That old chestnut

[m+m]

Did anyone else see this in yesterday's DT?

Joined-up military
SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the RAF continuing to exist as a separate service. From the counterproductive bombing of Germany, to its irrelevance during the Falklands Campaign, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
It makes no more sense than the Submarine Service or the Tank Corps declaring themselves to be an independent and separate service.
E.C. Coleman
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.

I should imagine that he thinks that WW2 would have been much shorter without the pesky RAF annoying Jerry!!!

[S'land]

I should imagine that he thinks that WW2 would have been much shorter without the pesky RAF annoying Jerry!!!

He would be right in thinking that. WWII would have been much shorter and ended with Operation Sealion taking place. Therefore the bombing campaign on Germany would not have taken place. Mind you, he probably would not be able to voice any of his opinions under a different regime.

[newt]

What a load of Tosh!!

[Double Zero]

Well, such 'logic' seems acceptable when screwing the Fleet Air Arm, scrapping Sea Harriers and forming Joint Force Harrier...the big snag there is the ship drivers with personal ambition don't understand or like aeroplane thingies; helicopters are fine, as they can get one ashore to the party quicker.

[Occasional Aviator]

I sometimes wonder if it's someone's job on the telegraph to generate one of these letters about every 3-6 months. It certainly seems to come around that often. Surely we must be running out of time-expired, retired, ill-informed, low-ranking ex-army and RN officers by now?

[A and C]

If you look at the history logic would dictate that the RAF can no longer forfill the role that it was set up for under the "Smutts report" of 1917.

However times have moved on and the RAF is now the logical way to provide air power except at the tactical end of battelfield support or in close support of the fleet. I see the status quo as the best way to continue however with shrinking budgets the "lords & masters" are fighting to keep some turf and steal a little turf if they can!

[Double Zero]

While I regard what's happening to the Navy with horror, I can't help being reminded by your comments of the ' Two Johns, Bird & Fortune' sketch;

" how many Admirals do we have now ? "

" About 85 "

" and how many ships ? "

" Err, 25..."

[The Helpful Stacker]

And how many air-rank officers does the RAF have.

How many squadrons?

The RN isn't the only service that is particularly top heavy in the rank structure.

[Two's in]

Let's be honest, you don't have to be a particularly clever troll to come up with a letter like that;

Navy Version - SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the Navy continuing to exist as a separate service. From the failure to prevent the U-Boat campaign from Germany during WW2, to its irrelevance during the Irag and Afghanistan Campaigns, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
A Troll
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.

Army Version - SIR – The rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff (report, February 4) illustrates the absurdity of the Army continuing to exist as a separate service. From the counterproductive airborne operations at Arnhem during WW2, to its irrelevance enforcing the Iraq No-Fly Zone, it has repeatedly demonstrated the wastefulness of a single-weapon service.
A Troll
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire.

Nothing but classic interservice baiting, the real question is which spaz at the DT is running his agenda by publishing it?

[m+m]

Nice to see that the DT can print the other side of the view point:-
[QUOTE]SIR – The RAF is hardly a "single-weapon service" like the Tank Corps as E C Coleman says (Letters, February 5).
His argument mentions the bombing of Germany. I prefer to consider the Battle of Britain, where if the aircraft had still belonged to the Army-led Royal Flying Corps, not an independent RAF, Fighter Command's aircraft would have been committed to the defence of the British Expeditionary Force in France, as Churchill wished, and even fewer fighters would have been left to defend Britain.
Only Air Chief Marshal Dowding's refusal to commit them, which led to much criticism from the Army, saved enough fighters to win the air battle.
Phil Mobbs
Marlborough, Wiltshire/QUOTE]

I doubt that EC Coleman will be silenced though. Once a Luddite always a Luddite!!

[TEEEJ]

Lieut E C Coleman RN Ret’d FRGS

Author of the book 'The Royal Navy in Lincolnshire'

'About the Author
E.C. Coleman was born in 1943 and entered the Royal navy as a Junior 2nd Class. Thirty-six years later, having seen the world from the decks of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, he retired. During the 1990s he mounted three arctic expeditions in search of evidence of the fate of Franklin and his 1848 expedition to find the North West Passage.'

[Roadster280]

36 years in and a Lt already?

Do RN Lts normally use the rank after retirement?

RN in Linconshire? Isn't that like "RAF in Plymouth?"

[Brain Potter]

RAF in Plymouth - Mountbatten?

