Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on a point of pedantry, the FAA is not celebrating its' centenary in 2013: the RNAS became the RAF on 1 Apr 1918, with the FAA not reverting to RN control until 1939.
The crabs had pretty much washed their hands of carrier flying by 1921 (Squdrons by that time being on average 85% dark blue) so there is a 3 year gap.
Oh and BTW....
- The Danish tried this "1 country 1 Airforce" Shight not that long ago which guess what? failed dismally - They now have Naval Aircrew flying, and personell looking after, "Air Force" Lynx
- The Brazillians got rid of their embarked F/W Air Force when they got the San Paulo - Seemingly their Air force didn't want to go to sea!
-Even the New Zealand Navy, despite having Air force involvement fly ALL THREE of their own Seasprites.
Is it me or does anyone else see a pattern emerging here that a F*ck-witted CAS can't?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Ah, so because other countries try and fail we shouldn't?
Damn, I thought we Brits had quite a good record for doing what others have failed to do. Still, with such mighty examples as the Danish, New Zealanders and Brazilians leading the way and failing perhaps we'd be best to give it a miss.
To be frank though I believe the current division of air power is probably correct (in my humble opinion). Of course if the Army and RN finally laid to rest the sour grapes they've been dragging around since 1918 over the fact they are not perhaps the best people to run the majority of airpower then perhaps those who run the RAF wouldn't feel the need to adopt a 'best form of defence is attack' plan.
Damn, I thought we Brits had quite a good record for doing what others have failed to do. Still, with such mighty examples as the Danish, New Zealanders and Brazilians leading the way and failing perhaps we'd be best to give it a miss.
To be frank though I believe the current division of air power is probably correct (in my humble opinion). Of course if the Army and RN finally laid to rest the sour grapes they've been dragging around since 1918 over the fact they are not perhaps the best people to run the majority of airpower then perhaps those who run the RAF wouldn't feel the need to adopt a 'best form of defence is attack' plan.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the matter, Tourist, seems like you lost a tenner and found a penny. Cheer up old chap and allow me to tell you what I could envisage without waving your testicles. My ability to envisage has nothing whatsoever to do with your manhood.
Simple fact of life is that we no longer have the dosh to do defence properly because flash Gordon has allowed the borrowers and lenders to cock the whole economy up and he's giving what's left to the loungers and the scroungers. Nowt left for the good guys who still have to fight wars we should simply not be involved in.
Nothing wrong with the quality of the RM and they do soldiering brilliantly but air is just a different ball game entirely and the technological knowledge and training required bears no resemblance. If you think back to the dilemma the emergence of air caused in WW1 you will realise that their lordships made a very wise decision in forming the third service.
For years we have reaped the benefit of an independent air force despite the fact that it mainly exists to support the needs of the other two services Notable exceptions, of course, are strike, interdiction and air defence of UK although even these roles are associated with the needs of the other services.
As for the RAF not going the extra mile, the recent award to the Chinook guys in Afghanistan does little to give credibility to your argument.
So, in the true spirit of Christmas, bollocks to you too.
Simple fact of life is that we no longer have the dosh to do defence properly because flash Gordon has allowed the borrowers and lenders to cock the whole economy up and he's giving what's left to the loungers and the scroungers. Nowt left for the good guys who still have to fight wars we should simply not be involved in.
Nothing wrong with the quality of the RM and they do soldiering brilliantly but air is just a different ball game entirely and the technological knowledge and training required bears no resemblance. If you think back to the dilemma the emergence of air caused in WW1 you will realise that their lordships made a very wise decision in forming the third service.
For years we have reaped the benefit of an independent air force despite the fact that it mainly exists to support the needs of the other two services Notable exceptions, of course, are strike, interdiction and air defence of UK although even these roles are associated with the needs of the other services.
As for the RAF not going the extra mile, the recent award to the Chinook guys in Afghanistan does little to give credibility to your argument.
