Will the Tories Axe the RAF? [Archive]

Melchett01

19th Sep 2009, 11:01

Barking, absolutely barking. Has my namesake made a re-appearance??

If you abolish the RAF, unless you decide you are going to do without an attack / CAS, rotary/AT, maritime, ISTAR etc capability, then all these capabilities will have to be done by the modified FAA & AAC. So where do you make savings? You still need ac, crews, ground crews, infrastructure etc. On the financial basis alone, the argument doesn't stack up.

Furthermore, with the projected costs for replacing Trident, there could be a very good argument (financial / political rather than military) for re-structuring the nuclear deterrent and returning it to the RAF. Lets face it, when it comes to the nuclear deterrent, the Army don't get a look in. To project that sort of strategic power needs air or a maritime-derived capability. If the naval option is looking too expensive, then lets look at the air option. Getting rid of it in total just isn't a sensible option at the moment.

I would also have to question the sanity of giving air over to the army. They just don't get it - in the same way you wouldn't expect a flying sqn to 'get' the art of clearing a house or hand to hand fighting. Two examples of the danger of letting the army loose with air:

I remember talking to a FC who was telling me about Gulf 1 when the Army rolled out their MLRS and thought they could just let rip. They had no concept that they might need to coordinate, or the sort of damage that could be done by launching an MLRS battery through a COMAO. Then last summer I was working in Div HQ in Basrah. Discussing recce provision, for the coming days I was posed the deadly serious question: "RAPTOR - that's the one that hovers over the battlefield for 24 hrs".

Interesting to see that this argument hasn't been posted in any of the quality UK press. It's very easy for commentators to snipe from the sidelines of another country's press or online, but the fact that it isn't appearing anywhere else suggests it isn't a particularly credible argument.

This is nothing more than a divide and conquer scare story. Yet again, another attempt by the politicians and their Machiavellian sidekicks to get the Services to turn on themselves rather than standing united against those who have spent a decade destroying the country and those who would likely spend the next decade destroying what is left of the country.

Instead of destroying the defence of the country (the Army are so busy in Afghanistan, the Navy are too busy with their new toys - who is keeping an eye on the Russians every time they send a Bear round the Cape?) lets look at the real areas of inefficiency - ID cards, the NHS IT system, millions spent on foreign aid and useless left-wing social engineering policies to name but a few.

VinRouge

19th Sep 2009, 11:08

Instead of destroying the defence of the country (the Army are so busy in Afghanistan, the Navy are too busy with their new toys - who is keeping an eye on the Russians every time they send a Bear round the Cape?) lets look at the real areas of inefficiency - ID cards, the NHS IT system, millions spent on foreign aid and useless left-wing social engineering policies to name but a few.

Its not going to be enough sadly. they reckon this year's deficit will hit 225 billion by next april; things are not going to pick up and the estimates for unemployment dont currently include the scythet that will hit the public sector next year. We can pander round the edges, this has been the worst recession since 1931, yet we havent felt it because the government have refused to do the decent thing, instead electioneering. All that money we could have saved in early cuts, thrown away by the glass-eyed ones ego.

CirrusF

19th Sep 2009, 12:40

Whilst abolishing the RAF is probably not going to happen, the RAF have opened themselves up for some serious re-organisation by presiding over several high-profile procurement fiascos - eg Nimrod, Typhoon, Chinook Mk3 - which will be absorbing more funds for some time to come.

I can't find the source now, but I may be correct also in writing that the RAF are more top-heavy with senior officers than the other services.

847NAS

19th Sep 2009, 12:55

I certainly hope not, although doing so may give the prospects for the CFV being completed a helping hand! more fleet capacity means more FAA aircraft (in theory) and more aircrew recruited which is always a good thing, (again in theory.)

We know cuts across the board are inevitable and it looks like the three serivces are going to have to share that burden, it never ceases to amaze me how quick the political spectrum changes.

Each party is now trying to jump in front of the queue to promise cuts! and accuse eachother of spending taxpayers money (how dare they) :=

Fortyodd2

19th Sep 2009, 13:17

Cirrus F is right. In previous defence cuts, the Navy have fought for every ship, the Army for every tank and the RAF for every desk.

Impiger

19th Sep 2009, 13:43

CirrusF - I think you'll find that the Naval Service has more flag officers in total than the RAF has air officers (and for a smaller Service too).

Oh, and I'll think you'll also find that the procurement issues of which you speak all have the finger prints of others on them; for a long while now the RAF hasn't been responsible for the procurement of its equipment; that has been an 'all Defence' issue responsible through DCDS(Capability) directly to the Defence Management Board. While some light blue officers may be responsible for some parts of the process it is rather difficult to portray it all as an RAF cock-up!

I'm not defending the outcomes you understand - merely trying to make sure the cap is worn by those it fits:ok:!

Obi Wan Russell

19th Sep 2009, 13:46

When referring to the RAF most usually bring the Battle of Britain into the argument, quite rightly too. But it is worth remembering that SINCE WW2, all British Military air to air victories have been achieved by Fleet Air Arm aircraft flying from aircraft carriers. The RAF hasn't shot anything down since the forties! Also remember the RAF didn't show up until WW1 was nearly over (April Fools Day 1918), and was created by merging the Royal Naval Air Service (which had invented strategic Bombing) with the Royal Flying Corps. The impetus for this merger was the inability of both services to counter the German Zepplin raids, mainly because both services were preoccupied with the western front. So home air defence was the original mission of the RAF, not Strategic Bombing. All the Navy airmen who were behind Strategic bombing were absorbed into the RAF along with those who appreciated the need for shipboard aviation, which is why the Navy was short of 'air minded' officers between the wars.

Putting Naval Aviation in the hands of a land based Air Force with other priorities has been done three times in the last ninety years, always disastrously. The Navy got the Fleet Air Arm back in the late thirties, but the years under the RAF meant Carrier aircraft had lagged behind other nations naval air arms. The Japanese entered WW2 with the excellent Mitsubishi Zero, we had the Swordfish biplane! By the 60s we had the second most powerful Navy in the world with five strike carriers and two commando carriers, then an idiot in a government of idiots cancelled them and said the RAF could do the job cheaper. They couldn't do it at all, so the Invincible class and the Sea Harrier had to be bouht to retain air cover over the fleet.

In the last few years the Navy was forced to give up it's Sea Harriers because the RAF was having budget problems, leading to Joint Force Harrier, supposedly a 50/50 split of RAF/FAA manning. All sqns were supposed to rotate through Land ops and Carrier ops, but noticeably for the last four years our carrier decks have rarely seen any jets (unless they were USMC Harriers, Spanish Harriers or Italian Harriers!) This seems to be changing for the better now since the RAF's Tornado force has been sent out to the 'Stan at long last. In general if pilots and ground crew want to go to sea they join the FAA, those that don't gravitate to the RAF. That's a godd enough reason for the two air arms to exist separately. In the past, RAF aircrew who wanted to serve at sea could volunteer for a tour with the FAA, now they don't get a choice about sea service, they just grin and bear it. This leads to retention problems, and good aircrew are always in short supply. Also at this point, cutting the Carrier program won't save a penny, most of the money has been spent already and the penalty clauses against cancellation will mean it's actually cheaper to just build them! Without the Carriers, there is no Navy, the 1st Sea Lord understands this only too well and has fought tooth and nail to keep them. Cancellation will also mean an end to British Warship Building capability, as there is nothing else that can be ordered in their place to keep the yards open. Putting tens of thouseands of skilled shipyard workers on the dole helps the economy how exactly? It just puts an extra burden on the welfare budget. So cancellation is a major COST not saving.
Someone earlier posted 'Why do we need a Navy'. Let me educate you. Why would an Island nation 90% of whose trade travels by sea (and not just across the channel either) to all points around the globe and is utterly dependent on that trade for it's very survival need a Navy? If you think a 'Coastal Waters' defence policy would be OK then you have already surrendered to anyone, be they nation state or terrorist group who chooses to attack our Sea Lanes Of Communication (SLOC) You don't need U-Boats to do this either, planting bombs on merchant ships and sinking them mid ocean isn't a big challenge. I know from personal experience that UK port security is a sad joke, and the only reason they haven't been attacked is that the terror groups are as 'Sea Blind' as most people in this Island Nation. We have to be able to defend our supply lines first and foremost or we are finished.

So, the basic problem is not 'should we abolish one of the services' but 'we should acknowledge the importance of all the services and fund them accordingly', a message the Treasury is terrified of the British Public recieving!

Two's in

19th Sep 2009, 14:10

Whether it's just another piece of long range sniping by some disaffected journalist or not (his girlfriend was probably being porked by a fat Tornado Nav), the effective counter to this is for the RAF to establish its relevance in today's conflicts. By relevance, that means providing a demonstrable example of how the bulk of RAF funding is delivering a significant capability to the warfighters.

That's an easy enough exercise when looking at transport, support helicopters, dedicated CAS (Harrier) and the supporting infrastructure that goes with it. The logic falters somewhat when the 232 (or whatever is is today) Typhoons show up with the £32 billion price tag. However long and hard you argue about "future threats" and "Air Superiority', when you can't run the AT fleet without robbing museums, and can't you provide a software fix for a few very critical rotary assets because you don't have the money, that £32 billion starts to look like the biggest White Elephant in Christendom.

It doesn't have to be true, it only needs to provide the detractors with a foothold and suddenly the future of the RAF is open to debate.

Relevance is the only thing that matters.

teeteringhead

19th Sep 2009, 14:58

And can someone remind me how many "stars" the RM have for a Bde+ (or possibly a Div-)??? :eek:

Jackonicko

19th Sep 2009, 15:27

Well wouldn’t you know it?

More FAA and AAC centric bol.locks from the usual suspects.

First Brandnew, whose witless nonsense needs no response.

And then ObiWanRussell, who comes out with the usual RN PR spin

“SINCE WW2, all British Military air to air victories have been achieved by Fleet Air Arm aircraft flying from aircraft carriers. The RAF hasn't shot anything down since the forties!”

RAF owned fighters may not have done (stand fast those itching to leap in with the politically sensitive subject of kills in the Confrontation), but RAF fighter pilots have done so. Flying F-86s in Korea and your beloved SHars in the Falklands.

You may recall that the RAF hasn’t actually deployed fighters in most of the conflicts that resulted in kills. You can’t get a kill if you’re not there. Which is why SHar got no kills in Granby.

“The Royal Naval Air Service (which had invented strategic Bombing)….”

“All the Navy airmen who were behind Strategic bombing were absorbed into the RAF….”

Like Trenchard, you mean? The father of bombing for strategic effect.

While I would not wish to diminish the work of officers like Marix in flying long range bombing missions against Zeppelin sheds in their Short 184s, to claim from this that Strategic bombing was a Navy game is a bit of a stretch, and ignores the pioneering (and rather more effective) work of Louis Strange and other RFC officers.

Yes, the RNAS ordered the 0/100 – but then used it first for recce, and later, rather ineffectively, as a bomber, while the RFC’s DH4s and FE2bs were more effective, if less headline-grabbing.

