Max Hastings and his proposal in The Spectator to disband the Royal Air Force.

[Rubicks13]

Wow, anyone else agree with this?

Disbanding the Royal AirForce. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a04cf9412-11fd-48f5-96fd-2e31ad2a3592&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

CUBE

[knowitall]

A Pongo-centric article from Max Hastings who'd have thunk it?


If were going to move from 3 services the only logical stopping point from an efficiency and poltical standpoint is 1.

Still I'm sure He'll enjoy writing about how great the British forces land component is!

[FlapJackMuncher]

He seems very fond of everything costing £20Bn.
It seems he has the solution to save this country some money and to fight this current war, but nothing else, ever.
Who am I to disagree.

[airborne_artist]

He doesn't really tackle the make-up of the land component in a future defence force.

Light, air-mobile forces for the global policeman role, MBTs and heavy arty for an invasion role, increased numbers of SF, SF support and Int for either role, plus ability to control the littoral/air in either role. None of it cheap, or do-able by halves. He carefully avoids the issue.

[minigundiplomat]

Here we go again,

The decimation of the FJ fleet is underway, and with enough impetus (like this twaddle) should be complete just in time for the majority of crews/engineers to step into the civil sector as it starts to recover in about 18-24 months, meaning these skilled individuals are lost forever.

The Kipper fleet has been slashed to extinction. So all in all, a huge loss in capability without any real saving, unless you are cretinous to believe any real savings will be re-invested in the Army.

These people never really address what they will do with the AT or SH fleets.

This is the real pivotal bit of the RAF the Army, in particular, needs and can't afford to lose.

So, we can transfer the task to the AAC and RLC, and all the RAF personnel involved with these tasks just join the Army. Not a problem.

But there is a problem. Rough guess, but I reckon about 2/3 of the manpower involved don't want to transfer to the Army. It would involve a huge amount of administration, and possibly offering redundancy as an alternative, as I am fairly sure you can't force people to swap branches.

So, a run down AT/SH fleet losing 2/3 of its experienced manpower. And that helps the Army how exactly?

[airborne_artist]

MGD - a) there's a recession on, so lots of those who'd want to leave couldn't afford to. b) Google TUPE c) any half-decent lawyer could write/re-write the rules in such a way as to keep those in blue staying in blue, but appointed/posted to XX Regt AAC in the rank of YY. No need to offer redundancy just because their new boss is a Pongo.

All it would mean that, for example, no further AT/SH mates joined the light-blue, but joined the AAC.

I can't see it happening, though.

[orgASMic]

http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/1b/images/JoinRAF_poster.jpg

Make note of the line at the bottom, but it probably was not true then either. I for one would PVR if I did not like what was on the table in the event of an amalgamation.
If it were to be done forceably, 30-odd thousand Crabs suddeny become the biggest cap badge in the Army with a huge slice of the financial pie and good deal of veto.

[Rather be Gardening]

Old Sad Max, what a boy eh? Why does he hate the RAF so much - was he frightened by a nasty pilot when he was in his cradle or something? His attempts to big up the Army are getting a bit tedious these days. :rolleyes:

[airborne_artist]

Did he have m@n-love with a young Guardsman? :E

[andyy]

Whilst you may not be able to make people transfer to the Army or the RN, you can make them serve at sea (JFH) or have to wear camouflage & live in tents in combat zones (you do already, & many seem to prefer to wear Combat 95 clothing than light blue anyway)

[ab33t]

Somebody in the airforce really p..d him off

[Jumping_Jack]

I recall Max Hastings visiting the FI just before the 20th anniversary of the conflict. He was an arrogant, self important pain in the neck tw@t then and doesn't appear to have improved....:rolleyes:

[Rather be Gardening]

JJ - I have to agree. I met him when I was working in MB and a more pompous individual would have been hard to find. I remember wondering at the time whether he had a massive insecurity complex that made him so rude to everyone. Time he was put out to pasture. He became boring a long time ago and now he's not even a very good journalist.

[minigundiplomat]

Airborne Artist,

there is a recession in the UK at the moment......

It won't last forever, and Max isn't likely to get his way in the next 2 years. The formation of JHC was announced in the 1997 SDR, but didnt take effect until 2000.

So, chances of us still being in recession in 2013-2014? I doubt even cyclops could make it last that long [even if he survives the imminent cull].

[bast0n]

This chap Max wossisname seems rather a good chap................:)

Slam of closing door heard in the distance:ok:

[Boslandew]

Easy to be rude about the bloke but which part, specifically, of his article is flawed, incorrect, out-of-date, plain wrong.

