Re-allocation of ground warfare spend to air assets.

[tartare]

I saw an argument recently that the USAF should cease to exist (too expensive, merely now a support function for army and navy).
Load of bollocks in my view.
But what I've wondered recently though is, what in this day and age is the need for a large standing army?
Has not ground warfare now really been `special forces-ised' ?
Under what circumstances in future are we realistically going to deploy masses of ordinary soldiers?
If V. Putin invaded the rest of the Ukraine for example and an armed response was determined the only option, would the response not be one from the air, followed by small mobile expeditionary units securing key objectives?
Are we ever going to roll out the landing craft and invade China?!
Do we really need an Army in the conventional sense now?
Could the coin saved be better re-deployed to things that fly?
I stand to be taken to task by those of you who know better...

[sharpend]

An interesting argument. It could be argued that we revert to pre 1918 status quo and have the air arm as part of the RN/RA. It would certainly save top brass. But what we (the UK) really needs to do is to cut our cloth according to our needs. Do we need our armed forces to protect the UK or to protect an long gone empire or to try to be the World's policeman? If it were the later, yes we need occupying forces. If all we need is defence of this Island, then air power alone is sufficient with obviously some submarine sea power to protect the shipping lanes. We then don't need an army and we don't need a nuclear capability.

But I don't have all the answers because I don't have all the facts. But I doubt if anyone else has either.

[althenick]

Ultimately you will always need boots on the ground to hold taken ground. But do you need as many full time Bods for this Job?

As for the Air force I say we make it "Virtual" :E

Retain the RAF Flag and some of the Structure but manpower and budgets come from the other 2 services. where prudent to do so have common training and support.

Pro's
-Airpower doctorine is retained (whatever that is)
-Other 2 services have control of their assets (no infighting - THEORETICALLY)
-Operational & cost efficiencies
-Nobody has to wear a Naff looking uniform

Cons

- requirement for someone to ref The Army - Navy Rugby Match

:E

[Jollygreengiant64]

The fact is that we don't know what we might need. This Crimea business has shown the West that, nobody saw it coming, seemingly, and it could be read into that Mr Putin seized the opportunity of Western defence cuts to bring about not only a geographical victory, but a boost to his world standing too. It could almost be argued that in the real world Russia is the ONLY superpower, in the sense that they have all the prerequisites, and are prepared to exert that power to achieve their aims.

You can't tell what we might need any of the military capabilities for, current or historical, and we can only hope that we don't find ourselves wanting in a time of need. In a world where the "flash to bang" time is much shorter than the development time of war machines, we need to have all of our toys on the start line before it starts.

In an ideal world defence spending would be calculated on the basis that anything can happen, especially the unexpected, and would consist of a proportionate chunk of GDP relative to what you were willing to pay for survival, not a particular perceived threat.

[Not_a_boffin]

Oh I'd say everyone saw it coming for a few years now, it's just that no-one actually wanted to face the consequences of what it meant. Therefore everyone successfully applied the Hitchhikers Guide SEP principle.

[The Nip]

Agree you can't predict the next war. How do you fund a scenario you can't predict? With unlimited funds it would be possible.

As it happens, could we, if necessary, retake the FI's if required?

Could we re-enter either Iraq or Afghanistan if the need arose?

I don't know the answers but the posts above answer it clearly. You decide your policy and fund it.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Isn't this Thread 3 days too late?

Recycling old Threads is commendably "green" (pick your own context), though.

[London Eye]

This thread appears regularly in various guises often (I hope) with a fair degree of tongue in cheek. There is a serious point in here somewhere though: if there is to be further discussion about the future of the Army beyond 'Future Army 2020' it should take account of the ability to regenerate numbers in the Army relatively quickly.


The modern Army is a much more technically focussed service than it was but it is still easier to increase (especially infantry) numbers more quickly than it is in the RAF and RN, where the force elements are hugely technical and require a much longer training pipeline. In a world where budgets are squeezed and manpower is a huge chunk of the pot it is worth considering whether we could make a considered risk here, especially given that wars of choice are more likely than wars of need for at least the next generation. Of course we will always have those saying that (a regular army of) 82000 is not enough already and in a world of full employment, a buoyant economy and large national surplus they might be right...

