Where has it all gone wrong?

[4Greens]

In my youth we had 14 operational Scimitars and Vixens on HMS Hermes, a light fleet carrier. This seems to be the operational front line strength of the entire RAF !!

[MPN11]

No.

Just read the official figures, and move on.

Anyway, are you advocating building a few light CVA and resurrecting those 2 highly hazardous airframes? I lost many colleagues from my Dartmouth entry flying them.

[4Greens]

I am contrasting the present front line RAF strenth with that of a small carrier in the RN in the sixties.

Sic Transit Gloria.

[pr00ne]

4Greens,

No you are not. You are merely quoting totally incorrect and wholly inaccurate nonsense.

[MPN11]

4Greens ... if it's any comfort, I'm 'sic' too, having first joined BRNC in 63.

But I have to accept that the World has moved on. And 'numbers' don't equal 'capability' these days. And anyway, the QE class will have loads of F-35 ... eventually. ;)

I weep quietly for the huge old RAF I knew, but equally accept it's a different time and place, as it is in spades for the RN and, indeed, the Army. But they're neither affordable, nor necessary ... if we're lucky!

[Chinny Crewman]

Come on guys it's Friday let's not flame another thread into nonsense. I think the point 4Greens is making is that should we be asked to surge for something like GW1 we would look pretty thin on the ground compared to 15 years ago let alone 50. I think the real question is are we as effective now with a reduced force as we were years ago?

[MPN11]

Fair call, and the answer is ... All of UK Mil will be in overstretch if anything serious is imposed on us.

We are sadly in gnat-bite territory, have been for ages [despite capability increases] and we just need to learn to live with that. I hate it as much as anyone, but there hasn't been the money or justification for the massive Forces we used to have for a long time.

[Chinny Crewman]

Our posts crossed MPN (fat fingers = slow typing) I thought your post was spot on.

[Arclite01]

My Dad was involved in Op Musketeer.

He would laugh at what we call 'capability' nowadays.

Arc

[Flugplatz]

Berlin airlift anyone?... (I know most of them were civvy)

Seriously though, I got a look in the cockpit of a C!7 a few years back and last year a ride-along in the cockpit of an A400. Very impressive!

I think I saw a quote about the uplift of the USAF during GW2 and the Allied transport aircraft shifted more tonnage than during the whole of the Berlin Airlift.

Not saying we have the force structure right (which is what we can afford as long as we are still able to pick and choose which of other peoples' conflicts we get involved in)

Flug

[pr00ne]

Arclite01,

He'd be laughing out of ignorance.

Any member of the 2015 RAF would have every right to laugh at the "capability" demonstrated by the RAF at Suez.

[Kitbag]

Proone Any member of the 2015 RAF would have every right to laugh at the "capability" demonstrated by the RAF at Suez.

Operation MUSKETEER RAF Order of Battle:

Royal Air Force



No. 1 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Hawker Hunter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter) F.5's.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198823-6)
No. 6 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._6_Squadron_RAF)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7) with de Havilland Venom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Venom) FB.4's.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7)
No. 8 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._8_Squadron_RAF)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7) with Venom FB.4's.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7)
No. 9 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._9_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with English Electric Canberra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Canberra) B.6's.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198826-8)
No. 10 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._10_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.2's.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198827-9)
No. 12 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._12_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.6's.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198828-10)
No. 13 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._13_Squadron_RAF)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7) with Canberra PR.7's.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7)
No. 15 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._15_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.2's.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198829-11)
No. 18 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._18_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.2's.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198830-12)
No. 27 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._27_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.2's.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198834-13)
No. 30 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._30_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Vickers Valetta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Valetta) C.1's.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198835-14)
No. 34 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._34_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Hunter F.5's.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198837-15)
No. 39 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._39_Squadron_RAF)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7) with Gloster Meteor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor) NF.13's.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTECull1996164-7)
No. 44 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._44_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.2's.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198839-16)
No. 61 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._61_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.2's.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198844-17)
No. 99 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._99_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Handley Page Hastings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Hastings) C.1 & C.2's.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198853-18)
No. 101 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._101_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.6's.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198854-19)
No. 109 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._109_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.6's.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198855-20)
No. 138 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._138_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Vickers Valiant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Valiant) B.1's, B(PR) 1's, B(PR)K 1's and B(K) 1's.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198860-21)
No. 139 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._139_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Canberra B.6's.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198860-21)
No. 148 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._148_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Valiant B.1's, B(PR) 1's, B(PR)K 1's and B(K) 1's.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198862-22)
No. 207 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._207_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Valiant B.1's, B(PR) 1's and B(K) 1's.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198869-23)
No. 214 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._214_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Valiant B.1's, B(PR) 1's, B(PR)K 1's and B(K) 1's.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198871-24)
No. 249 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._249_Squadron_RAF) with Venom FB.4's.
No. 511 Squadron RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._511_Squadron_RAF)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford1988151-5) with Hastings C.1 & C.2's.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_%281956%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJefford198895-25)