So, in the true spirit of Christmas, bollocks to you too.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the previous comment: "Of course if the Army and RN finally laid to rest the sour grapes they've been dragging around since 1918 over the fact they are not perhaps the best people to run the majority of airpower then perhaps those who run the RAF wouldn't feel the need to adopt a 'best form of defence is attack' plan."
I can assure you that it has nothing to do with sour grapes. It is simply based on real life personal experiences and perceptions that the other UK (and some other foreign) forces have sadly sometimes witnessed. You may not like hearing that or want to accept this but I am sorry to say that it is true and is purely down to 'some' RAF personnel’s own making. (They not only let themselves down by their actions, but also the RAF.)
The RAF are very good at doing many things (and long may that continue) but so too are the other forces who have a different culture and specialist way of working that suits their particular Forces requirements to get things done in often very difficult circumstances.
With regards to the RAF wanting to take over all things aviation, in the so called name of saving this country money and using their greater aviation knowledge, may I highlight the following points:-
1) The RN/RM/Army is already very lean, efficient and cost effective. For example, I suspect that most Army/RM aircraft are still flown by Corporals/Sergeants who are 'also' proper soldiers by trade. You cannot get much more cost effective and efficient than that for their roles. Is the RAF going to follow the Army lead and reduce their RAF pilot’s ranks, pay and accommodation costs, etc to help reduce defence costs? (I doubt that very much!)
2) Not only do RN aircrew/maintainers carry out their normal flying and land based airfield related duties, they also have to carry out many other important ‘warship only’ related roles. Particularly the crews who operate helicopters aboard smaller ships (such as frigates and destroyers) where they need to be virtually ‘jack of all trades' because they usually do not have any specialist workshop personnel or any other shift to take over from them each day. Therefore, whilst a bean counter (or anyone else who has not served on a small ships flight) may think it easy to put any land based Air Force helicopter crew on such ships, this is not true. UK Tax payers get a lot of very good value and expertise from such personnel in the FAA. Thankfully the RN knows that, and no doubt, so do the Brazilians, Danish, etc!
If only more of the biased RAF supporters could recognise the fact that they do not actually know 'everything' about all types of aviation and how best to use it in RN/Army applications.
I can assure you that it has nothing to do with sour grapes. It is simply based on real life personal experiences and perceptions that the other UK (and some other foreign) forces have sadly sometimes witnessed. You may not like hearing that or want to accept this but I am sorry to say that it is true and is purely down to 'some' RAF personnel’s own making. (They not only let themselves down by their actions, but also the RAF.)
The RAF are very good at doing many things (and long may that continue) but so too are the other forces who have a different culture and specialist way of working that suits their particular Forces requirements to get things done in often very difficult circumstances.
With regards to the RAF wanting to take over all things aviation, in the so called name of saving this country money and using their greater aviation knowledge, may I highlight the following points:-
1) The RN/RM/Army is already very lean, efficient and cost effective. For example, I suspect that most Army/RM aircraft are still flown by Corporals/Sergeants who are 'also' proper soldiers by trade. You cannot get much more cost effective and efficient than that for their roles. Is the RAF going to follow the Army lead and reduce their RAF pilot’s ranks, pay and accommodation costs, etc to help reduce defence costs? (I doubt that very much!)
2) Not only do RN aircrew/maintainers carry out their normal flying and land based airfield related duties, they also have to carry out many other important ‘warship only’ related roles. Particularly the crews who operate helicopters aboard smaller ships (such as frigates and destroyers) where they need to be virtually ‘jack of all trades' because they usually do not have any specialist workshop personnel or any other shift to take over from them each day. Therefore, whilst a bean counter (or anyone else who has not served on a small ships flight) may think it easy to put any land based Air Force helicopter crew on such ships, this is not true. UK Tax payers get a lot of very good value and expertise from such personnel in the FAA. Thankfully the RN knows that, and no doubt, so do the Brazilians, Danish, etc!