And the Independent Force was dominated by ex-RFC officers, and by RFC doctrine.

“Putting Naval Aviation in the hands of a land based Air Force with other priorities has been done three times in the last ninety years, always disastrously.”

Oh yes, the parlous state of the FAA in 1939 was all the fault of the wicked RAF, and nothing to do with the funding priorities of the Sea Lords……

“In the last few years the Navy was forced to give up it's Sea Harriers because the RAF was having budget problems, leading to Joint Force Harrier, supposedly a 50/50 split of RAF/FAA manning.”

The RN put up withdrawal of the SHar as an option – a cut the Admirals were willing to bear. And they got more from JHF than was fair or sensible. You take an RAF Harrier Force that had never had a problem manning three squadrons with 12-16 aircraft and 18-20 pilots each (and with countless pilots on exchange, or on instructional tours) and an RN SHar force that struggled to man a pair of eight aircraft squadrons… (even with RAF exchange officers). What's the logical split? 75:25? 66:33? (The Navy might struggle with the latter.....)

No. You aim for a 50:50 split, and give the RN half of the senior posts and two of the four squadron numberplates. :rolleyes: The RAF had to get rid of people, while the Navy failed to meet its manning obligations. And then you blame the RAF for the ensuing mess!

Cancelling the carriers saves billions. It removes the immediate requirement for JSF, saving billions more. The Japanese are an island nation dependent on sea trade and exist without carriers and a blue water Navy, and so could we. And carrier air power is one of those ‘nice to have’ niche capabilities – and one that we haven’t actually NEEDED since 1982.

Two’s in,
It’s 180 Typhoons today, for a total cost of about £20 Bn including R&D. NOT £32 Bn. (Did you get that from that useless tw@t Page?).

That will give us enough aircraft for five squadrons – the bare number required for peacetime UK AD, QRA and Falklands commitments.

Mercifully, the British public are intelligent enough to see UK AD as a core role, and it will get more support than niche expeditionary capabilities that are so niche that they are of little or no use to current operations (yep, I mean carriers).

We need the RN to finally take its share of the pain. The other forces have been dramatically down-sized since the 1980s (the RAF’s FJ force is about one third of the size it was then, infantry battalions have been cutback similarly), yet the surface fleet is still about half the size it was, and yet is far less relevant.

I'd be rightly criticised if I exaggerated the extent by which the Navy should be cut back, or if I suggested that it should be run by a resurrected RAF Marine Branch, but actually, if you had to take a radical solution, cutting the Navy is more justifiable than cutting either of the other services.

We don’t need cavalry horses any more. I am not suggesting that nor do we need much more than a coastal defence Navy. But we should now let the Admirals finally take their fair share of the pain.

Grabbers

19th Sep 2009, 16:16

To my mind (a small thing) this thread portrays all that is wrong with the RAF. Petty bickering, sniping at the other two services, and a pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face. Will we be 'chopped'? Probably. Is it a good idea? An unquantifiable failure of defence is just that-unquantifiable. Until it's too late of course.

Unfortunately there are no votes in defence. As long as Joe public can carry on as normal and there is no tangible effect on their lives the government of the day will look to the MoD first. Unfortunately this will only prove to be a bad idea in the face of an attack (internal or external) at that point it will be too late. The real shame is that after decades of underfunding we couldn't defend ourselves against a concerted attack from another nation state anyway. The government must know this therefore what's more cuts to an already dying animal?

racedo

19th Sep 2009, 16:19

I don't think they will BUT they will axe certain programs.

I believe longer term the concept of having a Pilot actually flying a plane will become outdated as the cry will be for Aircraft / Drones that can do the same while being flown by someone at a desk in Milton Keynes or where ever they site it.

Of course the inherent weakness of this in that (correct me if wrong) is that IF you can shut down the Satellites / Up / Downlinks then you become blind very quickly.

Potentially the concept of outsourcing your military requirements may start to happen where a private company does all the work.

Jackonicko

19th Sep 2009, 16:19

An interesting question, indeed.

Assuming that the carriers come in at £4 Bn each (as is now looking likely), and assuming that we went ahead with the originally planned 150 aircraft JSF deal....

No-one's willing to say how much JSF will cost us, but looking at present US flyaway costs, you can safely assume that they'll be at least $100 m each, so that's $15 Bn (£9.2 Bn) for the jets. But that's only including a unit flyaway cost for each JSF, and so you must add a +Y

So the CVF and JSF come in at about £17 Bn +Y.

(If you can get two CVF and 150 JSF for £4 Bn, or £8 Bn then I'll take 'em, and I'll swallow every possible objection. That would be such good value for money that niche capability or not, I'd strongly support them. Alternatively, restore the RAF FJ fleet to a proper size (18-24 squadrons) and I'll support them even at £10-12 Bn).

Do you include R&D on Typhoon, or not? Do you take off the export earnings from the Saudi Typhoons?

Including R&D, and excluding any export earnings, the last official, NAO audited total cost of 232 Typhoons (more than we're getting) was £19.3 Bn.

Seven squadrons of Typhoon, or two carriers and four squadrons of JSF?

I know which seems to fill a core UK national defence requirement. Which is a 'must have'.

anotherthing

19th Sep 2009, 16:34

Jackonicko

You may recall that the RAF hasn’t actually deployed fighters in most of the conflicts that resulted in kills. You can’t get a kill if you’re not there

Whilst I don't believe getting rid of the RAF or any single service is the answer (though I think in truth what we will end up with in 20 or 30 years time is one defence force), the above argument is slightly at odds with what you are trying to say.

Such arguments might lead to a response of "so why do we need an RAF?"

also

I know which seems to fill a core UK national defence requirement. Which is a 'must have'.
Being an island nation, that'll be a strong Navy then... and force projection requires flat tops.

Your arguments are totally flat Jackonicko, the fact is we need expertise in all 3 services. Another fact is that the Air Force is probably the service that is the easiest to break up and share out to the Army, Navy and Marines.

By stating that fact, I am in now no way saying it should happen

Jackonicko

19th Sep 2009, 16:50

The cubs don't count?

But I was a sixer and everything.

You'll be poo-poohing my distinguished service in the Noddy club next. And my participation in the Abdhi and Ahmed Island League (BFBS kids thing in RAF Germany).

(I do have a rather militaristic cycling proficiency badge, and I'm a UAS-trained pilot, too, but I daresay that they won't count either.)

You're always so keen to point out my supposed lack of any qualifications to have an opinion, yet you're so gutless and coy when it comes to your own.

FlightTester

19th Sep 2009, 16:57

...so long RCAF, and hello to:

Canadian Forces Recruiting - Recrutement Forces Canadiennes (http://www.forces.ca/)

TeeS

19th Sep 2009, 17:03

Obi Wan

The RAF hasn't shot anything down since the forties!

I'm not sure that you are quite correct about that one, I seem to remember they managed something of the sort over Germany in 1982 . :ok:

Cheers

TeeS

Seldomfitforpurpose

19th Sep 2009, 17:24

"Being an island nation, that'll be a strong Navy then... and force projection requires flat tops."

Not wishing to get into the willy waving thing but all 3 services are doing a pretty good job of force projection, and have been for quite a few years now, without too much reliance on flat top help :p

VinRouge

19th Sep 2009, 17:39

The RAF hasn't shot anything down since the forties!

Lots of Splashes of a ground attack variety though!

A and C

19th Sep 2009, 17:56

The first thing that I would take issue with above is the statement that the RAF was formed to counter the Zepplin raids in WW1. It is my understanding that the RAF was formed following recomendations in the 1917 "Smutts" report, the thrust of this was projection of strategic air power (bombing).

Some might say that the RAF can't carry out this role since the demise of the V bombers but I think that this can't be used as a reason for scrapping the RAF as time has moved on and requirments changed.

Quote Ryanair do AT better than the RAF

I should think so! after all the RAF AT fleet was a cheap set of near sell by date airliners and has had three tenths of naff all spent on it. Ryanair has a well financed state of the art fleet and the income to support and renew it.

If I was looking to save money I would look at the waste resulting from "box ticking" as a result of elf & safety, applying a bit of common sence by standing up to the lawers who seem to think that H&S rules can be applyed to a war fighting force.

Brewers Droop

19th Sep 2009, 18:14

Melchett01 said This is nothing more than a divide and conquer scare story. Yet again, another attempt by the politicians and their Machiavellian sidekicks to get the Services to turn on themselves rather than standing united against those who have spent a decade destroying the country and those who would likely spend the next decade destroying what is left of the country.

Spot on M and reading the rest of the thread they are achieving it. You need an Air Force, Navy (and RMs) and Army - period. You need kit to secure the skies as much as kit to defend the SLOCs or undertake FIBUA. You need Typhoon, you need Carriers - you need the kit to do the job (or the kit you thought you needed for a job 20 odd years in the future when you procured it!).

People forget the military is a national insurance policy and its no good reducing your cover to third party only and then having a big fire!!!!!!!!!

When will we stop fighting each other :(

BD

Wholigan

19th Sep 2009, 18:30

Sorry Jacko that your post doesn't now make a lot of sense since I deleted the troll's post.

This little battle is actually proving to be quite therapeutic as I just LOVE banning people. I hope he doesn't stop or I'll be out of a job!!

:E

4mastacker

19th Sep 2009, 18:48

Has anyone any idea of the political affiliations of the authors of the items quoted in the OP? It's not the first time this kind of story has raised its head and I suspect (maybe incorrectly) that it's part of the current government's MO to use a "friendly" journo to toss an idea in the air and gauge the reaction.

That said, some of you who were doing a staff tour about the time of the demolition of the Berlin Wall and Maggie reigning supreme, may recall a paper doing the rounds which "suggested" a drastically reduced RAF with certain roles being transferred to either our sister services or contractors, leaving the RAF with only the fast, noisy bits. Such ideas get an outing every now and again - you only have to look at how many times the style of the woolly-pully has been 'reviewed' over the years.

Archimedes

19th Sep 2009, 19:15

David Cameron's majority is smaller than the number of prospective irate constituents, serving, formerly serving, or related to one of the two previous categories living in his constitunecy catchment area.

So, do we think that he will:

a) Cut the RAF as an example of his courage (they like people saying they have that, do our MPs), helping save the economy at the possible expense of his seat, followed by his ennoblement as Lord Kamikaze of Brize Norton?

Or

b) In an illustration of brave Tory radicialism, oversee the creation of the Royal Defence Force, complete with

i) the cull of the 20 RN 1*s that the RN doesn't actually need (see Dorman & Cornish, International Affairs, July 09) and possibly some of the 60 other 1*s in dark blue,

ii) a substantial reduction of other senior bods in green and light blue, a fairly hefty removal of officers in all three services as all the duplicate command structures are removed, taking an array of SO3/SO2 and SO1 posts with them;

iii) The concentration of officer training at one from Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell with the surviving location being the one which will realise the least when the land is sold off , and;

iv) A very large sum of money saved?

By the by, option 'Save My Seat'* would end much of the banter here, since the air component of the Royal Defence Force would do all the flying, removing the separate chains of command for air which currently exist in the form of the FAA and AAC.

