they are not optional items in any credible military capability that seeks to both defend its interests at home and abroad and act as a force for good. I'm not a big fan of that last phrase, but it does appear to be here to stay.

However, if you cut your air and naval capabilities beyond a critical mass, then you have to ask whether or not you may as well just disband the military in total and give the money to the police, intelligence services, foreign office and various international development agencies. Without a decent air and naval capability, the army is pretty much relegated to the Home Guard. They are going nowhere other than very slowly or by charter - assuming that you can get a charter into a war zone without paying eye wateringly high prices which might just make you think back to the wisdom of cutting your other forces. And when they get to wherever it is they are going, they will be very much on their own without any other supporting assets they might enjoy at the moment.

Likewise, without an army, the air and naval forces are not going to win wars outright. We can shape, influence and even define the battlespace, but like it or not, a Typhoon, F-35 or aircraft carrier isn't going to take ground without obliterating it and negating any reason to hold it.

In a nut shell, despite all the infighting, we are all dependent on each other to provide a balanced and credible military capability. There are a few single service functions that can not be achieved outside of their respective services, but on the whole, we are an independent and interdependent set of services, each with our own specialist capabilities. How you use those capabilities should be determined on the basis of military professionals and their political masters conducting a thorough strategic estimate of current and likely future threats. It should not be done on the back of a study by Nigel and Derek in accounts and their band of polyester suited new university bean counters and Sir Humphries who quite frankly think an estimate is something they get from a Polish plumber when the toilet has gone U/S.Cutting the big ticket items on that basis will leave the UK's military capability irrevocably weakened for at least a generation, by which time - and with any luck, those who have foisted this abomination on us will either be pushing up daisies or contemplating what they have done to this once great country.

Defence is a tricky thing to justify to the Nigels and Dereks of this world whose CBE depends on some bottom line on a ledger. Or even to the Waynes and Tracys who when faced with the defence of the country during some of the most unstable times we have seen for a generation is being asked to make the choice between kit for the troops or dole money for the next week in the local boozer. Unfortunately, we work in fairly simple but none the less abstract concepts: rather than balancing the books, our books balance when the same numbers of troops come home as go out on deployment; we have done our jobs not when we have slashed millions at a stroke from a capability we don't understand, but when we wake up each morning knowing that our families are still safe and that what we are doing will at least give our kids a fighting chance of growing up in a decent country.

Unfortunately, all those things cost, and won't get Nigel and Derek a CBE. However, I do hope they listen to the recent timely words from the Defence Select Committee warning of yet another 'gathering storm' as the Nigels and Dereks of the world play poker with the security of this once great nation.

[flipster]

Quite right Melchett; accountants know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Should we really be leaving defence decisions to them?

However, there is a fairly astute observation by Guy Gibson VC in his book 'Enemy Coast Ahead', written before his death in action. Whatever people may say about Gibson as a person, he clearly had more foresight than most and questioned the morality of war - like many who have been in the thick of it. He delivers a lesson that we ignore at our peril.

Why must we make war every 25 years? Why must men fight? How can we stop it? Can we make countries live normal lives in a peaceful way? But no-one knows the answer to that one............

......But it rests with the people themselves; for it is the people who forget. After many years they will probably slip and ask for disarmament so that they can lower taxes and raise the standard of living. If the people forget, they bring wars on themselves and they can blame no-one but themselves.

and in a similar vein

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Edmund Burke or George Santayana (take your pick)

[Chugalug2]

Guy Gibson VC:
Why must we make war every 25 years?
Well we haven't, that is not the kind of global wars he was referring to presumably. The reason why we haven't hasn't been any great change in "the people themselves", for as he says they forget or more accurately newer generations, too young or unborn then, "forget" what they never truly experienced. The reason for the prolonged peace that we have enjoyed and that he yearned for lies with the very RAF Command in which he served, and latterly the Royal Navy. For it is "the bomb" that has kept the peace, I would suggest. Whether it will continue to do so only time will tell, but the repeated claims that this country does not face foreseeable direct military threats to itself and therefore can run down its military capabilities, including possibly the nuclear deterrent itself, are misguided and dangerous. It is not the RAF that needs to "get it" but the nation itself, lest the schools and hospitals that it prizes above all else end up as smouldering ruins along with everything else.

[barnstormer1968]

"The 'Amongst' is duly noted, but I'll warrant AH64 costs a lot more than £3M per unit. So does Wildcat"

As would a Challenger 2...Maybe double that!
The army may not purchase the most expensive equipment, but they do buy quite expensive stuff, and then expend it in very large numbers....Just consider the cost of killing one Taliban sniper with one anti tank round, and then doing it all day, day after day! That soon adds up.



Edited to add: good value in my view, if the alternative is lost life on the allied side!

[XV277]

The fact is that the Army can do its job (whatever that is) by employing relatively inexpensive (in Defence terms) equipment.

And whilst proportionally their cost over-runs and delays are no less than other military hardware, that lower initial cost means the headline figure is less.

Terrier anyone?

[Flarkey]

Good point. In all this discussion about SDSR i haven't heard many mentions of the four letter word that is FRES.