If only more of the biased RAF supporters could recognise the fact that they do not actually know 'everything' about all types of aviation and how best to use it in RN/Army applications.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim.
The person that started the cockwaving is you. The only difference between my post and yours is that I didn't couch mine in polititians weasel words:-
Soddim says "If one tries to be totally objective there is much logic in the provision of all air power from an independent air force. The Army and the Navy are utterly professional in their own roles and, similiarly, so is the Air Force in theirs. To assume that within any one of the three services one could muster and maintain the level of expertise and experience to perform satisfactorily the role of any of the other two services diminishes the credibility of separate armed services."
Translated:- "From my position as a patronising git it is obvious that whilst the RN and Army are good at their boat and trench things they are really amateurs in the air and should leave it to the grown-ups who are wonderful like me."
Soddim says "The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support."
Translated:- "I won't interefere with your grubby toys, and my toys are far to complex for kids like you to understand. I am far more mature than you and the resource management issues are so tricky it's best if you don't worry your tiny heads about it, so just run along and be glad for what we dish out."
The person that started the cockwaving is you. The only difference between my post and yours is that I didn't couch mine in polititians weasel words:-
Soddim says "If one tries to be totally objective there is much logic in the provision of all air power from an independent air force. The Army and the Navy are utterly professional in their own roles and, similiarly, so is the Air Force in theirs. To assume that within any one of the three services one could muster and maintain the level of expertise and experience to perform satisfactorily the role of any of the other two services diminishes the credibility of separate armed services."
Translated:- "From my position as a patronising git it is obvious that whilst the RN and Army are good at their boat and trench things they are really amateurs in the air and should leave it to the grown-ups who are wonderful like me."
Soddim says "The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support."
Translated:- "I won't interefere with your grubby toys, and my toys are far to complex for kids like you to understand. I am far more mature than you and the resource management issues are so tricky it's best if you don't worry your tiny heads about it, so just run along and be glad for what we dish out."
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what Michael Smith (Sunday times) says is true, then the RAF lower downs need to stand up against Torpy. He is doing you irreparable damage that will last many years (remember Harding, Wilson etc). All you have to consider is "What if he fails to disband the FAA and AAC, and the 'One Nation One Airforce' strategy fails?" where does this leave the RAF other than diminished, demeaned and humiliated in the eyes of the British public and their own Service. Those that served in the FAA and AAC will still be able to hold their heads high, whatever the outcome the RAF will not.
So long as the Government says it needs CVF then the RAF/FAA must retain the Harrier to ensure that the necessary deck/ship/aircrew skills are retained for its introduction into service. There are those above who are far more knowledgeable that i who know what it takes to operate FW at sea and it appears to be more that just landing on, bombing up and re-launching - in simple terms these people need to WANT to go to sea.
With regards to the centenary of the FAA, according to the RN blurbin 2009 they are celebrating "100 Years of Naval Aviation" known as Fly Navy 100 .
So long as the Government says it needs CVF then the RAF/FAA must retain the Harrier to ensure that the necessary deck/ship/aircrew skills are retained for its introduction into service. There are those above who are far more knowledgeable that i who know what it takes to operate FW at sea and it appears to be more that just landing on, bombing up and re-launching - in simple terms these people need to WANT to go to sea.
With regards to the centenary of the FAA, according to the RN blurbin 2009 they are celebrating "100 Years of Naval Aviation" known as Fly Navy 100 .
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your 'translations', Tourist, do not further your argument neither are they accurate. However, to cut and paste my post to give it more visibility is something I thank you for.
I neither patronise nor did I 'cockwave' in the post you rudely offered your testicles to. If you really believe that an individual service could create the core of expertise essential to perform the roles of the other two you are a bigger fool than you sound in your posts.