Before anyone points out that this would be to misunderstand the differences between the environments and would be a disaster, and ... oh, just see the countless Pprune threads on this since 2000 - remind me of the date when Her Majesty's Treasury took the view that preserving military capability was more important than saving money, please, since I seem to hasve missed it.

Factor in the number of Tory MPs who would be very nervous about the reaction of their light-blue wearing/sympathising constituents, and the political problem doesn't go away

SirToppamHat

19th Sep 2009, 20:31

Anyone who studies the impact of what the Canadians did to their armed forces in the 80s (touched on by FlightTester above) would have to be barking mad to suggest something similar here...

The nuclear deterrent mentioned earlier is an important point that has been raised other than in the articles which started this thread. Whilst I used (in my teens) to believe that Polaris and then Trident were a deterrent, I am now not convinced that that is the reason we still have it. I am more and more convinced that there are 2 other reasons for it: the maintenance of Britain's 'special relationship' with our cousins across the pond and our permanent seat on the Security Council.

If all we need is to be a 'nuclear power' do we actually need Trident or a far less complex capability? The latter points towards a land-based delivery system that might be better managed by one of the other Services.

STH

Two's in

19th Sep 2009, 20:40

Holding a sensible debate on the future of the Services is no more or no less than anybody else will be doing, especially the voters in the next General Election. Shying away from ideas that threaten the future of the RAF doesn't stop them being used by politicians to win elections. It may well generate "in-fighting" or perpetuate the tri-service willy-waving that goes on in Main Building, but not having the argument is not the same as winning the argument.

Once you get all the usual platitudes out of the way about "not learning from history" and needing an Air Force predicated on AD because the UK is an Island, you are still left with the performance of the RAF in every modern conflict since the Falklands. If you mark that performance (it is 27 years after all) most people would see there is an obvious need for an Air Force, but not solely structured and funded around an AD asset like Typhoon.

Sure buy some Typhoons, but not to the detriment of every other RAF asset. or you can be sure somebody in dark blue or green will make a compelling case for taking those assets that aren't being funded or managed effectively.

PS. Jacko - Your "troll - be- gone" aftershave doesn't seem to be working.

Jackonicko

19th Sep 2009, 21:06

If anyone was looking at procuring really legendary numbers of Typhoons, the the idea that the RAF was "solely structured and funded around an AD asset like Typhoon" might have a bit more credibility. But we're buying enough for a measly five squadrons - enough to replace F3, but not Jag.

And even if we bought more of them, it would hardly prove the point, since then we'd have sufficient aircraft to be able to demonstrate the type's multi role versatility. We might have enough aircraft, even, to be able to deploy a couple of squadrons to Afghanistan.

I'll admit that I think that I view five fighter squadrons for UK AD and QRA as being a bit 'core'. In the post Cold War, force levels sufficient to allow us to repeat a 'Granby' sized op would not seem inappropriate - and we had a -31 squadron FJ force then (eleven air defence squadrons, six offensive support squadrons, eleven strike/attack squadrons and three reconnaissance units).

We now have twelve.

Get it back to a proper level (18 squadrons would be a start, 24 would be ideal), and then you'll have my support for niche capabilities like carriers, aerobatic teams, ceremonial units in London and all the other triv and niff-naff.

Widger

19th Sep 2009, 21:31

Jacko,

You need to have a chat with the guys on the ground in the stan and ask them what they think of the niche capability that is the US Navy carrier, providing CAS on a daily basis. You would have some credibility is you ever spouted anything other than the Typhoon mantra. You call your self a journalist, but you never ever seem to consider anyone else's opinion, preferring to stick with your entrenched cold war viewpoint.

Melchett,

It is extremely unfair to comment Instead of destroying the defence of the country (the Army are so busy in Afghanistan, the Navy are too busy with their new toys - who is keeping an eye on the Russians every time they send a Bear round the Cape?)

The message is still quite clearly not getting through. If you go to the Stan, you will see personnel of all colours of cloth. The RN have supported the ISAF mission extremely well, with not just Marines but, Pilots, Engineers, Ops staff, Air Traffic Controllers, Warfare Officers and of course Medics, one of whom was awarded the MC last week.

I for one do not consider the "disband the RAF" argument valid. The RAF brings may core areas of capability to the battle, that neither of the two other services could provide. Unfortunately, all three services have suffered from particular procurement issues, that have consumed vast areas of their budget. Oh and by the way, it was an accounting error by the light blue some years ago that led very directly to the Dark Blue and the Khaki, taking significant pain to balance the books.

There are many other issues that I will not talk about on this forum. All three services have a lot to bring to the table and all three services are essential Any argument to scrap one or the other comes purely from a position of ignorance.

Jackonicko

19th Sep 2009, 22:05

Widger,

There's NOTHING 'Cold War' about UK AD and QRA.

There's nothing 'Cold War' about a deployable, versatile, swing role tactical fast jet. The Typhoon will soon be the UK's Super Hornet or Strike Eagle - both of which are platforms doing their bit in Afghanistan.

There's nothing 'Cold War' about wanting an adequate number of Fast Jets.

Whereas insisting on funding a 'Moscow option' SLBM based nuclear deterrent is VERY Cold War, while carriers are a niche capability that can't be afforded without Cold War budgets.

Your Mantra - of jealously protecting the RN's big ticket toys regardless of the cost to the wider interests of the UK's military capabilities isn't just 'entrenched Cold War thinking' - it's far, far worse than that.

tangoe

19th Sep 2009, 22:08

I have refrained from ever being drawn on any of Jacko's dribble before now because I always thought it was just banter.

Now its possible that he actually believes what he is saying, therefore I would very much like to understand what the individual means by the word 'niche'?

The RN are Jack, 'Jack of all trades' and masters of their own. And nowhere will you see more relevant trades in todays world, than on a carrier. My faith in the majority of other PPRuNers means that I'll not need to list them and my advice Jacko is to stop embarrassing himself and more importantly the force he is so desperate to represent.

I dont want to see the RAF go but some members of that force, including ex and mildly amusing supporters of, would do rather well to read some history books, with a heathly portion of geography to go.

T

Jackonicko

19th Sep 2009, 22:24

We've used carriers a few times, but land based air will usually get there quicker, cheaper, and will offer better capability once on scene.

We've needed carriers just once in my lifetime - and that was in 1982 - more than 27 years ago.

Do you need more of a definition of niche than that?

OK: Those capabilities that we need every time we go on ops are core - those that we seldom need are specialised, or niche.

brickhistory

19th Sep 2009, 22:39

Ummm, cut social programs instead and fund your military properly?

I'll show myself out...

Melchett01

19th Sep 2009, 23:24

Melchett, It is extremely unfair to comment
Quote:
Instead of destroying the defence of the country (the Army are so busy in Afghanistan, the Navy are too busy with their new toys - who is keeping an eye on the Russians every time they send a Bear round the Cape?)

The message is still quite clearly not getting through. If you go to the Stan, you will see personnel of all colours of cloth. The RN have supported the ISAF mission extremely well, with not just Marines but, Pilots, Engineers, Ops staff, Air Traffic Controllers, Warfare Officers and of course Medics, one of whom was awarded the MC last week.

Widger - I agree with you that all 3 services do have a vital part to play in the defence of the country, but I am not sure what you are getting at when you suggest I don't get it, and I have to say I stand by what I said, albeit fascetiously. My background aside - which has been Joint for much of the past 10 years including working with the RN and for several RN bosses in various deserts, so I think I do get what the RN brings -the point I was refering to is that we are sleep walking into Afghanistan becoming the centre of the known universe. Which it isn't.

A credible defence of the UK is not just grounded in Helmand or Kandahar, but in a rounded capability. Unfortunately, many, including senior officers in light blue have singularly failed to accept that fact. So whilst every last penny is poured into Afghan operations, ask yourself what proportion of the collective Armed Forces is involved in Afghanistan. Then look at what other threats are out there, and ask yourself what attention these are being given. I guarantee that these will be the areas of interest to various foreign intelligence services and those looking to strike a blow against the UK.

AD and QRA may not be sexy or the flavour of the month, but defence of the UK homeland is as important as fighting the enemy abroad. If we cannot defend our own borders, we leave ourselves open to any enemy with its own expeditionary capability. And frankly, at the moment, I am not seeing the Army or RN playing much of an active role in defending the UK homeland. Whilst not a priority as far as many Army commanders is concerned, how much of an outrage would there be if we allowed our defensive capability to decline to such an extent that anybody and everybody was allowed to wander into UK airspace whenever they wanted and do whatever they wanted? I don't see the Army or RN stopping that happening.

As an aside, I read with interest the increasing number of articles being pumped out by senior Army officers claiming that the nature of warfare has changed, and ground based COIN ops are the future. Again, a very short sighted and politicized view that fails to take into account the speed with which things can change. I remember being on a course in 2000 when the much vaunted Revolution in Military Affairs was still being discussed. Cyber warfare and high tech combat was seen to be the way ahead. Within 18 months instead of that we were looking for guys hiding in caves armed with rifles and the 20th century version of the slingshot. That should tell you one thing: anybody who thinks they know or can accurately predict where military doctrine and strategy is going is deluded. Things can and do change and they change quickly. To get rid of capability because it is perceived as being surplus to current requirements is the strategic equivalent of putting it on red and hoping.

racedo

19th Sep 2009, 23:33

Then again the Tories have history here as lets remember how much was for sale and on its way elsewhere that gave General Galtieri the idea that there was some land seeking new owners.

Course my view on that has always been RR was pee'd off at Maggie flogging everything when he was pushing his 500 ship navy concept, have real problems believing that US trained Argentinian senior military and their CIA handlers didn't know about it well enough in advance, a short sharp shock was required..............yeah I love conspiracy theories.

Jackonicko

20th Sep 2009, 00:00

Melchett,

:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

Well said.

And that's why five squadrons of Typhoon is a bare minimum, non-negotiable start.

And why we need Nimrod R5, not RJ.

And why we need to maintain E-3D and continue with MRA4 (and more than nine of them....)

Etc.

anotherthing

20th Sep 2009, 09:35

Melchett01

I am not seeing the Army or RN playing much of an active role in defending the UK homeland.

You are of course joking I assume? Isn't defending the UK homeland what our troops are doing at this very moment in Afghanistan? How many Army and Marine deaths have there been in what the government and military bosses say is a necessary fight to prevent terrorism on UK shores?

If that's not 'defending the UK homeland' then what in your opinion is?

Sitting on QRA?

Nothing else??

Exactly what else apart from supporting troops in theatre in hot sandy places, and sitting on QRA in UK bases are the RAF doing to 'defend the UK homeland' that makes them so much more active than the other two armed services?