By my reading that was a comprehensive air force, not relying upon allies.

The RN managed to put these assets in the area:


1st Destroyer Squadron; HMS Chieftain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Chieftain_%28R36%29), HMS Chevron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Chevron_%28R51%29), HMS Chaplet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Chaplet_%28R52%29)
2nd Destroyer Squadron; HMS Daring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Daring_%28D05%29)
3rd Destroyer Squadron; HMS Armada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Armada_%28D14%29), HMS Barfleur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Barfleur_%28D80%29), HMS Gravelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gravelines_%28D24%29), HMS St. Kitts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_St._Kitts_%28D18%29)
4th Destroyer Squadron; HMS Alamein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Alamein_%28D17%29), HMS Corunna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Corunna_%28D97%29), HMS Barrosa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Barrosa_%28D68%29), HMS Agincourt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agincourt_%28D86%29)
6th Destroyer Squadron: HMS Cavendish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cavendish_%28R15%29)
5th Frigate Squadron: HMS Wakeful (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wakeful_%281943%29), HMS Whirlwind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Whirlwind_%28R87%29), HMS Wizard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wizard_%28R72%29)
6th Frigate Squadron: HMS Undine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Undine_%28R42%29), HMS Urania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Urania_%28R05%29), HMS Ulysses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ulysses_%28R69%29), HMS Ursa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ursa_%28R22%29)
Aircraft carriers: HMS Albion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Albion_%28R07%29), HMS Bulwark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bulwark_%28R08%29), HMS Eagle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eagle_%28R05%29), HMS Ocean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_%28R68%29), HMS Theseus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Theseus_%28R64%29)
Tank landing ships: HMS Anzio, HMS Bastion, HMS Buttress, HMS Citadel, HMS Counterguard, HMS Evan Gibb, HMS Empire Cymric, HMS Empire Cedric, HMS Empire Celtic, HMS Empire Doric, HMS Lofoten, HMS Loftus, HMS Empire Baltic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_LST_3519), HMS Portcullis, HMS Parapet, HMS Puncher, HMS Rampart, HMS Ravager, HMS Redoubt, HMS Striker, HMS Reggio, HMS Sallyport, HMS Salerno, HMS Sulva
Minesweepers: HMS Appleton, HMS Darlaston, HMS Letterson, HMS Leverton, HMS Penstone
Net-layers: HMS Barnstone, HMS Barhill
Cruisers: HMS Bermuda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bermuda_%28C52%29), HMS Ceylon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ceylon_%2830%29), HMS Jamaica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Jamaica_%2844%29), HMS Newfoundland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Newfoundland_%2859%29)
HMS Childers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Childers_%28R91%29) (destroyer)
HMS Comet (destroyer)
HMS Contest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Contest_%28R12%29) (destroyer)
HMS Decoy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAP_Ferr%C3%A9_%28DM-74%29) (destroyer)
HMS Defender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Defender_%28D114%29) (destroyer)
HMS Delight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Delight_%28D119%29) (destroyer)
HMS Diana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Diana_%28D126%29) (destroyer)
HMS Diamond (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Diamond_%28D35%29) (destroyer)
HMS Duchess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Duchess_%28D154%29) (destroyer)
HMS Crane (sloop)
HMS Modeste (sloop)
HMS Meon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Meon_%28K269%29) (frigate)
HMS Dalrymple (survey vessel)
Submarine depot ships: HMS Forth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Forth_%28A187%29), HMS Rampura (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Ranpura)
HMS Manxman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Manxman_%28M70%29) (Minelayer)
HMS Tyne (Headquarters ship)
HMS Woodbridge Haven (Depot ship)
HMMRC1097 (Landing craft repair ship)
Submarines: HMS Sea Devil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sea_Devil_%28P244%29), HMS Sentinel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sentinel_%28P256%29), HMS Totem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Totem_%28P352%29), HMS Trenchant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Trenchant_%28P331%29), HMS Tudor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tudor_%28P326%29)



