Originally Posted by
Lima Juliet
MPN11
i think the RAF lost the plot when they kept the Field Sqns of the RAF Regt but gave the Rapier SHORAD to the Royal Artillery. It should have been the other way around with the Infantry charged with ground-based defence of our airfield and the RAF doing SHORAD. Quite how we have kept the Regt is quite shocking really and we really the UK needs to go back to basics on its military:
1. If it floats on or in the sea then it is Royal Navy - I would include the Royal Marines in that, but no FAA.
2. If it lives in ditches then it is the Army - no Watchkeeper, Wildcat or Apache but get the RAF Regt.
3. If it flies it is Royal Air Force - no Regt.
Nice and simple. Seeing the Army fixed wing assets coming to the RAF and losing the BD to the Army is a step in the right direction in my humble opinion.
Sadly, you are grossly mistaken that the RAF 'gave' its SHORAD to the RA. That was a decision made by MoD because Typhoon would cover the gap. It was a decision made in the context of the RAF Regt being very much better at it than the RA, as evidenced in the disproportionate effort put in by the Regt to raising the RA capability to a NATO-acceptable standard. Think inter-Service politics and the 'need' for Mike Jackson to retain a RA Regt. In the context of potential Russian air threats to bases, including Cruise Missiles, it might be worth reflecting on whether any of that was wise. However, the RAF Regt does undertake SHORAD in the form of Counter-UAS, and has for many years now.
I'm afraid the Infantry's history of doing ground defence of airfields is not a good one. But if organisational tidiness rather than effectiveness is your goal, then perhaps we should go beyond this and no-one in the RAF should carry any small arms (land environment weapons) or deploy beyond their airbases on the ground. Despite being challenged at every Defence review since the end of WW2, MoD (and its predecessors) have decided they need to keep the RAF Regt ground defence capability. Perhaps they all know that the Infantry skillset and the RAF Regt skillset are substantially different (fighting on and around an airfield, and aircraft, especially ones as sophisticated as ours has some unique challenges), that subject having been studied to death. Given that successive CAS's have seen it as a necessary part of the RAF's independence, even when financial pressure is on, it might be worth reflecting on what organisational tidiness costs compared with real world warfighting capability. I suppose generations of decision makers could have been wrong, despite numerous detailed studies over many years, and you could be right.
And as for retaining the RM who, for the overwhelming majority of their time, fight against land environment objectives, and not the FAA, who will for much of their time protect against maritime threats as part of a maritime battle, your argument doesn't really hold water. Not that I would agree the breaking out of either from the RN, but if I were forced to choose one or the other, it would have to be the RM that went to the Army.