Faithless

20th Sep 2009, 09:50

I don't think that axing a single service would happen but I do think that there will be the UKDF (United Kingdom Defence Force) under one title, one cap badge, one uniform, one command and one budget:hmm:

Three seperate functions Air,Sea and Land:oh:

glad rag

20th Sep 2009, 10:02

Exactly what else apart from supporting troops in theatre in hot sandy places, and sitting on QRA in UK bases are the RAF doing to 'defend the UK homeland'

Russian nuclear bomber flies undetected to within 20 miles of Hull | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064713/Russian-nuclear-bomber-flies-undetected-20-miles-Hull.html)
Russian aircraft have skirted British airspace 18 times in two years - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5788832/Russian-aircraft-have-skirted-British-airspace-18-times-in-two-years.html)

"They are not the actions of a friendly nation and risk escalating tension. Russia should not be making such flights without informing the appropriate authorities," the committee said.
"The Government should take a more robust approach in making clear to Russia that its continued secret incursions by military aircraft into international airspace near to the UK is not acceptable behaviour."

Union Jack

20th Sep 2009, 10:03

Faithless

Taking Canada's experience into consideration, I fear that your "location" is probably an equally apt description for your post!:ok:

Jack

Tourist

20th Sep 2009, 10:43

Glad Rag

What colour is the sky on your planet?

Are you honestly implying that if the F3/Typhoon had not gone out to meet the marauding Bears, then they would have unleashed nuclear devastation upon the UK?

Or perhaps would bugger all have happened, because they were just exercising their capabilities, just like their Subs do, just like ours do.

Trying to suggest that the only thing between the UK and the Jackboot is a thin line of brave RAF fighter jocks whilst the Army and RN have cocktail parties is just asinine stupidity.

anotherthing

20th Sep 2009, 12:10

Glad Rag

Yes, I am for real - I asked what apart from QRA and supporting our troops in theatre the RAF were doing that made melchett make such a bold (and crass considering the casualties our troops are receiving on a daily basis) statement as
I am not seeing the Army or RN playing much of an active role in defending the UK homeland.

tmmorris

20th Sep 2009, 12:24

I don't see 'axing the RAF' as exactly appealing to the core Tory voter, to be frank. Surely much more likely is amalgamation but with three separate uniforms so the general public don't notice?

Come to think of it, where have I heard of that idea before?

Tim

Pontius Navigator

20th Sep 2009, 12:37

under one title, one cap badge, one uniform, one command and one budget:hmm:

May be one title. Just possibly one command and one budget, but one cap badge and one uniform? Oh do get real.

The Army tried that with its big regiments What happened? The cap badges became battalions in that bg regiment.

One uniform? The RAF supposedly has one uniform but has never managed to place an order for cloth so that all the uniforms are the same colour. Each batch order goes out to tender and what comes back is 'near enough'.

Navaleye

20th Sep 2009, 13:04

I doubt that Army or the RN would want to take over the RAF's responsibilities, but their is a strong case for some streamlining and managerial cost cutting.

1. The AAC could take over the RAF's rotary winged operations. They do service the army afterall.

2. JFH should operate under Naval Command. As the Tonkas are retired what will be JFL could be expanded still further into a much more flexible and more capable unit for maritime or land deployment.

3. I see a very strong case for selling off as many Typhoons as possible other than those needed for AD. The F35 can do everything else better.

Pontius Navigator

20th Sep 2009, 13:29

much more likely is amalgamation but with three separate uniforms so the general public don't notice?

Come to think of it, where have I heard of that idea before?

Tim

I believe Mountbatten had that in mind when he created the MOD and got rid of the War Office, Admiralty and Air Ministry. Personnally I think he was wrong. A War Office and Our Lords of the Admiralty have far more resonnance with power than pentangles and defence.

No messing there, you play ball with us and we shall refer it to the War Office, none of this defence cr^p. Or the Admiralty, a single person, the office of Lord High Admiral. No committees here, bit like Gorshkov or Richenbacker. They knew who they were and where they were going.

To those too I guess we should add Trenchard. Who would the Army choose as having a single minded determination or what was the right thing to do? Where is our charismatic leadership that will enter the political arena?

Squirrel 41

20th Sep 2009, 14:14

I've evaded this thread for a little while but would like to offer my tuppenth-worth.

Navaleye makes good sense in transferring the RAF SH to the AAC - this was done by the Aussies in the mid-80s and seems to work well. Such a move would also reduce any lingering tri-service jobs balance questions at JHC, potentially leading to further savings. In the medium term, there's no reason why AAC operated helicopters wouldn't also be crewed by NCOs - as the existing AAC assets are, with further savings.

Personally, I think that CVF will be cancelled in the next 12 months. With CVF gone, there is much less rationale for keeping the existing CVS fleet in the carrier role - though I can see the point of keeping one on as a spare LPH to alternate with Ocean. If this happens then the future of the Harrier force has to be called into question - as it won't be required on CVS and it has (with credit) finished in Afghanistan.

With CVF deleted, then there is no reason to purchase JSF anytime soon, and it could be realistically left until the end of next the decade - in order to replace Tornado by 2025. Moreover, with cancelled CVF, we can decide against Dave-B and plump for either Dave-A or Dave-C; given the greater range, I'd prefer Dave-C - but there are many better qualified to determine this than me.

All of this is doubtless painful and unpopular; but in my view it is only this approach of eliminating whole elements of capability that will deliver the savings required to balance the budget. It needs to be accompanied by a slimming of the top-heavy brass, certainly - but that's a confidence check-sum as it will in and of itself never deliver enough savings.

It's going to be bloody chaps; and despite their arguments, an Afghan-centric campaign will make this especially hard on the RN.

S41

Strictly Jungly

20th Sep 2009, 18:42

Jacko,

Your carrier argument................once in my lifetime and that was 27 years ago.
Would you apply that line of argument to our Nuclear Deterrent? The fact it has never been used in anger would surely render it surplus to requirements in your journalistic world? I do hope not.

Whilst I would never suggest disbanding the RAF is the solution, it remains clear that something drastic is required. I remain unconvinced that the scrapping of the Carriers is the solution either.

The earlier posting:
"I dont want to see the RAF go but some members of that force, including ex and mildly amusing supporters of, would do rather well to read some history books, with a heathly portion of geography to go."

I like that. You could add the odd journo to that list too.

Regards,
SJ

"

knowitall

20th Sep 2009, 19:00

"Would you apply that line of argument to our Nuclear Deterrent?"

no, not if you can understand the meaning of the word deterrent

Squirrel 41

20th Sep 2009, 19:33

""Would you apply that line of argument to our Nuclear Deterrent?"

no, not if you can understand the meaning of the word deterrent ""

I understand the meaning of the word 'deterrent', and I still think that we should bin the UK's nuclear capability, as it's essentially impossible to get sensible questions to the following questions:

(a) Who is being deterred?
(b) If WMD is obtained by an asymmetric actor, who are you going to dete?
(c) If the asymmetric actor uses WMD against the UK (God forbid), who are you going to nuke in revenge? What level of intelligence do you need to lob the proverbial bucket of instant sunshine at an alleged State sponsor?
(d) How does building follow-on SSBN/Trident comply with our obligations to work towards nuclear disarmament in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
(e) How can we credibly say to Iran / North Korea that they shouldn't pursue nuclear weapons because they don't need them and that they're not big or clever if we pursue the retention of nuclear weapons until 2040?

And

(f) Who can vote the UK off the Security Council Permanent 5?

Of these, the clearest answer is to (f): any change to the Permanent 5 requires the Permanent 5 to vote for it - in other words, the UK has a veto and would have to vote in favour of removing itself. NO UK Government is going to vote in favour of this.

So if someone can sensibly explain why we are at greater risk if we abandon the UK's nuclear capability, and quantify this, then I'm all ears and if convinced, will change my view. But until then, I think that Trident is a counter-productive - and expensive - frippery that needs binning, now.

S41

glad rag

20th Sep 2009, 21:58

"I see a very strong case for selling off as many Typhoons as possible other than those needed for AD. The F35 can do everything else better"

Dream on son.

As for the rest who believe that having Russian Blackjacks overflying the United Kingdom is acceptable, well the best place for you would be the Tower via Traitors gate!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:tpiPwkxPHbBppM:http://www.azschmidts.net/images/Traitors%20Gate.jpg

Wholigan

20th Sep 2009, 23:22

Too much personal garbage. Keep it clean or the thread gets close.

(Except for posts by the resident troll when just he gets closed!)

Modern Elmo

21st Sep 2009, 01:49

The latter points towards a land-based delivery system that might be better managed by one of the other Services.

Land-based delivery system(s) located where? Put 'em all in Scotland?

If we cannot defend our own borders, we leave ourselves open to any enemy with its own expeditionary capability.

Enemy with its own expeditionary capability -> more immigrants. Diversity is strength.

Whilst not a priority as far as many Army commanders is concerned, how much of an outrage would there be if we allowed our defensive capability to decline to such an extent that anybody and everybody was allowed to wander into UK airspace whenever they wanted and do whatever they wanted? I don't see the Army or RN stopping that happening.

What about Russian missiles wandering into UK airspace? Isn't the focus on seeing off manned bombers somewhat yesteryear-ish?

Tomorrow's RAF -> missile defense.

Modern Elmo

21st Sep 2009, 02:25

Move comes as Obama cancels land-based plans

By Philip Ewing and William H. McMichael - Staff writers

Posted : Sunday Sep 20, 2009 12:39:43 EDT

The Navy will begin to maintain a constant presence of at least two or three ballistic-missile defense cruisers and destroyers in the waters around Europe by 2011, the Pentagon announced Sept. 17, to protect the continent from potential Iranian missile attacks.

The standing patrol would sail the North Sea and the Mediterranean to cover Europe from the north and south, and U.S. commanders could surge additional ships to provide extra assistance when needed, said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

...

EAST COAST BMD EXPANSION

It’s likely that the ships assigned to the Europe-area patrol mission will come from the East Coast. The Navy and the Missile Defense Agency want to make nine East Coast-based Aegis ships BMD-capable by 2014 — three that had already been slated for the upgrade and six requested in this year’s budget. MDA will recommend that all of them be from the Atlantic Fleet.

Today, 18 ships are equipped with Aegis BMD, and all but two are based in the Pacific.

The three ships already set to get upgrades are the cruisers Vella Gulf and Monterey, based at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., and the destroyer The Sullivans, based at Naval Station Mayport, Fla. The six additional ships haven’t been named.

A second phase of the U.S. missile-defense regime will be in place by 2015, Cartwright said, and will include land-based sensors and SM-3s, but it was not clear whether that would mean an end to the standing [sea-based] Aegis BMD presence in Europe.

Worldwide, the system eventually will integrate the [ US Army's ] Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense [mobile ] missile [system ], or THAAD, slated for operational deployment to Europe this year, ( Where in Europe? ) and the [ larger, non-mobile ] Ground-Based Interceptor missile based at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., Cartwright said.

It also would include construction of a directional X-band radar somewhere in Europe, most likely in the Caucasus region, Cartwright said.