In the 1950's this was a fairly substantial force. In all honesty I believe the Lordships, and their Airships would be very excited to have such forces available today.

[pr00ne]

Kitbag,

It's capability and military effect that counts, not numbers of what were in effect virtually gas turbine powered Blenheims!

Today's RAF could repeat Op Musketeer without using it's entite frontline force.
Not that it would though, who'd want to repeat a foreign policy disaster only equalled, possibly, by Iraq in 2003.

[Willard Whyte]

Yes dear, and a single SA-10 could decimate that effect nowadays.

[pr00ne]

Really?

You do make I laugh...

[Kitbag]

Proone, nope, I have to disagree. Overwhelming force will swamp limited defensive capacity.
The point being that Typhoon & Tornado are good ac being deployed in limited numbers and probably with restrictive ROE.

Assuming the fast jet sqns delivered (conservatively) 8 ac into the order of battle, that is 48 Hunter/Meteor/Venom, 80 Canberra, and 24 Valiant.

The collateral damage will have been much greater, but so will the effect.

Not including the RNs ability to deliver sh!t on the enemy.

[salad-dodger]

I am contrasting the present front line RAF strenth with that of a small carrier in the RN in the sixties.
No, pr00ne is right, you're not.

S-D

[Tengah Type]

IIRC when planning to bomb a road bridge in the FE, with the CMPI we could achieve in the Canberra, it would take 100 x 1000lb bombs to do it. Since each Canberra would drop a stick of 6 x bombs, it would take 16 sorties, ie the whole squardon twice! Even in GW1 a single Tornado could do it with one run dropping 3 x 1000lbs.

However you do have a very good point about numbers over the target in a hostile AD environment,

[Easy Street]

Four Tornados carrying five Paveway IVs each can probably achieve as much intentional military effect in a single mission as a WW2 bomber raid of hundreds of aircraft. Even as recently as 20 years ago, those four Tornados might have been assigned only two (or at a push, four) aiming points on a pre-planned mission, versus up to twenty today. Granted, most pre-planned missions would do fewer (not least, to make room for a targeting pod on each aircraft), but the capability is there nevertheless.

The bold is important - the other effects of WW2 bomber raids certainly couldn't be repeated with the size of force available today, but I don't think that is something we should lament.

[Danny42C]

MPN11,

I reckon you've hit the nail on the head with your #7:
I hate it as much as anyone, but there hasn't been the money or justification for the massive Forces we used to have for a long time.
I poked about a bit in Google, and came up with (in the context of Hitler's reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 [yes, I can remember it !] - the last time,IMHO, wheh he could have been stopped):

Appeasement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.... His (Hitler's) officers had orders to withdraw if they met French resistance.....
....France consulted Britain and lodged protests with the League, but took no action. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said that Britain lacked the forces to back its guarantees to France, and that in any case public opinion would not allow it....

Plus ça change......We are in the same position today - "All mouth and no trousers".

Danny.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Imagine for a moment that a trustworthy & honest PM had decided not to get involved with both Afghanistan and Iraq 2 as they're both a waste of life, money and time.

What would force levels be like now, how much would have spent on doing not much??