Reducing the size of our forces is the current occupation of politicians of both major parties and that is not likely to change in the future. If you think that diminishing resources are still best utilised by parcelling them piecemeal to the service that shouts loudest for them, think again or you will be left with Soloman's solution and half a helicopter is no use at all.
As far as resource management is concerned, the allocation of resources is controlled by a joint headquarters and air is allocated where it is most needed.
I doubt anybody is considering that the RAF should operate the individual ship's helicopter - if the Navy budget can stand the cost of one helicopter per ship that's fine but the Army's helicopter force might be a different matter. The rank of the crew, incidentally, is hardly of financial significance compared with the other costs involved.
I would prefer, Tourist, if this exchange is to continue that you refrain from slagging me off. I can do the same thing but I am not prepared to contribute further in such a trivial way.
I neither patronise nor did I 'cockwave' in the post you rudely offered your testicles to. If you really believe that an individual service could create the core of expertise essential to perform the roles of the other two you are a bigger fool than you sound in your posts.
Reducing the size of our forces is the current occupation of politicians of both major parties and that is not likely to change in the future. If you think that diminishing resources are still best utilised by parcelling them piecemeal to the service that shouts loudest for them, think again or you will be left with Soloman's solution and half a helicopter is no use at all.
As far as resource management is concerned, the allocation of resources is controlled by a joint headquarters and air is allocated where it is most needed.
I doubt anybody is considering that the RAF should operate the individual ship's helicopter - if the Navy budget can stand the cost of one helicopter per ship that's fine but the Army's helicopter force might be a different matter. The rank of the crew, incidentally, is hardly of financial significance compared with the other costs involved.
I would prefer, Tourist, if this exchange is to continue that you refrain from slagging me off. I can do the same thing but I am not prepared to contribute further in such a trivial way.
From Defence News: 22 December 2008
So there you have it chaps. It is all a storm in a teacup without a vestige of truth, so you can now all rest easy and the inter-Service willy-waving can stop. 
The RAF and the Fleet Air Arm
An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.
The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.
To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service.
An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.
The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.
To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice there is no denial of an attempt to bin the Harrier which would have the spin off effect of..........yes you guessed it, killing off FAA fixed wing.
Soddim.
You seem to believe that size and money = improved professionalism and bang per buck.
By that theory the USAF are both more professional and better one for one than the RAF. Do you believe that to be the case?
The USMC are good troops, and to judge from the exchange guys they send over excellent aviators, better than their Navy guys. I think they have it just about right. Our military could do worse than copying the USMC.
Soddim.
You seem to believe that size and money = improved professionalism and bang per buck.
By that theory the USAF are both more professional and better one for one than the RAF. Do you believe that to be the case?
The USMC are good troops, and to judge from the exchange guys they send over excellent aviators, better than their Navy guys. I think they have it just about right. Our military could do worse than copying the USMC.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, the US military have an enormous size advantage and both their naval and marine air arms leave the RAF in the shade. As for the one-to-one qualities, I have served in the USAF and there is no shortage of either skill or professionalism. However, a big air force will inevitably carry a lot of low average abilities as well as a lot of high average abilities but quantity has a quality all of its' own. They also have better equipment.
Could they benefit from one air force serving all three services - they thought so when they formed the USAF but they could probably place more assets in the air force and less in the marines and navy. Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.
It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF.
Could they benefit from one air force serving all three services - they thought so when they formed the USAF but they could probably place more assets in the air force and less in the marines and navy. Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.
It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you go again soddim with your politician-speak.
"Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms (USMC and USN) are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.
It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF"
There are two possibilities as to what point you are trying to make.
Translation 1:-
"Despite their disadvantages re size and funding, the FAA and AAC manage through dint of spirit and high calibre personnel, to match the RAF in terms of bang per buck at all levels"
Translation 2:-
"The FAA and AAC are not large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally. Recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets are all attributes that the FAA and AAC Lack."
If 1) is correct, then thank you very much for your adulation.