Move comes as Obama cancels land-based plans - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/09/navy_missile_defense_091809w/)

Somewhere in Caucasus?

racedo

21st Sep 2009, 09:50

Is Obama cutting the need for the stations because Iran would not be a threat.......wonder what is going on behind closed doors. Where is Bill Clinton / Dubya these days.

skua

21st Sep 2009, 10:27

Interesting that no one in the media has picked up on the implications of applying the thinking of the new CGS to the other services. He gave a speech last week at Chatham House, which was woefully under-reported, but summarised by Richard North on:

http://defenceoftherealm.*************/2009/09/rebalancing.html

He was basically implying that the Army needed to be "rebalanced" to cope with a shift in threat away from inter-state warfare. If the Army is going to move in that direction, it makes the Typhoon fleet look even more of an extravagance.

justone26

21st Sep 2009, 12:42

Skua, if that is case then T45, CVF, Merlin Mk1, Astute Subs, Nuclear Deterrent, MBTs, etc are all are in the same category.

SCAFITE

21st Sep 2009, 15:22

If we put into service the 2 new CVF when they were first to go in to service in the Mid to late 70s, there is doubt that the Argys would have ever invaded the Falklands, saving:

250 dead, 1000 or so wounded, God knows how many poor souls have taken their lives since, plus 1000 Argy dead and a few thousand wounded.

Plus how much would we have saved year on year if we did not have to have the amount of forces down there.

I hope we get the Carriers and they are never used due to the fact they are deterrents, first and formost. Nobody not even the experts on here knows what round the corner.

Afghanistan is important but its not the be all and end all.

We need a Royal Navy, British Army and the Royal Air Force.

JessTheDog

21st Sep 2009, 16:34

Why not scrap all single-Service appointments 2-star and above and make them tri-Service and "joint"? A single Command for all 3 Services. Might save a few bob!

:E

Ace Brave

21st Sep 2009, 16:47

We could save an awful lot of money by:

a. Having flt lts command flights.
b. Having sqn ldrs command squadrons.
c. Having wg cdrs commands wings (stations).
d. Having gp capts command groups.
e. Having air cdres command commands.
f. Having an AVM command the RAF.

What a saving in wages!

;)

hello1

21st Sep 2009, 16:59

Skua,

New CGS was also touting a few months ago that Afghanistan was a long-long job (which it is). Unfortunately the Brit public probably don't have the stomach for the long haul and his words are not being repeated by politicians from any party.

The new Defence Review needs to get to the bottom of what the next government really thinks Britain's place in the world is. The current shower of s*ite have spent a vast amount of money trying to be everything but succeeding at little. They haven't spent sufficient to maintain the high-end capabilities well and certainly didn't invest in the expeditionary capability before it was needed.

Do we want to sit here and defend ourselves in our little island and wave 2 fingers at everyone who wants us to participate in the next war - in which case, Typhoon, MRA4, Astute and (maybe) Trident are necessary - or do we just want to do expeditionary in which case big army, less combat air, more ISTAR is what we require. We probably can't afford both and irrespective of what CGS would like to do, the British public appear to have different priorities.

In answer to the original question - no chance of the next govt getting rid of any service. Just won't happen. Would need to be a manifesto pledge and would detract from everything else that they want to do.

Finnpog

21st Sep 2009, 17:17

VinRouge

21st Sep 2009, 17:27

We need to put things in perspective.

In order to raise the cash necessary to cover last months' deficit alone, not including Interest on the outstanding debt, we would have to raised the fuel duty escalator by 15p a litre for a year. Alternatively, we could raise income tax across the board by 15p on the pound. We arent even paying off the debt yet and assumes current levels of pay, employment and consumption.

We need to face facts. There are going to be some savage, and I mean savage choices to make, whether we like it or not. Balls can gripe on about 2 billion cuts in education spending. Cable can stir up electoral rage with 0.5% annual tax on properties over 1 million. It isnt going to be enough, by half, by a tenth. They are going to hike everything, by pretty savage amounts. The other option being state default and a letter to the IMF, the penalty of which will be an enforced budet and hiked interest rates. They are also going to cut pretty savagely - I very much doubt promises on the NHS will remain extant with this FY's deficit likely to hit 225 billion this year alone, 50 billion more than the budgeted 175 billion amount. Trident, the cancellation of which, would currently cover just over 2 months' deficit, is a pipe dream that politically is desirable as a pair of boll*cks stapled to ones forehead. The pound is going to get trashed, they will have to continue printing QE to fund the horrendous amount of gilts that will need funding.

I think whatever happens, no matter how much it pains me to say this, we will be the lucky ones (other than my GP or local NHS surgeon). We WILL have to learn how to say "no" a lot more though, especially if cuts in resources, be they manpower or parts, lead to situations where we cannot maintain the safe operation of aircraft. Anything else will be a bonus. We need to survive as single services, I agree. But someone is going to need to decide what our long term aim is, and base spending priorities off that, capability cuts are most definately coming.

When Joe Shmoe in th the street is paying £1.60 a litre and getting hit with 35% tax on everything over a 10K salary, his tax credits has been cut and the number of overtime hours he can work due to a stalling economy is starting to hurt the family coffers, you can guarantee Defence spending will feature pretty low on the cabinet's spending priority list. It doesnt matter if it is right or wrong, thats where we are.

Ace Brave

21st Sep 2009, 17:44

Do we really need to pretend that Victoria is still on the throne and that we "own" half of the known world?

Are we still as rich as when we were a really competitive industrial nation and used the mineral wealth etc that came from our colonies and dependencies to ensure we stayed at the top of our power and influence?

Can we still afford to be one of the "world's policemen"?

Would it not be better to approach our situation realistically and accept that the past is the past?

So what if retrenching a bit (or a lot) may mean that we end up not keeping our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? It doesn't seem to have done countries like Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Holland, Japan, and Sweden etc a lot of harm.

In fact, maybe by not being a permanent member, there would be less expectation of what we could or should do around the world from other countries.

If we were not playing at "world's policeman", we would need far fewer armed forces which could then be focussed and specialised so they could become even better at their jobs than they are now.

If from the above, you have deduced that I think we should become more insular and more selfish about how we spend our national resources and wealth, then you would be right.

I expect a major haranguing for this post, but I believe that a realistic appraisal of our place in the world is long overdue.

I believe that we have some of the best armed forces in the world and I also believe that we are not doing any of them justice by trying to extend ourselves beyond reason or capability.

Boslandew

21st Sep 2009, 18:34

Two points of information, please

Jackonico quoted that currently 180 Typhoons are to be purchased giving 5 Squadrons. I've no idea how many aircraft would be needed for conversion units but, being generous, that still leaves over 30 aircraft per squadron. Is this realistic?

Secondly, since the SH operate entirely or nearly so in support of the Army, could someone explain what is the point of having them operated by another service?

Biggus

21st Sep 2009, 19:02

Boslandew

No doubt someone with more specific knowledge can give you a more accurate answer, but in the interim consider these points:

I think the average RAF fighter Sqn has 12 aircraft, but I think they may be aiming for 16 per Typhoon Sqn. (60-80)

The OCU may well have 20+ airframes, and there is an OEU too. (20+)

Attrition. If the Typhoon fleet is to last 30 years, and on average you expect to lose 1, 1.5, 2 a year for that period then you need to buy 30, 45, 60 above your minimum requirement not to lose capability as you lose aircraft. (30-60?)

Not all airframes are "in use" by a Sqn/OCU at any one time, some are in deep maintenance, being upgraded, etc.

I believe there is an attempt to rotate aircraft around the fleet to spread the usage, so you don't get some aircraft with lots of hours on them, and some with very few...

No doubt someone can give you a better answer!

Jackonicko

21st Sep 2009, 21:23

In truth, no-one can tell you quite how the Typhoon figures for aircraft and squadrons add up, because neither is the planned number.

It should have been 232 aircraft for seven squadrons.

Seven squadrons for UK AD (then seven squadrons) and to replace the three squadrons of Jaguars.

232 aircraft for seven squadrons because you need:

137 frontline jets:

Seven squadrons with 15 aircraft each, (105 aircraft)
OCU with 24 aircraft
OEU with 4 aircraft
and four aircraft in the Falklands.

Nine further aircraft were categorised as in-use reserves (one per squadron, two with the OCU), and the remaining 84 were to have been rotated in and out of service to balance flying hours across the whole fleet and to serve as an attrition reserve. Plus two IPAs.

minigundiplomat

21st Sep 2009, 22:54

Secondly, since the SH operate entirely or nearly so in support of the Army, could someone explain what is the point of having them operated by another service?

Because the Army are not currently in a position to take over SH, and SH don't want to become Army.

The AAC have a great number of fine pilots, but not enough to replace the entire SH Force when they PVR. Then there is Engineers.........

A good idea, yet a little simplistic.

Jackonicko

22nd Sep 2009, 00:54

since the SH operate entirely or nearly so in support of the Army, could someone explain what is the point of having them operated by another service?

Like MGD says.

and because the core function of the RAF is air power. The RAF understands air (even when that 'air' is being used to support 'land') and prioritises it.

The Army Air Corps is not a core activity for the Army, is not understood, appreciated or prioritised by senior Army people outside the Corps, and is frequently mis-used.

Fortunately, with JFH, the strengths of the AAC and the RAF SH Force (and the Junglies) can be properly co-ordinated and well exploited.

Moreover, there will be times when helicopters may best be used in support of the RN (loading or unloading ships, perhaps) or of the RAF (moving fuel bladders, perhaps), and SH is best if tasked and controlled by a specialist organisation (eg JHF) rather than directly by Army commanders.

If it ain't broke.........

Obi Wan Russell

22nd Sep 2009, 01:00

Methinks you are referring to JHC? Why would Joint Force Harrier (JFH) have a better understanding of helicopter assets than anyone else in the forces?:ok:

Modern Elmo

22nd Sep 2009, 03:07

For me, we need - and will always need - a credible Air Defence capability.
For me, that means as near to Air Supremacy in the skies over our soil and littoral zone as we can get.

Perhaps for that, the Typhoon is great - and if additional mission capability can be bolted on, then even better (at the right price).

Suppose the RAF got all the Typhoons that it is requesting, complete with pilots and support people.

And suppose a time machine took all these Typhoon squadrons back to 1944-45.

How many V-2's/A-4's could the Typhoons successfully intercept?

Major incidents concerning the V2 onslaught on London include the bombing of Woolworth’s store in New Cross (November 1944, 160 Killed and 108 Injured); houses in Blackheath (November, 40 Killed and 60 Injured); Islington (MacKenzie Road, December, 68 Killed and 99 Injured); East Stepney (Hughes Mansions, March 1945,134 Killed and 49 Injured); Smithfield Market (March, 110 Killed and 123 Injured); Deptford (flats and houses, March 1945, 52 Killed and 32 Injured); Brentford (houses, March 1945, 30 Killed and 100 Injured).

108 Interesting Facts Pertaining to the German V1 and V2 Flying Bombs of World War II | Socyberty (http://socyberty.com/military/108-interesting-facts-pertaining-to-the-german-v1-and-v2-flying-bombs-of-world-war-ii/)

West Coast

22nd Sep 2009, 04:59

From Racedo

RR was pee'd off at Maggie flogging everything when he was pushing his 500 ship navy concept

Hell, what's a hundred ships among friends.