Hoorah for BS wars, hoorah.

[typerated]

I remember seeing the movie "final countdown" about a 1970s carrier intervening at Pearl Harbor.


For that I have been intrigued by the thought of what one Tornado with LGB's (and a tanker) would have done to Hitler's Germany.


Flying a mission a night I think they would have changed the course of the war and been pretty safe - it would have taken a lucky shot against them.


But how much damage could they have done?


As well as leadership targets and specialist factories I imagine that the German Navy's surface ships would have been pretty easy to target.


What would you have targeted? What effect do you think one aircraft would have done?

[Pontius Navigator]

TR, the Third Reich military machine was designed to resist hits by 1,000lb bombs. Think battleships, submarine pens, coastal fortifications, C2 bunkers etc.

For an effective campaign by GR4s target sets would have to consist of soft targets such as bridges, factories, rail ways etc. While one GR 4 has the potential to replace many Lancaster s the multiplicity of targets would require mass as well as accuracy.

We saw this as true in shock and awe. Quality to be sure but quantity too.

[Tankertrashnav]

The obvious targets for a single Tornado in WW2 would be key personnel. With good intelligence it would have been possible to remove Hitler and his closest circle one by one, after which saner views in the military might well have prevailed.

Moving on to the present, there must be many in power here and among our allies who have fantasised about the removal of Assad from the equation, as his presence is at the root of the current mess in Syria. Unlike the WW2 scenario, that would obviously be politically unacceptable, paricularly now the Russians, who are a strong supporter of the Assad regime, are in the game.

[Martin the Martian]

It may be little consolation, but EVERYBODY is in the same boat. The French Air Force has only about 220 combat aircraft, which again is rather less than they brought to the party in Suez, while the RCAF has only about 75 CF-18s. And that is just two examples. Look at the rest of NATO.

And on the subject of putting modern aircraft into historic situations, it would have been interesting to have seen the effect half a dozen A-10s would have had in supporting the landings on Omaha...

[Herod]

Martin, why not go further back? If Harold had ONE good machine-gunner at Hastings......

[newt]

I bet this numbers nonsense makes for some interesting papers being written by those doing the Staff College Course! Do they still have a Staff College?:E

[Danny42C]

Ah, the good old days when:
Whatever happens, we have got. The Maxim gun, and they have not
Hilaire Belloc - Wikiquote
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hilaire_Belloc

D.

[SASless]

Ah yes....Fantasy thinking going on.

Good thing the Armies of WWI did not have modern day Gatling guns instead of Maxim/ Browning Machine Guns.

[The Oberon]

This going back, what if, works the other way as well. It has been said that Wellington would have had Waterloo wrapped up in a couple of hours had he had a few thousand long-bowmen available.

[Pontius Navigator]

Oberon, indeed, the difference between skilled and unskilled. How would WW 1 have gone with skilled riflemen using cover from fire rather than as Churchill accounted, the number of rifles with many dying without ever firing a shot.

[Bob Viking]

Posts like yours come up on a regular basis. I'm afraid they betray how out of touch you have become.

It has already been pointed out to you (and gets highlighted with monotonous regularity but is conveniently ignored) that we no longer need those numbers of aircraft to achieve the desired effect. We all know that quantity has a quality of its own but you need to accept that numbers nowadays are not everything.

Secondly, look at your list. 18 (at a rough count) squadrons of FJ type aircraft plus a number of heavier bombers. This was just in that theatre. So we can expect a significantly higher number throughout the entire RAF. Despite the fact we no longer need that number of aircraft do you think the public would stand for us having dozens of Sqns sat around doing nothing?

I'm afraid you need to move with the times and accept that the modern RAF is nothing like it was in the fifties. On some levels that is an undoubted shame. On others it is a very good thing.

BV:cool:

[Pontius Navigator]

BV, KB has a point, and so do you. Joe Public tolerated about 20 V-Bomber Sqns doing nothing but sitting around deterring. And you point about quantity having a quality all of its own sort of accepts numbers.

