ROADSTER - If the RAF has 60 aircraft of a particular type (I know it's 59x GR4, but we'll go with easy maths), and is struggling to provide 6 for a new task, this raises two questions in my mind:
1. (Less important). What happened to the other 40 from the previous 100? Just retired as 30 year old hulks?
Refer to my previous post on FE@R - Tornado Force is on a "phased" drawdown to 18 FE&R (to save money) so one of the impacts of this is that the jets not required to sustain the new FE&R will be withdrawn. If so, what does that say about the inability of the latest jet (i.e. Typhoon) after 6 years in service (FGR4) and 11 years for the Typhoon as a whole, to take on the roles it needs to in order to do its job?
2. (More important). If the structure and procedures of the RAF are such that it needs 10x as many aircraft to provide a small force for a new op, then that looks like something is very wrong.
Refer to previous post on FE&R - no-one is saying that "10x" as many jets are needed to support a 6 a/c det ALONE. 3:1 ratio is about right, in other words for every one deployed there will be another 2 required to sustain that deployment, be they in maint, OCU, used for workup training by a non-deployed unit, etc
The RAF has shed many airfields (Cottesmore, Kinloss, Leuchars, Coltishall all major airfields) , several aircraft types (Tornado F3, Jag, Harrier, Nimrod, C130K, Tristar, Merlin off the top of my head), and yet still is in this position. What is wrong?
If the savings produced by shedding aircraft fleets (and aircraft within remaining fleets) haven't produced a efficient and capable air force, then something is very wrong at the top. Looks like a systemic failure of thinking.
Now I'm warming to your thinking and I agree that it looks poor. It would take a long time to answer your questions properly but, fundamentally, it boils down to a few things:
- The constant broken promises of "if you just cut Capability X, then you can keep Y and Z" (only to find that next week/month/year capability Y and then Z get cut as well)
- The constant broken promises of "jam tomorrow", which similar to the above require taking a cut (or two) now for a future capability that never materialises
- Short term thinking - money that's been spent is considered spent, i.e. gone as opposed to being an investment. No-one cares if £Xm was spent last year resurfacing an airfield runway to keep it serviceable for the next 25yrs. What's important is how much money can be saved NOW by turning off the runway lights. The same logic applies to investment in a/c fleets as has been evidenced in recent years.
6 aircraft needing 60 on strength (or worse still, 100 on strength, with 40 in a shed at Shawbury or similar) looks very inefficient. It may be that there are a legion of reasons for this, but that's not what is being read in the papers, and ultimately, voted for.
No - 6 a/c do not need 60 on strength. My best guess, as stated in previous post on FE@R, is that 18 FE@R requires ~60 jets total
I don't know what the answer is, and it thankfully isn't my problem, but it does look pretty bad.