Originally Posted by high spirits
the JHC could be so much more potent if Sqns were mixed fleet
Not sure how the composition of squadrons relates to my point, but anyway: I presume the perceived advantage of a mixed-fleet squadron would be that you could deploy 'Example Sqn' and it would be able to provide a well-rehearsed combination of its own armed escort, ISTAR and lift under one numberplate? I would respectfully observe that what you describe could be judged as best practice for a specific mission within a specific operation. But attack helicopters, ISTAR and lift all have diverse roles away from each other. In a full war (e.g. DESERT STORM or TELIC Phase 1) the attack helicopters would be operating together en masse; if their day job had been as part of a mixed-fleet squadron, might one infer that they wouldn't have been as practiced in their anti-tank role? There are weaknesses in all models of squadron structure, but the single-type squadron has become by far the dominant model in worldwide military aviation. Interoperability, common doctrine and adherence to SOPs are what glues air power together, not sticking a particular type of mini-COMAO together under one squadron badge.
Originally Posted by high spirits
Carry on letting the politicians divide and conquer if you want, but the fact remains that all the independent services offer something to the overall party. If you cut the RAF out of the helicopter picture, you will have very few assets below FL100, after which you will lose further arguments on why the RAF exists.
I think the existence of the CHF means that the RAF has already lost one argument
below FL100. And I don't care about the existence of the RAF for its' own sake. If the only reason for keeping something was to preserve a badge and some history, then I couldn't support that. I believe in the RAF because it ensures that focus remains on areas of air power that (for good reasons) are not immediate priorities for either the Navy or the Army. SH
is an immediate priority for both of those services.
By your FL100 logic, the USAF would be under existential threat; it isn't. As I set out earlier, why should an air force consisting of air defence, attack, AT and ISTAR not continue to exist as an independent entity? All of those areas have applicability over maritime and land environments and sit very well in a separate service.
Originally Posted by high spirits
Presently, there is a lot of jealousy internally about the successes of the RAF SH force. Have a look at the names, dates and DFCs on the 18, 27 and 28 Sqn honours boards and the appointment of latest CAS to back this up.
I haven't detected any jealousy towards the SH force from my corner of the RAF. Their DFCs were very well-earned in tough environments. It's a simple fact that in recent years the AT and FJ fleets have not needed to expose themselves to ground threats to the same extent (stand fast XV179 - RIP) and none of us can possibly begrudge any recognition of the courage of the SH force. However the luxury of operating above the the reach of the Afghan / Iraqi / Libyan ground threats does not diminish the contribution or experiences of others in any way; indeed I would observe wryly that none of the SH DFCs would have been won were it not for the truckies bringing the helicopters and crews into theatre. But if thinking that we are jealous makes you feel better about your achievements, then please do so, it's free and I don't mind!
As regards the new CAS, my concern would be that should he seek to defend the position of RAF in SH (which, I'm sure you can tell, I don't believe is the most defensible of our assets), there is a risk that he might trade away items that are more firmly within the 'core' of an independent air force's business. Still waiting for someone to convince me!