Yes, in today's austere times we are making do with less. In a benign environment four aircraft can operate with impunity and little risk of collision. As soon as 'we few, we happy few' come up against '10,000' then apart from multiple engagements on each intruder and the possibility of one or two not being targeted you would be looking at 50-75% attrition.

As you will know, Bomber Command loss rates and numbers declined as raid numbers increased.

Only if we avoid even GW2 levels of intervention will our few have any capability. Against a high threat environment the whole dynamic shifts and quality will get swamped by quantity.

[Phil_R]

What it looks like from out here is that the current military represents exceptionally poor value for money, whatever arguments exist about level of capability required.

The inability of the government (and possibly the highest levels of military seniority) to plan more than a couple of years ahead, write a reasonable contract, or stick to design decisions appears to have wasted absolutely catastrophic amounts of money just on equipment acquisition alone.

But as I say, that's just what it looks like from out here.

P

[SASless]

we no longer need those numbers of aircraft to achieve the desired effect.


What is the desired effect?

If the Russians decided to get really Bolshie....so you have enough to go up against them and win?

Yes, we have NATO but can we actually depend upon the other Partners to live up to the Contract?

Is any recent history of NATO sufficient to convince you the Alliance is really what it advertises itself to be?

[Pontius Navigator]

Phil, I was at a meeting 27 years ago to determine the mapping presentation on the EFA display. The colour display would be limited to 16 colours. If the map was presented track-up would it be necessary or possible to display names and so on track up or remain north up as on a paper map?

Now we accept a multi-colour, 3D, track up display as quite normal and that on your cheap TomTom.

Technological progress is so rapid that even 12 months ahead is Crystal ball stuff.

[Albert Driver]

The point neglected here is the fewer the numbers, the more the numbers matter.

Falklands: Only two carriers available but sufficient for the job(?).
Just one lucky hit, one carrier down, campaign over.
It needed three. With only two it all hinged on luck. We were lucky.

Feeling lucky again?

[Phil_R]

This may be horribly obvious, but I'd love to hear the reasons we can't:

- Adopt a rapid-prototyping approach. Avoid embarking on these multi-decade development projects in order to fight the last war. This is vastly easier now than it has been in decades past, but it's always been possible.

- Stop worrying about it. As I understand it, at least one ground-attack aircraft, until recently, required the weapons systems officer to stick a map in a slot and line it up with the radar image using an optical combiner. It would have seemed archaic in the late 80s, but it reportedly worked OK until, what, the mid-2000s?

- Make strategic decisions on a similar timescale to the development process. Don't, for instance, spend titanic quantities of cash fitting out your aircraft to do something, then scrap them at more or less the same time you complete the job.

Sorry if this is a maternal egg-sucking lesson, but this is more or less the thoughts that go through most people's minds when the latest news story of catastrophic billion-pound waste in the MoD.

P

[Pontius Navigator]

Phil, the modern aircraft, in simple terms is a fusion of an aerodynamic body, an electronics package and power plants. Probably the least contentious is the power plant.

The most contentious is probably the electronics package.

Perhaps a simple solution is a barebones aircraft into which you bolt, not integrate, a weapons system but if it was that easy we would be using Windows 3.1.

A Canberra bomb truck with a new weapons system could do the job but it would only be viable in a limited set of circumstances.

[Phil_R]

Perhaps a simple solution is a barebones aircraft into which you bolt, not integrate, a weapons system

Isn't that essentially what the Textron thing is supposed to be?

[Danny42C]

"Get there fustest with the mostest !" (Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson).

[ORAC]

The point neglected here is the fewer the numbers, the more the numbers matter. And quantity has a quality all of its own........

[ricardian]

A report from the Daily Mirror. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/raf-butchers-four-typhoon-jets-6963359#ICID=sharebar_twitter)

[Pontius Navigator]

Expensive and wasteful in engineering time it is necessary unless large stocks of spares and long lead items are held.

While it was ever thus (except largely with the V-Force deterrent) it was made far worse by the Broon One with resource accounting and the rush to minimise capital waste sitting unused on a shelf. 'Just in time' don't work every time.