Right, I can’t ignore some of the dibble on this thread anymore!
Over the years, I tried to be fairly impartial in my comments about the 3 services and I think a glance through my posts will confirm that. In particular, I’ve been punctilious in defending the pros and cons of both maritime and land based air power, sometimes in the face of others from my own service. Indeed, I remain a very strong supporter of the RN and Army retaining their own organic air assets. Similarly I have supported the argument for CVF (although I have always worried that the wider capabilities of the RN were being prostituted for 2 x CVF and 3 x SSBN(F) and am beginning to doubt the wisdom of CVF). Equally however, although I like to consider myself extremely Joint minded, I am Light Blue to the core and will defend my Service from some of the utter rubbish spouted here and elsewhere. I make no apologies for repeating the following diatribe elsewhere.
Now we have that straight, let me begin!
The last few years have, to be honest, not been great for the RN. More so than the RAF, it suffers from Joe Public’s perception that the UK is only engaged in 2 Land centric campaigns. They only perceive the Army as contributing and anyone seen on TV in combats is obviously in that service. Both the RN and RAF are also engaged in similar essential activities which, either by dint of their sensitivities or the fact that they are not in Afghanistan or Iraq, remain low profile. Examples of these are the defence of the UK (AD/QRA, ASW/ASuW), counter drugs, counter terrorism, and the wider ISTAR piece associated with the 2 ‘live’ theatres such as SIGINT and FMV. In fact, even many serving members of the UK military are largely ignorant of many of those activities!
This erroneous perception in the publics eye has however been exacerbated for the Senior Service by a number of incidents which have embarrassed the RN in recent years. HMS Trafalgar driving into an inconveniently located sea bed; HMS Nottingham almost sinking after bumping into Australia; the recent debacle over members of HMS Cornwall’s crew being captured by Iran, their conduct, and subsequent release of stories to the press.
Please note incidentally that I am not casting aspersions regarding those incidents. Each service has their bad days, but I think it is fair to say that the RN has suffered worse of late, particularly regarding the HMS Cornwall incident which frankly caused embarrassment to the entire nation.
So the RN are understandably sensitive at a time when the UK military is quite clearly going to have to take yet more cuts in its capabilities. Like Wrathmonk, I have sensed therefore over recent months an increasing spin campaign by the RN to protect its corner as difficult decisions are made. That has been most evident in the recent flow of ‘leaked’ documents and studies relating to RN capabilities appearing in the media.
Delaying CVF, the Falklands guard ship, T45 cutbacks, T23 service life extensions, lack of Harriers for CVF deployments and numerous others have all appeared in the press of late. The Times has been particularly evident in this which frankly appears to me as a significant campaign by the Senior Service to manoeuvre for funding.
I understand this to an extent and every service regrettably engages in these kinds of shenanigans. However, I do see this latest ‘leak’ as another example of such tactics where a grain of truth has been distorted for single service reasons.
As part of ongoing funding ‘options’ EVERY capability in the UK has to be examined and justified. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Harrier fleet has been studied in this manner. However, to suggest that the RAF has a campaign (much less a
named campaign!) to assume all manned fixed wing aircraft is I think ludicrous. Whatever you think of CAS, he has publicly stated his support for CVF on a number of occasions. Likewise, it becomes fairly tiresome in the RAF hearing almost constant paranoia from the RN that the RAF has got it in for CVF. I can honestly say that the vast majority of RAF officers I work with support this procurement.
And why wouldn’t we? F-35 is a key tenet of FAS for the RAF. If GR9 is binned in toto, this will result in a ‘capability holiday’ in terms of carrier deployable fast air. We all know how dangerous such holidays are as it immediately brings the entire capability into question. Yet one of the key reasons why the RAF is getting F-35B is to be able to augment FAA sqns aboard CVF. If the Harriers go, CVF may go and the F-35 may go. How exactly is this sensible for my Service when so much effort is being expounded on ensuring the RAF F-35s can operate from CVF?
The ‘Harrier mafia’ of very senior officers is notorious in the RAF for protecting their own and I find it difficult to believe the entire fleet would be chopped. By definition, many RAF Harrier personnel have significant sea time over the last 10 years and many quite enjoy CVS ops (although the scope of flying tends to be far more limited)! I have no doubt that some GR9 cuts are being considered (as they are with other fleets), but I feel that this is just one of many options (and by no means the most shocking that I have heard) that has been spun in an attempt to manoeuvre for funding.
If the RAF wished to crush the FAA fixed wing capability, I would suggest that it would be relatively easy. For decades, RN fast jet sqns have been heavily augmented by RAF personnel. Likewise, RN pilots who have failed to gain a single seat tick in trg have often been allowed to serve on Tornado GR4 or F3 sqns prior to crossing back over to FA2 or GR9. We could easily have stopped such initiatives over the years to reduce the numbers of FJ experienced aviators the RN can call on. In addition, when I have heard at least 2 RN Flag officers state publicly that ‘they don’t care who flies the aircraft off them, just as long as we get the carriers!’, it could be suggested that the wider RN at large are perfectly capable of undermining organic FAA air on their own!
In summary chaps, I have attempted to offer a balanced counter argument to the exceptionally inflammatory article in the Times. I personally do see this as another carefully managed leak by a Service that is (perhaps understandably) sensitive regarding its current public image and future at this moment in time.
I shall now scuttle sideways and wait for the incoming NGS (obviously it’ll be NGS as NSW are deployed ashore and unavailable
)...
Regards,
MM