If, however, 2) is closer to your true meaning then man up wet pants and just say it.
Don't, however, cry about cockwaving when someone else with less time for mealy-mouthed equivocation answers back disagreeing.
"Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms (USMC and USN) are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.
It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF"
There are two possibilities as to what point you are trying to make.
Translation 1:-
"Despite their disadvantages re size and funding, the FAA and AAC manage through dint of spirit and high calibre personnel, to match the RAF in terms of bang per buck at all levels"
Translation 2:-
"The FAA and AAC are not large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally. Recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets are all attributes that the FAA and AAC Lack."
If 1) is correct, then thank you very much for your adulation.
If, however, 2) is closer to your true meaning then man up wet pants and just say it.
Don't, however, cry about cockwaving when someone else with less time for mealy-mouthed equivocation answers back disagreeing.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.
The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.
To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service.
The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.
To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.
The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.
To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service."
Amazing the MOD is spinning itself out of control! Talk to any MoD officer on a train or anyone from Air Command on a Wednesday sports afternoon and you will soon find the above is total spin.
"An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.
The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.
To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service."
Amazing the MOD is spinning itself out of control! Talk to any MoD officer on a train or anyone from Air Command on a Wednesday sports afternoon and you will soon find the above is total spin.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's another interesting thread in PPRuNe about the merits of the RAF Regiment and a few are saying how the Army couldn't do the job because of their basic lack of aviation awareness.
Seems very similar to a point the Navy is making about how the RAF don't have the basic seamanship knowledge to make JCA single service.
This raises two points:
1. How come the same essential argument can be valid for the RAF but not the Navy?
and...
2. How hard do we think the RAF would fight if the Army tried to take over defence of Air Force equipment the way the Air Force is trying to take over Naval Aviation?
Seems very similar to a point the Navy is making about how the RAF don't have the basic seamanship knowledge to make JCA single service.
This raises two points:
1. How come the same essential argument can be valid for the RAF but not the Navy?
and...
2. How hard do we think the RAF would fight if the Army tried to take over defence of Air Force equipment the way the Air Force is trying to take over Naval Aviation?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How hard do we think the RAF would fight if the Army tried to take over defence of Air Force equipment the way the Air Force is trying to take over Naval Aviation?
See what a blinkered approach, it is the navy that is mortgaging 'everything' on the 2 carriers for naval aviation.
How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See what a blinkered approach, it is the navy that is mortgaging 'everything' on the 2 carriers for naval aviation.
How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.
How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.
Sadly, without the CVF there will not be much need for a frigate and destroyer force, as once the CVF goes the amphibs will soon follow (nothing to protect them, no need for T45 and just need a Dutch or FGerman size Navy (if that).
CVF is a political tool not just an RN one, the Government understand this. It is designed to send a message in a way that land based force (located in UK at the time the influence is needed) cannot. Why do you think the Italians, Spanish, Indians, Chinese, Russians etc are all aquiring them? I also note the Aussies are moving back towards flat-tops.
No doubt Jacko will retort that we simply cannot afford CVF etc, but sadly this Government (and probably the next one) has decided that it WANTs to afford it even to the detriment of other projects (like FRES, MRA4, Frigates etc). That is their choice despite what the higher ups in MOD may say.
How about a Defence Helicopter Command run by just the RN and Army - they are the main users after all? The RAF could run the trucks and have a Defence Fighter/Bomber Force run by RN/RAF. Any job above 1* across Defence would be rotational/BMFTJ. Another thread perhaps?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe that this government will still be in power when the two year delay on CVF expires. By that time the new government will be desperate to make whatever spending cuts they can get away with and CVF may well end up as the RN's TSR2.
One must hope that in the meantime our leader keeps off the world stage and does not commit our forces to any more theatres we are not funded to fight in.
One must hope that in the meantime our leader keeps off the world stage and does not commit our forces to any more theatres we are not funded to fight in.