600-ship Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/600-ship_Navy)

Say Jacko, once in your life time, hmm. Using whatever cost to benefit analysis tickles your fancy, how many times would you need to use them to put them on the ledger as an asset?
Wonder how many times a situation has been avoided because they were there. Kinda hard to factor that into an argument centered around finances rather than a macro view of the UK's strategic responsibilities.

Boslandew

22nd Sep 2009, 07:11

MGD

It wasn't an idea, it was a question.

You have stated the current position but not the reason why it should be that way. Any transition, SH to the Army would be fraught with problems, (not really sure that the wishes of SH are relevant to the defence of the realm) but the end result, I submit, would be more effective.

Jackonico

I'm part persuaded by your argument for a JHF. Might I ask what percentage of its flying hours the SH use for RN/RAF resupply ie. other than support for the Army, 'cos I suspect it's a bit a a red herring?

I must dispute your implication that the RAF alone understands air. The Apache operation shows a real appreciation of the advantages of having attack pilots who have extensive experience of ground war fighting.

I have read little to support your assertion that senior Army people, lets call them Generals, do not understand and appreciate Army Air. Development and introduction of the Westland Apache with its quantum jump (for the AAC) in technology, skill-levels both flying and engineering and capability, let alone the colossal cost, suggests that the movers and shakers in the Army appreciate all too well what integral air-support offers.

Finally, may I make it clear that my view in no way implies any criticism of the SH crews in Afghanistan or elsewhere. They do a superb job, day after day, with little of the much deserved publicity given to the ground troops.

TheInquisitor

22nd Sep 2009, 07:57

Whilst many here have made some valid arguments, I fail to see how axeing an entire service, or handing one fleet of assets over to another service, will solve the problem - lack of funds.

If you wish to retain the same level of capability, you will need to retain the same levels of equipment and personnel, surely? So please explain exactly how taking an entire unit, or fleet, and simply changing the colour of their uniforms, is going to save anything? It will, in fact, cost money in the short term - which kind of defeats the entire object!

Boslandew

22nd Sep 2009, 08:39

Inquisitor

I suspect you've hit the real nail on the head. However, my question wasn't simply about cost even though that will inevitably, in these straitened times, be the decider.

My experience of Inter-service working, back in the 70's in Hong Kong and NI was not encouraging. However, that was a long time ago and no doubt things have changed. Perhaps someone could confirm that?

I can appreciate the cost and problems involved in making the change. I still believe that the end result would be far more effective with integrated planning, training, engineering, command, communication and operation. And a reduction in overall manning levels.

Meanwhile, back to my Horlicks.

Blacksheep

22nd Sep 2009, 10:05

Kinda hard to factor that into an argument centered around finances rather than a macro view of the UK's strategic responsibilities.True; but what are the UK's strategic responsibilities?

a) Defence of the Realm, including off-shore dependencies?
b) Assisting the US in spreading the religion of Democracy?
c) Just simply Saving The World?

Like a very large number of the electorate, I'm with Ace Brave on this one (obviously).

althenick

22nd Sep 2009, 13:56

and because the core function of the RAF is air power. The RAF understands air (even when that 'air' is being used to support 'land') and prioritises it.

They may understand AIR in their own environment Jacko but I dare say a few on this forum could argue that.

(a) The RAF do not understand airpower in the battlefield environment. Look at the Dutch, Their Apaches are Airforce owned but Aircrews come from the Army.

(b) They certainly dont understand Airpower in the Maritime environment, if they did they wouldn't keep trying to get the carriers cancelled.

We could save an awful lot of money by:

a. Having flt lts command flights.
b. Having sqn ldrs command squadrons.
c. Having wg cdrs commands wings (stations).
d. Having gp capts command groups.
e. Having air cdres command commands.
f. Having an AVM command the RAF.

What a saving in wages!

Ace you have a very good point. the last time I looked at he figures the officer to men ration in the services were as follows...

RN 1 : 4.5
RAF 1 : 2.5
Army 1 : 8-ish

Now cut this anyway you want but the Armed forces are well overdue a management clearout where lets face it, would make far greater saving than cutting equipment.

As for cutting the RAF, I cant beleive that practically no one on this forum gets the real problem here. Put simply Cut the Airforce and you will (a) Alienate a lot of potential recruits to the Military (b) Cause mass PvR's at a single stroke and consiquently (c) cause a masive military capability problem.
The RAF MUST survive for the same reasons as the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Corps

PEOPLE!

rockiesqiud

22nd Sep 2009, 14:44

(a) The RAF do not understand airpower in the battlefield environment. Look at the Dutch, Their Apaches are Airforce owned but Aircrews come from the Army.

(b) They certainly dont understand Airpower in the Maritime environment, if they did they wouldn't keep trying to get the carriers cancelled

WRT point B, as Ex Kipper fleet, I found that the Navy didn't know how to employ the MR2 to exploit it's abilities. For example using us close into the fleet and sending the Merlin further out. Hopefully this situation was solved as before I left ISK there were 1 or 2 Dark blue suits on exchange.
I also have to agree with MGD (not that often!). No disrespect to those who did but I didn't join the Army. I enjoy the RAF life and our 90 year old traditions and are more than happy to work for the Army/Navy but want to remain RAF.:ok:

Jackonicko

22nd Sep 2009, 14:54

Allthenick,

Thanks for the astonishingly astute observations and revelations. :yuk:

Well I’ll be. So the Dutch do their Apaches differently. So what?

Some nations Maritime Patrol aircraft are operated by their Navies, others by Air Forces. Some even have mixed crews. So what?

They certainly dont understand Airpower in the Maritime environment, if they did they wouldn't keep trying to get the carriers cancelled.

A desire to cancel the carriers has nothing to do with understanding the ‘maritime environment’. It has to do with understanding the economic environment, and the fact that tough choices need to be made. That some niche capabilities simply can’t be afforded. That while the Army and RAF have been slashed to the bone since the 80’s the Navy has not borne its fair share of the cuts, and now needs to do so, and that the least damaging thing to give up is carrier air.

And expressing that desire is another matter. While I’ve heard plenty of senior Army and Navy officers banging on about how ‘wasteful’ and ‘Cold War’ Typhoon is, I’ve never heard a serving Air Rank bloke publicly criticize the carriers – observing the nicety that you don’t ‘crap’ on your fellow service’s spending priorities in public. Personally I wish they’d grow some testicles and speak out.

So the RAF is more ‘officer heavy’ than the Navy, which is in turn more ‘officer heavy’ than the Army?

How astonishing! The more technologically advanced a force is, the narrower its rank structure ‘pyramid’. What a blooming revelation. :rolleyes:

And the fact that the RAF now has relatively few other ranks? After all the privatization of all the other-rank intensive activity areas like MT, engineering, etc. Well colour me astonished! :ugh:

And you think that trimming a few senior officers will “make far greater saving than cutting equipment”? You’re deluded.

doubledolphins

22nd Sep 2009, 14:58

90 years! wow. Respect:ok:

However, as the man once said, The Navy has Tradition, the Army has Custom and the RAF has Dirty Little Habits.

The Man? oh that would be AVM JEJ.

Wrathmonk

22nd Sep 2009, 15:30

Althenick

The trouble with statistics is they can be driven to suit any argument. For instance, if you were to look at the ratio of 1* officers and above to, firstly, the officer corps of their Service and secondly their total Service manning you get some surprising results.

Army (255 x 1* and above; 14510 officers / 91950 OR) = 1:57 and 1:417
RN (126 x 1* and above; 7410 officers / 30930 OR) = 1:59 and 1:304
RAF (126 x 1* and above; 9770 officers / 33800 OR) = 1:78 and 1:345.

So in terms of the really top heavy Service it would appear to be the RN. Which, I must admit, I found surprising.

And 95% of Manchester United supporters have never been to Old Trafford (or indeed live in Manchester). It's true - a statistician told me! Or was it an old Guinness advert?

andyy

22nd Sep 2009, 15:37

Jacko

I think that the RN has taken its fair share of cuts; numerous FF/DDs until its below the level recommended in SDR (21 vice 32); only 9 SSNs in service vice 17 a few years ago; 4 x SSKs sold to Canada as a savings measure; SHAR taken out of service early as a savings measure; the MCM forces decimated; closure of several shore bases.

In addition the Naval procurement programme has been hit: only 3 Astutes ordered so far, only 6 T45s vice the 8 required; the MARS ships not yet ordered; MK2 Merlin never ordered.

A competition of this sort is not really helpful, but continually going on about how the RAF has been cut but the RN hasn't is just plain wrong. Still, no one expects Journos to deal in facts.

The key to the future is to define the commitments that are essential & then fund them. If we can't afford those commiments then we have to knock off thoses that are less essential.

rockiesqiud

22nd Sep 2009, 16:51

Doubledolphin. Yes the RAF is only 90 years old but if we needed to have old traditions I'm sure we could employ some Druids. Afterall they've been around since before even the Navy

Jackonicko

22nd Sep 2009, 17:21

"The Navy has Tradition, the Army has Custom and the RAF has Dirty Little Habits."

oh ho ho ho.

Let's go back to sail and cavalry. Cos it's tradition that's important.

jordanpolonijo

22nd Sep 2009, 17:42

I saw on interview on C4 news with an Afghan refugee last night who was holding out in the "Jungle" camp for asylum in Britain.

The reporter asked him "Why do you not want to seek asylum in France?"
He replied "Because Britain offer so much more to refugees." That about concludes why the demise of our country is so apparent.

The Social security Budget is roughly 169 billion per year. There are so so many people living off welfare. It is disgusting.

Half that amount, only offer support to people born in the UK. Kill jobseekers allowance after 6 months. If people cant/wont find work then that is there problem and not the taxing paying workers population.

I have experience working in social care and the amount of people who cannot raise their children correctly due to what I put down to a lack of education and willingness to put their hand out is insane.

70 billion cuts could be redistributed into EDUCATION, TRANSPORT, DEFENCE, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION. Thus creating more jobs and further monetary regeneration.

I read a report that stated for every 100 million invested in Defence 221 million would be returned.

I wonder how much is returned for every 100 million invested in Social Security.

Squirrel 41

22nd Sep 2009, 18:36

Jordanpolijo

Do you work for the BNP? I mean this quite seriously - you appear to be obsessed with immigration and seem to assume that "getting tough" with immigrants will solve the budgetary crisis.

Well, it won't. Even if we spent no money on social welfare - no pensions, no unemployment benefit, no child benefit, no disability living allowance, etc etc, we'd save £150bn p.a.; still leaving a gap of at least £25bn p.a.. And we're not going to let pensioners starve in the streets.

The Tories (optimistically and vaugely) talk of saving £10bn of the £150bn of social welfare spending: which means £1000 from each of 10 million people per annum. Not sure that that's going to happen - let along £150bn.

And honestly, the amount spent on asylum seekers - some of whom are fleeing persecution, some of whom are not - is a tiny proportion of this £150bn. So please stop banging on about it - it's not a solution.

