acmech1954 wrote...
...A senior Pongo was on the news a couple of nights ago questioning the number of FJ for the RAF and Carriers for the Navy, but no mention about his Army, somewhat biased methinks. ...
possibly because the whole of the Army is involved in A'stan - AS90 Regiments re-roled to Light Gun, Challenger 2 crews re-roled to crew just about anything that moves in theatre - the Army has many 'traditional war' legacy systems that don't fit into COIN very well, but it has demonstrated that it is willing and able to put them (and the corresponding 'glamour and prestege' surrounding those roles) into storage and re-role in order to prosecute the war we are actually fighting. the RAF on the other hand, has created/allowed a perception (and quite a convincing perception) to evolve that it really isn't interested in A'stan - sure it makes some crumbs-from-the-table changes like Sentinel, RQ-9, RAPTOR, and a couple of extra C-17's - but that really the RAF is only interested in pointy fast jets, and the wars in which they are of use.
there is a balance to be struck between 'the war', and 'a war', but 'the RAF' as represented by Jockstrap got both the balance, and the presentation of that balance, badly wrong.
It is slightly easier to take a tank driver and give him something else to drive. Likewise take the AS90 crew and give them a field gun, not much training required, they are all soldiers, just with some specialised training. They could all just go as infantry at the end of the day.
The RAF is a lot more technical than that, and as such resources cannot easily be moved at the drop of a hat without considerable expensive retraining, and that applies to both air and ground trades.
Given that when we initially went into Afghanistan we were not expecting to fight(If you believe the politicians), you cannot expect the chiefs to have spent millions retraining people, and buying new equipment for roles that may not be required.
Look at the army, they have not sold off their battle tanks or AS90's simply put them to one side. How much squealing would there be if the Navy/RAF started complaining about the cost of these systems that are not of any use in the current conflict, sell them off, make some money.....
How much damage was done to the perception of the RAF by removing the Harrier? Was this a deliberate political decision by a green CinC?
The armed forces need to prepare for all eventualities, not just yesterdays. If that means we need air defence fast jets, maritime surveillance, MBT or simply 1000's of infantry soldiers then that is what we need, and the price we need to pay for the defence of the realm.
Isn't it?