[Heathrow Harry]

I thought this might be an April Fool but no, it doesn't seem to be

Of course you have to have an Army to hold the ground

Special Forces are that - "special" - in routine battle-fields they are mopped up and put against a wall in no time

[tartare]

I was deadly serious in starting this thread.
Even with Crimea and the Ukraine, I struggle to see a large scale `boots on the ground' engagement now.
Consider how war weary the US population is for example.
Forgive my civilian lack of knowledge of military tactics but is modern ground war now really about securing held territory?
If you've nixed opposing forces from the air already - destroyed just enough infrastructure to cripple any military response, but not too much to saddle yourself with a huge reconstruction bill... the implied threat of total destruction and occupation is enough surely?
I guess the irony of it all is that all those boots on the ground couldn't secure Iraq.
Just interested in the debate - not a wind up.

[Sun Who]

Tartare,

Not an unreasonable perspective but, if I might make so bold, it's one that's overly influenced by recent 'discretionary' punch ups, where the adversary has not had the ability to fight back in the air.
Air-air and surface-air fights don't happen at a significant level when the fight is being fought in an asymmetric fashion. In a 'war of scale' it's not clear (to me at least) that any one side would be able to exercise power from the air with freedom, and so capturing and maintaining control of the ground may well fall to ground forces - which wouldn't be pretty with modern technology.

War is a human activity because it results from human needs, fears and desires. Consequently I think there will always be a need to exert power on the ground, from the ground.

Just an opinion.

Sun.

[Heathrow Harry]

trouble is We think we're just fighting an air war with a few specialist units - THEY have a bloody great load of tanks...............

You can choose how YOU will fight a war but not how the other guy decides to fight it...........................

[Mr C Hinecap]

I guess the irony of it all is that all those boots on the ground couldn't secure Iraq.

I'd turn it round and ask why Iraq couldn't be secured with all that air support?

In financial terms, the RAF is terrible 'value for money' when it comes to military capability. If the government come up with an intent to go somewhere and do something, most of the proposed actions will be cheaper when undertaken in the main by Land forces. They can also hold an area once taken - rather hard to do that with air assets over a 24/7 duration.

[Finningley Boy]

Making arguments to get rid of and reduce stuff is never a good idea, especially if it encourages those charged with making such decisions, all they need is tobe encouraged that it wouldn't meet much public opposition. Air and Naval assets in particular would be impossible to re-generate if needed in a hurry. Best make the case for at least hanging on to what we've got.

FB:)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I couldn't agree more; particularly for a island Nation such as ourselves.

I'm always reminded that if the Luftwaffe in the '40s had been an independent Air Force, I might now be typing this auf Deutsch.

[Roadster280]

You've got more chance of plaiting snot.

The Army has nearly three times the manpower of the RAF.

The RAF has about 40 active, non-training stations, but only about a third of those are flying stations.

The Army has about 130 non-training regular Major units (i.e. regimental size, approx 650 people).

RN could, has, and will, run an FJ fleet or two. They're also taking Merlin. The Andrew need both AD and CAS types. Why couldn't they do it all? They already have the strategic role (nuc and TLAM).

The Army runs as many helos as the RAF. Chinooks elsewhere in the world are run by their armies. The Army has a Really Large logistics Corps. What are AT assets if not flying trucks and buses? The Voyagers are run on contract anyway.

It would be far, far, easier to return to the RFC and RNAS than to have the Army's role subsumed by the RM and RAF. The RAF Regt doesn't even have Rapier or tracks anymore.

Air Marshals keep getting out-flanked by Generals and Admirals in spending rounds.

The Army is the RAF's major "customer". CAS, tactical bombing, AT and SH are nearly all in support of the Army.

Currently, AD (both ground and air) are about the only thing that the RAF does for itself (i.e. "air power").

If there's a Service to be lost, it won't be the Navy or the Army. But I do hope the RAF makes it.