I also noticed this letter which was published in a reponse to the one from Admiral Coleman

Future of the RAF

SIR – EC Coleman (Letters, February 5) believes that the rift between the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff illustrates the absurdity of the RAF continuing to exist as a separate service.

He cites the “counter-productive” bombing of Germany. I wonder whether he would have been of the same opinion after Dunkirk. Future wars should not be fought with the weapons or strategies of the last, but it is surely dangerous to misinterpret their effectiveness.

Unmanned guided missiles, capable of spanning seas, continents and the air may, perhaps, bring about drastic changes.

Harold Norcross
Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire

I've re-read this three or four times now and I don't understand what he is trying to say. Anyone else get it?

[diginagain]

....having seen the world from the decks of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines,........

My bold.

How does that work?

[Roadster280]

I believe he is saying something like:

Weapons for the last war may not be effective in this one. (eg tanks not used much in AFG)
However, this does not mean that a tank is ineffective. It could still ruin your afternoon.

And the bit about the missiles, I'm guessing, is that they transcend physical limitations on certain weapon platforms. Eg no sea in the desert, RN not much use with ships. Tomahawk though doesn't care too much about what it overflies, so the RN do have a part to play.

[Tourist]

Interesting letter replying to the Coleman Letter from an RAF Wg Cdr no less. Seems not all Crabs are blind to the realities.

Ministers do not embrace the 'moral decisions' that they expect of bankers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4571613/Ministers-do-not-embrace-the-moral-decisions-that-they-expect-of-bankers.html)

An end to the RAF

SIR – I agree with E C Coleman (Letters, February 5) that the time has come to have a serious discussion as to the efficacy of an independent RAF.

There can be no denying that air power is vital to success on the battlefield, but the now meagre capability offered by the RAF is expensive and relatively ineffective. The operational inventory of aircraft from which ordnance may be fired or dropped is less than 300. Those few assets could well be reassigned to the other two services with no reduction in capability.

Indeed, letting the Army own and operate all helicopters, close air support and tactical transport aircraft, with the Royal Navy responsible for air defence and deeper offensive operations, could, for financial reasons alone, increase capability.

At the end of the Second World War the RAF had around one million personnel and operated over 21,000 aircraft. Now in the 21st century, with around 41,400 people, and operational aircraft actually available on the day close to a mere 150, it is time to think again.

Wg Cdr J J E Parr (Retd)
Suckley, Worcestershire

[m+m]

I'm glad that the good Wg Cdr Parr is retired, with officers like him the RAF would be in dire staits. You could apply the same analogy to the RM, AAC FAA or the RN. What we need is consistant support for all our Armed services both financial and political.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Those few assets could well be reassigned to the other two services with no reduction in capability.

Ok, who gets the Typhoon? Is it a CAS aircraft or AD aircraft. Alright, give the Army and RN half of the fleet each, I'm sure that'll save money. Bosh, sorted.

Now what about Nimrod. Is it a maritime surveillance or ISTAR platform? Perhaps its both. Who's toy box should it be in? Will the Army contribute to the upkeeping of the ISTAR capability if its in RN hands and will the RN be interested in 'its' crews training on those systems? Hmmm, perhaps they'll just bin the ISTAR bit of Nimrod, dumb it down to being just a maritime asset and the Army can buy something else. That sounds like a cost saving right there.

The old chestnut, it certainly seems to come around more often than it used to.:ugh:

[Tourist]

m+m

"You could apply the same analogy to the RM, AAC FAA or the RN"

No, you can't.

He is saying that a separate service is unjustifiable for such a small number of aircraft and nothing else. Essentially the RAF is a one trick pony. You fly aircraft. end of dit.

The RN has aircraft (FAA), soldiers (RM), ships, submarines, divers
The Army has aircraft (AAC), soldiers, boats, combat engineers etc

The RM, FAA, and AAC are not Armed Services. They are parts of Services.
His entire point is that you cannot apply the same analogy to the RN and Army because we have many capabilities.

(and don't even try to call the Rocks a capability, before someone tries to......:rolleyes:)

[Tourist]

THS.

"Now what about Nimrod. Is it a maritime surveillance or ISTAR platform? Perhaps its both. Who's toy box should it be in? Will the Army contribute to the upkeeping of the ISTAR capability if its in RN hands and will the RN be interested in 'its' crews training on those systems? Hmmm, perhaps they'll just bin the ISTAR bit of Nimrod, dumb it down to being just a maritime asset and the Army can buy something else. That sounds like a cost saving right there."