You may have read the figures in the Defence Industry Council (DIC) report launched at the time of DSEI which called for stimulus spending on defence. If you've not, you can read it here: Defence Matters Featured Article (http://www.defencematters.co.uk/News-Featured-Article/DIC-reports.aspx) . The problem is that the DIC report is based on an Oxford Economics report (getdoc/937eb883-56a8-49cf-bc37-16bbca787e3d/Oxford-Economics-report.aspx) which actually shows that the margin benefit of public investment is in the pharmaceutical industry or the construction industry.

So please get your facts right, and spare me the anti-immigrant rants.

S41

jordanpolonijo

22nd Sep 2009, 21:39

Im am fully aware of this report.

Did I not make reference to what it was concluding in my post?

Not anti-immigrant just anti piss-take.

I see the piss takes everyday through my own eyes.

P.S: When was the last time you drove through Tottenham or Seven Sisters.

lol

papajuliet

22nd Sep 2009, 22:00

Immigration has been the greatest disaster for this country in a 1000 years - it's nothing less than an invasion and weak politicians and do-gooders have allowed it to happen.

Squirrel 41

22nd Sep 2009, 22:07

"Immigration has been the greatest disaster for this country in a 1000 years - it's nothing less than an invasion and weak politicians and do-gooders have allowed it to happen."

Oh for goodness sake. Since 1009? So since before the Norman invasion? Right.....

Hands up all those who are pure-bred Celts or Anglo-Saxons and have no Norman or any other DNA? Good. You lot can run the country and the rest of us will leave looking for somewhere else - preferably more tolerant - to live.

Good grief! There are doubtless some taking advantage of the system, but they include lots of white people who presumably fit your definition of "Brits" whether or not they can trace their heritage to 1009? And are you going to try and tell me that you denigrate the achievements and work ethic of our non-white service colleagues? If so, shame on you!

S41

jordanpolonijo

22nd Sep 2009, 22:15

I was not refering to ethnicity but country of origin, mentality and reason for travelling to our shores.

Like I said earlier. My opinion is that cutting freeloa
ding would free up ALOT of money that could be used to indirectly create more money, jobs and oppurtunity especially when its put into education which will give our young better futures and will help to eradicate those social problems that correlate to low-income and poor education.

Defence, Transport and Science are also key areas that this extra money can be put into to creat more wealth further down the line.

Oh and dot let me get started on the 25Billion we lose to people channeling funds into offshore trust funds. That covers the 25Billion deficate you spoke of.

I can only comment in what I have first hand experience of.:(

Jackonicko

22nd Sep 2009, 22:27

I can only comment in what I have first hand experience of.

If only you could do so in a more intelligent way, with better grammar and without sounding like some intolerant, BNP-supporting, Union Jack vest-wearing, shaven-headed inadequate.

There are, of course, some problems with some sections of the immigrant community and there are doubtless some immigrants who come here for an easy ride, and who refuse to integrate and contribute. But there are just as many (if not more) white Brits who sponge off our society, and who are just as unwilling to participate.

In general, I'd suggest to you that most immigrants who come here do so to better their lot and that of their families, and are prepared to work hard (and in doing so, help UK plc immeasurably) in the process. We have gained a great deal by becoming more diverse and more multi-ethnic.

If there's a section of UK society we'd be better off without, it's the knuckle dragging racists, xenophobes and demi-fascists who object to immigration.

Birdbath

22nd Sep 2009, 22:49

Business News, Market and Financial News | Times Online Business (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/)

No need to worry, HMG generously borrowing about 6K a sec (difficult to tell the counter is moving so quickly) or 21M an hour. No snags funding the RAF from that.

pr00ne

22nd Sep 2009, 23:10

S41 and Jackonicko,

Top posts guys!

jordanpolonijo,

Do you have ANY idea just how thoroughly unpleasant and degrading it is trying to eke out an existence in one of the most expensive countries in the world on benefits?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Do you have ANY idea just how difficult it is to even GET benefits as an immigrant to the UK?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Do you realise that the non indigenous element of the 61 million people in the UK amounts to just over 8% of the population.

papajuliet,

Your post about immigration and 1000 years has to be THE most ignorant and inaccurate post that I have EVER seen on pprune.

The Real Slim Shady

22nd Sep 2009, 23:11

If there's a section of UK society we'd be better off without, it's the knuckle dragging racists, xenophobes and demi-fascists who object to immigration.

Looks like the English are well and truly f00ked then.

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Sep 2009, 23:47

Anyway, ignoring the knuckle draggers for a moment...

I'll have a Quarterpounder meal with a Coke please. All these Whoppers - it must be Burger King!

Jacko, I'm not picking on you but you perhaps ought to try a little more research, or perhaps you thought being pedantic a good tactic?

The Japanese are an island nation dependent on sea trade and exist without carriers and a blue water Navy, and so could we.

Officially Japan doesn't have a Navy, as Article 9 of the post WW2 constitution doesn't permit armed forces. However, the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force is a Blue Water Navy in all but name. They have over fifty frigates and destroyers, something like sixteen submarines (why they don't have SSNs is beyond me as Japan has a major nuclear power programme), large numbers of minehunters, some amphibious forces, and guess what, new helicopter destroyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga_class_destroyers) (sic) that seem strangely carrier like. Japan is of course due to get the F35.

More on the JMSDF here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jmsdf.htm).

But we should now let the Admirals finally take their fair share of the pain.

You mean they haven't already? None under the 1981 Nott cuts, none in the rest of the 80s, none under Options for Change or other Tory cuts, none under the 1998 SDR or the 2004 SDR New Chapter? If there have been no cuts, then why did commiting HMS Northumberland to anti piracy operations off Somalia last year result in no frigate/destroyer in the vicinity of the Falklands for several months? Why are many ships deploying for six months or more per year for three or four years in a row?

Statistics are terribly dull, but these ones (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/decline.htm) (from 1975 to 2000) may be of interest.

Let's consider three sets of numbers, those of SSN/SSKs (ie non ballistic missile submarines), frigates/destroyers, and Mine Counter Measures Vessels. In 1990 the RN had 29 Patrol/Fleet Submarines, now we're down to eight. In 1990 we had 49 frigates and destroyers, in a few weeks this will be down to 23. In 1990 we had a massive 41 MCMV's of various types, now we have just 16.

Both of the above are facts, not opinions. I could go on......

You mention Sierra Leone, but where fast jets really needed? What was needed was troops, helicopters, logistics, and command facilities. The Jags would have struggled to deliver them, but sending a CVS, a LPH and a couple of frigates provided them all. Additionally the frigates had the potential to shell the rebels, and the presence of big grey ships off the coast concentrates minds. As for the delay, I think Illustrious (with Sea Harriers etc) had to wait for Ocean (with Bootnecks and Junglies - but built to civillian standards with cheap propulsion) to catch up.

[CHEAP SHOT WARNING]

Incidentally, you once wrote:

Why are we closing airfields when there are still Army (and RAF and even RN shore-based) units based at places without a runway? If we need to draw down, any infantry battalion should be based at a modern airfield, whose runways, lighting and tower should be kept operational. Aldershot? Close it and sell the land!

You suggested it here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/220141-farewell-colt-2.html#post2500686). What was that about pursuing your own agenda at the expense of wider military capbilities?

The idea that the RAF could or should be disbanded is clearly idiotic, but many of the suggestions here are also clearly from the "Ignore the facts and hope for the best" school of thought.

Modern Elmo

23rd Sep 2009, 01:11

And we're not going to let pensioners starve in the streets.

The NHS will offer elderly pensioners counseling and advice about end of life options, won't it?

anotherthing

23rd Sep 2009, 08:23

Jacko,

whilst your support for the RAF is laudable, it gets a bit tedious when you can't see the relevance of other services beyond the light blue.

I suppose that is to be expected when it comes from someone with no actual service experience...

The fact that you think the RAF has suffered the brunt of the cuts over the years is one thing - but when you disregard facts posted by other people it really does not help the cause of journalists anywhere.

But, in a typically journalistic way, I suppose facts get in the way of a good story, especially if they are at odds with your hobby horse subject...

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2009, 09:39

I don't say that the RAF has borne the brunt of cuts over the years, only that the Army and RAF have borne a heavier burden of those cuts in recent years, and that's simple fact.

As to ignoring facts, it is FACT that while carriers have been useful many times since 1970, they've been ESSENTIAL just once, in 1982.

Navaleye

23rd Sep 2009, 10:31

As to ignoring facts, it is FACT that while carriers have been useful many times since 1970, they've been ESSENTIAL just once, in 1982.

You could say the same about most pieces of military kit. They are insurance policies afterall. The RAF hasn't shot down an enemy plane since WW2, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

Folks here are talking about "balanced forces". The US defence budget is about 10 times ours. They can afford 10 carrier groups, we are talking about having one at sea at anytime. That is balance.

Its the social security budget that is the festering wound in the economy and is largely the cause of the chronic underfunding of the other spending ministries.

Do you have ANY idea just how thoroughly unpleasant and degrading it is trying to eke out an existence in one of the most expensive countries in the world on benefits?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Do you have ANY idea just how difficult it is to even GET benefits as an immigrant to the UK?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Funnily enough I do on both counts. If you arrive as an illegal immigrant into the borough of Camden, the first thing they do is give you £100 worth of Argos vouchers. It is still a ciminal offence to enter the country illegally. Where to they find the £10k to get here? It should be enforced and offenders deported. I have a tenant who has been on benefits for the two years that she has been with me and she seems to manage. Her friend has just another baby so she gets £1300 month rent paid by the council and child support. This takes place on a massive scale.

Navaleye

airborne_artist

23rd Sep 2009, 10:47

As to ignoring facts, it is FACT that while carriers have been useful many times since 1970, they've been ESSENTIAL just once, in 1982.

How many times have we actually needed to use the following:

RAF's UK air defence assets
Army's main battle tanks - GWs 1 and 2, I know, but were they really needed/useful?
RN's SSBN - never, thank God

However, we have them all to hand to deter those who might deterring.

Wader2

23rd Sep 2009, 11:01

Your post about immigration and 1000 years has to be THE most ignorant and inaccurate post that I have EVER seen on pprune.

Perhaps he means that in the last 1000 years the current immigration has been a disaster?

It has been interesting watching on TV how thorough the UK Border Agency in checking people at the airports and tracking illegals being employed without permits.

Equally, we read in the press that the authorities investigate a very small percentage of visa applicants.

Wader2

23rd Sep 2009, 11:17

How many times have we actually needed to use the following:

RAF's UK air defence assets
Army's main battle tanks - GWs 1 and 2, I know, but were they really needed/useful?
RN's SSBN - never, thank God

However, we have them all to hand to deter those who might deterring.

There are issues with deterrence and that is that it must be credible. Arguably it was credibile during the cold war if the threat from the USSR had itself been credible. As Navaleye said, deterrence is an insurance policy. However like insurance policies, you hope that you never need it and see money spent in the past as money wasted. When you do call on your policy you often find it is not quite what you thought it was.