This is just the point. Both the Army and RN need ISTAR, so of course we would contribute. We have land assets (RM) that it would support. More than 50% of the personnel in Afghanistan are RN this year.
Because we are services with many aspects, we understand the need for funding various elements of the war machine.
Unlike, I have to say the RAF, which is so fast jet centric that we have hundreds of modern Typhoon and about 12 chinook.

Not only that, but you may notice that the RN and Army tend to cooperate reasonably well when it comes to territorial disputes re ownership of assets. ie 847 flying Army helicopters.

[The Helpful Stacker]

...hundreds of modern Typhoon..

My they've delivered them quick. When did that happen? Yesterday?

...and about 12 chinook.

Is that an accurate figure?

My they must have trimmed back the Chinook force since I left Odiham.

Must be cost cutting to fund the purchase of Pachyderm, White, Cocktail Parties, For the Use Of (x2) for the RN.

.Because we are services with many aspects, we understand the need for funding various elements of the war machine.

History does say otherwise, hence an independent air arm.

Ultimately the RN is all about driving boats and the Army is all about boots on the ground. With the best will in the world the focus of a sea-centric force and that of a land-centric force will never be fully on the projection and continual evolution of air power. This is why all the seasoned, professional militaries of the world have independent air arms

[Tourist]

THS

"History does say otherwise, hence an independent air arm."

History says that the Navy needs organic air power because the RAF cannot be relied upon to front up when required, hence the re-establishment of a Fleet Air Arm.

"This is why all the seasoned, professional militaries of the world have independent air arms "

The seasoned, professional militaries have properly funded Naval Air which don't have to fight continually to maintain their capabilities against attacks from a rapacious airforce which is more interested in political manoevering for single service interest than supporting the war aim.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Ah, so its the RAF who control the RN budget then? I guess you could ask them not to make you spend it all on those expensive n-boats but no doubt they'll just ignore your feeble pleas and cackle some more.

Its amazing how much power the RAF wields over the Senior Service and the British Army, especially as the senior ranks of the RAF are oft derided as being incompetent by all manner of armchair Admirals and Generals, quite amazing.

BTW, is that tinfoil hat comfortable?

[Tourist]

THS

Do you deny that the RAF does indeed have power over the RN flown Harriers, our only fixed wing combat aircraft?


Do you deny that the loss of RN fixed wing at this stage will have a catastrophic and perhaps terminal effect on the RN's aspiration to fly JCA?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Well considering most of the 'RN' squadrons have fairly large amounts of RAF personnel in them due to a shortage of dark blue suits I suppose they do have a bit of power over them.

Of course if the RAF were to bin the Harrier in order to make savings in a defence budget that is stretched awfully thin I'm sure there would be nothing to stop the RN from trying to convince the treasury to not take that saving but give it to the FAA instead to run the Harriers on their own.

If the RN considered fixed-wing aviation so important that it had to have the Harriers, extra money from the treasury or not, I'm sure the boat drivers would happily give up a few frigates to fund the FAA, or would they?

Perhaps the boat drivers aren't actually that interested in who flies off of their future cruise ships, perhap they just want big boats to float around in. Perhaps the true 'enemy' is within....:ooh:

[Tourist]

THS.

Have you been paying attention?

"If the RN considered fixed-wing aviation so important that it had to have the Harriers, extra money from the treasury or not, I'm sure the boat drivers would happily give up a few frigates to fund the FAA, or would they?"


The RN has given up more than half the Fleet to fund the Carriers which are the heart of the FAA, so yes, they are "interested"

"Well considering most of the 'RN' squadrons have fairly large amounts of RAF personnel in them due to a shortage of dark blue suits I suppose they do have a bit of power over them."

There is no shortage or dark blue suits. The RN has turned down crossover requests from crabs to go to the RN sqns because the line numbers are filled. You are believing your own propaganda.

[Archimedes]

Just an observation, but in the last three weeks in general conversation at a purple location somewhere in Wiltshire, both a Lt Cdr and a Cdr (both RN rather than any other nation's navies) have supported THS's opinion regarding the shortage of dark blue in JFH.

It would seem that either beastly crab propaganda has infilitrated the RN, or that some elements of the RN are confused about the true picture and need urgent re-education...

Perhaps pointing those on here who can access them in the direction of the figures might settle that argument? (Not a dig, Tourist - a genuine thought, since this point comes up every time this debate occurs).