Deterrence is a bluff. You cannot fight a sustained war with deterrence forces. Once deterrence has failed, or you embark on a war of choice, you need a specific capability and lots of it. We have been as war now since 1991 but not revised our insurance policy.

Do we maintain our insurance policy with aircraft carriers, aircraft and tanks and provide the resources to fight a war or go for the short-term option and go for deterrence lite (3 SSBN) and just resource the war?

airborne_artist

23rd Sep 2009, 11:22

Deterrence is a bluff. You cannot fight a sustained war with deterrence forces.

Deterrence is only a bluff if you have insufficient resources to back up your words.

Jabba_TG12

23rd Sep 2009, 11:37

Ignoring the perceived immigration situation will not make it go away and has, in no small part been responsible for the emergence of the BNP, to the point where they secured nearly a million votes. New Labour's knee-jerk denunciation of the far right, (rather than confronting their argument and destroying it) only pushes those voters who have a percieved axe to grind further into the arms of the far right. Not listening to the electorate, addressing their concerns and merely denouncing them as knuckle-dragging racist xenophobes is what has got the BNP to this point. All they have had to say is "we will listen to you". And it has worked. They are not far away from securing parliamentary seats at a general election. Heaven forbid what would happen if they had a leader who had natural political charisma.

Like it or not guys, yes we are a nation of immigrants and our tolerance and openness to other cultures is indeed a very positive thing and has contributed to our society immensely. But that doesnt mean we are in a Garden Of Eden.

The open door policy is not working. Why, if you are a true asylum seeker would you pick Britain, rather than another liberal democracy closer to where your journey started from? Anyone who says it isnt down to money I fear maybe deluding themselves. This policy and that of economic migrancy have to be addressed. Current central government has already made a pigs ear of the situation regarding economic migrants amongst the professions (vis, the ability for a company to send staff over from other countries rather than recruiting locally for particular skills, whilst at the same time cutting back on locally employed contract or permanent staff - Lloyds/HBOS being a singular case in point). It might seem an ugly fact, an unpopular one to confront, but because of the welfare state in the UK, there are not insignificant numbers who wish to join the queue. And, there is a network of organisations out there who will tell them which buttons to press and how to get what they want.

And its all of you lot who are paying for it. Thats before we come to talking about our own sink estates, who have a plentiful supply of equally willing volunteers who wish to make a career out of living off state handouts.

The elephant in the room is not necessarily immigration, but the welfare system, which in turn attracts the non-professional economic migrants in consistent numbers. A culture of entitlement has mushroomed over the last 30-40 years.

If you're worried at all about where all the money is going, and whether youre happy for your kids and their kids too, probably, to pick up the tab for it all, these are subjects that cannot be ignored. Maybe not in this forum, but certainly on a wider political level.

I'm currently an ex-pat in Europe, but still a UK resident, for now and still obviously pay taxes into the UK. As is the case with a significant number in this part of Europe, the ex-pats are professionals, filling specific vacancies, as was also the case in Dubai before the wheels started to fall off that particular wagon. A case of putting more in than you're taking out.

Sorry if it offends, but I dont see those who were cleared out of Calais yesterday as being of a similar ilk. The system is allowing itself to have the piss taken out of it and the political elite are just watching it happen.

Time for me to go and have my Millwall tattoos lasered off and to drop my John Bull Union Jack suit into the dry cleaners, perhaps.

Wader2

23rd Sep 2009, 12:22

Deterrence is only a bluff if you have insufficient resources to back up your words.

To a point.

Our deterrence posture was never enough to win WW3. It was sufficient, or believed to be so, that it could wreak sufficient damage to an enemy such that it would stop them trying.

A case in point was during Confrontation. Against a huge land mass and modern aircraft we deployed just four medium bombers when any reasonable air power weapons effort would have required about 80 aircraft per target. The light bomber forces would have barely been able to get feet dry.

In the Falklands our deterrence posture, and policitcal will, fell below the critical threshold. The forces needed to return to the status quo ante bellum far exceeded the level required to deter.

In the Cold War there was no doubt that the Russians, had they wished, could have reached the channel ports, but at a cost that it would seem they deemed too high.

We have to decide policy, decide what, if anything we wish to deter, and then provide the resources to implement the policy. If we cannot afford to pay for these resources then we must change our policy.

Returning to our insurance analogy. World-wide travel insurance is less expensive if we exclude the USA. We probably won't go to the USA, so it would be a waste of money to include the USA. If we do go to the USA hopefully nothing will happen. Yer, right Tommy.

Melchett01

23rd Sep 2009, 12:29

Your post about immigration and 1000 years has to be THE most ignorant and inaccurate post that I have EVER seen on pprune.

If there's a section of UK society we'd be better off without, it's the knuckle dragging racists, xenophobes and demi-fascists who object to immigration.

Do you have ANY idea just how thoroughly unpleasant and degrading it is trying to eke out an existence in one of the most expensive countries in the world on benefits?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Do you have ANY idea just how difficult it is to even GET benefits as an immigrant to the UK?

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Not a part of another wise interesting thread that I was going to get involved in, but I do have one question regarding immigration and the comments that it has provoked:

Is it just me, or is anybody else becoming increasingly concerned that any mention of immigration as being a major issue, currently lacking in coherence with reality and yet which has such an impact on the country as a whole, is automatically branded an ignorant racist /xenophobe/knuckle-dragging BNP supporter?

Whatever your opinion on immigration, the fact that so many ordinary people on the streets perceive it to be an issue means that it is an issue which must be resolved. The ever increasing benefit culture and transformation of the UK into an open house for whoever is undoubteldy costing us a fortune each year. No doubt if we had a coherent policy on each of these issues other than paying benefits for years to the bone idle who have no intention of ever working or turning a blind-eye to the costs of illegal immigration, the UK in general and defence in particular might not be in such dire straits.

Ah well, I guess that even suggesting such a thing just makes me a knuckle-dragging xenophobic lout.

Navaleye

23rd Sep 2009, 13:08

Getting back closer to the original thread topic. No one seriously thinks the RAF will get chopped, I think that's a given. On other topics, Liam Fox has just said this:

Mr Fox said it made no sense to cut spending on what he described as “big ticket items”, including Vanguard and the two aircraft carriers for which work has already started on the Tees. “It’s a false argument that we can save money by cutting the carriers because a lot of the expenditure has been committed to them. You would be spending as much money in penalties as you would save.”

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2009, 13:18

"I guess that even suggesting such a thing just makes me a knuckle-dragging xenophobic lout."

No, it doesn't.

Having concerns about immigration, the integration of certain communities, etc. does not brand one as being anything. Nor does questioning the present level of immigration, nor does questioning whether there should or should not be limits on immigration.

I'm often portrayed as some kind of bleeding heart liberal or Nu Labour apologist (though I'm a wet, One Nation Tory to my core, I'm afraid) and even I would question the open door now offered to immigrants from the EEC, while I have real doubts as to the wisdom of encouraging multi-culturalism as opposed to a multi-ethnic British identity. (I don't care about people's country of origin, in other words, only their intended country of destination. If that's our Britain, fine, but if they want that Britain to adapt to them - separate education for their kids, green flags over Downing Street, etc. not fine at all).

What brands someone as being a "knuckle dragging racist, xenophobe and demi-fascist" is to blame immigrants and immigration for all of the UK's present ills, to object to immigration across the board, on principal, and to repeat the BNP's lurid and exaggerated claims of its impact, and to do so using the kind of language that one poster here did.

There's a world of difference between Jabba and jordanpolonijo, in other words.

Crucially the real and growing problems of alienation and welfare dependancy may have some overlap with the issue of immigration, the two things should not be confused or equated.

The fact that a mass of ignorant, stupid and ill-educated people share the BNP's concerns means that the issue needs to be addressed - but that surely does not mean that their petty prejudices should be pandered to?

jordanpolonijo

23rd Sep 2009, 17:00

Its getting rather frustrating the number of times I have to repeat the same point.

My opinions is (and im going to put it into BOLD TEXT for those that are visually challenged).

I BELIEVE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL SECURITY IS FAR TOO MUCH.

By looking at the annual budget do you really feel money is allocated correctly. Are the percentages correct and worthwhile. Does Social Security really deserve/need the highest proportion of Public Money?

That is the point I have been putting across from the off.

Yet I still do not feel the need to insinuate nor point fingers at other forum users and brandish them as x,y,z.

Perhaps I am too liberal.:ok:

Now relating back to the initial title of the thread. By rearranging the allocation of Public Investment between the sectors would it not be possible to spare money to "Save the RAF" if ever this hypothetical situation were to arise.

Oh and for the record the BNP would not have me. Im an immigrant. Cues in the surname.:cool:

airborne_artist

23rd Sep 2009, 18:13

Could we keep this to aviation.

1. The clue is in the name - military aviation, so that's what we talk about

2. Jet Blast is the place for sensible discussion of such non-aviation matters

3. You are all shouting away, but no-one is listening

althenick

23rd Sep 2009, 22:49

A desire to cancel the carriers has nothing to do with understanding the ‘maritime environment’. It has to do with understanding the economic environment, and the fact that tough choices need to be made. That some niche capabilities simply can’t be afforded. That while the Army and RAF have been slashed to the bone since the 80’s the Navy has not borne its fair share of the cuts, and now needs to do so, and that the least damaging thing to give up is carrier air.

Jacko, for a supposedly intelligent man you sometimes really do come over as quite naive. Supposing that even if the money hadn't already pretty much been spent, do you really think for one minute that the benefits would be passed to other requirements? If you really do think this then may I suggest that you look for a journo job that is more befitting to your take on reality- "Now" Magazine perhaps.

And expressing that desire is another matter. While I’ve heard plenty of senior Army and Navy officers banging on about how ‘wasteful’ and ‘Cold War’ Typhoon is, I’ve never heard a serving Air Rank bloke publicly criticize the carriers – observing the nicety that you don’t ‘crap’ on your fellow service’s spending priorities in public. Personally I wish they’d grow some testicles and speak out.

One Nation One Air force Jacko? Ok so the last CAS incumbent may not have grown B0llox but he sure spoke some.

So the RAF is more ‘officer heavy’ than the Navy, which is in turn more ‘officer heavy’ than the Army?

Actually Jacko me sensitive little flower, if you re-read my post then you'll see I was referring to all the services not just the RAF My word you do have a little bit of a persecution complex going on there don’t you?

How astonishing! The more technologically advanced a force is, the narrower its rank structure ‘pyramid’. What a blooming revelation.

Speaking as A former Killick Weapons Artificer with a degree in Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering, Please explain why a "technologically advanced force" requires so many officers? The ones I’ve had to deal with (with the exception of the engineers and medical types) in ALL THREE SERVICES have not been MENSA Material. Oh, and BTW I have also dealt with all three services as a Civil Serpent and believe me the RAF has nothing that is any more technologically advanced than the other 2 services.

Et Al - Once again I say to you that people matter. But if there are too many of them then that has to be addressed. Not that long ago I saw a pie chart of the defence budget ( I will try and locate it again) and by far the biggest slice was down to Personnel. It stands to reason that if that were cut then it would make far greater impact on savings than equipment.