Incidentally, its misleading to say his article is about disbanding the RAF, its far wider than that.

[airborne_artist]

So, chances of us still being in recession in 2013-2014?

Still quite high, actually. Govt spending will have to be cut, so that will reduce the public service payroll, but increase payments to the unemployed, and so Govt expenditure on infrastructure, which right now is keeping the building trade afloat, just, will have to fall considerably. Plenty of people rely on Govt money for their jobs even if they are not civil servants.

Don't bank (bad pun) on an economic upturn any time soon.

[ShyTorque]

When the Chinese or Russian Navy comes sailing past the Thames Barrier, no doubt he will be the first to fix bayonets. :rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

I'd much rather see the disbandment of Max Hastings, take a pretty big can opener though....

ShyTorque,

"When the Chinese or Russian Navy comes sailing past the Thames Barrier, no doubt he will be the first to fix bayonets."

Why would they want to do that? Isn't that the sort of thing that Trident is supposed to stop anyway?

[Guzlin Adnams]

Can't see the Chinese Navy sailing up the Thames. Why try to win a war against us, they're already winning the peace! As for the Russians, are they that hungry yet?

None of this talk is necssary as the answer is quite simple really. Just give the MoD a descent budget, that's all. If the will was there the politicians would do it. It's they who should be in the dock with all of us questioning them.:8

[PPRuNeUser0139]

I recall Max Hastings visiting the FI just before the 20th anniversary of the conflict. He was an arrogant, self important pain in the neck tw@t then and doesn't appear to have improved....

After climbing out of a Tornado at Waddington, he appeared on our E-3D, in a stained flying suit and smelling like a cross channel ferry after a rough crossing.. But I wouldn't necessarily hold that against him. (we've all been there!) But what I did find curious was that he just sat down the back feeling sorry for himself and made no effort to take an interest or be sociable. He exuded self importance (in addition to the diced carrot)..

[Pontius Navigator]

Rough guess, but I reckon about 2/3 of the manpower involved don't want to transfer to the Army. It would involve a huge amount of administration, and possibly offering redundancy as an alternative, as I am fairly sure you can't force people to swap branches.

Having experienced over the last 4 years how the army do business I would not wish it on any airman. What is done by sqn ldrs is done by lt col who are overseen by a full col - devolvement to the lowest practicable level is replaced with centralised command at the highest level.

[Jackonicko]

Max Hastings - clot.

Mutinous jibe angers veterans - National - theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/mutinous-jibe-angers-veterans/2007/12/01/1196394689062.html)

[FantomZorbin]

I seem to remember that he was referred to as "Her Majesty" by some of the Press Corps during the Falklands ... reported in the book "Don't Cry for me Sergeant Major" (an excellent read). The man is consistent then.

[Low Flier]

to sustain a serious army within declared spending levels requires cutting the Royal Navy and RAF to the bone.

Don't panic, Cap'n Mainwaring. Don't panic.

We're the real defence force. We'll get you out of the mess that the others got us into. Won't we, Captain Mainwaring?

The Jerries'll be here any minute now, Cap'n Mainwaring. We're ready.

The Fuzziewuzzsies don't like cold steel up 'em, y'know, Cap'n Mainwaring. We're ready for 'em.

£20,000,000,000 for 232 Spitfires? Pah!
£20,000,000,000 for 150 Mustangs? Pah!
£20,000,000,000 for 4 u-boats? Pah!

Don't they realise that there's a war on? Don't they realise that this is 1940?

This is no time for spending money on sissy things like schools and hospitals and roads. We've got furriners to kill.

[SirToppamHat]

airborne_artist

You make a fair point, but I am pretty sure the TUPE Regs don't apply to members of the Armed Forces, otherwise every time a post was civilianised, the former (uniformed) occupant would be able to take their Service to an industrial tribunal.

Hastings view of the world is far too simplistic.

Too many people with an input to the future size and structure of the armed services are too (or even entirely) focused on the current (mainly COIN) priorities instead of looking at what we need from the whole package. This is bound to happen when there is so much pressure to look at short-term reactionary 'planning' based on the current demands of the Treasury. It will all end in tears - probably mine!

STH

[minigundiplomat]

Airborne Artist,

tis true, but by my reckoning the private sector are [slowly] crawling their way out of recession, whereas the public sector having weathered the storm ok up til now, are just about to enter it.

It would be ironic if Cyclops' 'it all started in America' recession redistributed all the manpower he recruited into the public sector, back to the private sector.

I firmly reckon, despite your sensible doubts, that the private sector will be in a much better position in 2 years, compared to a pared to the bone, over-regulated and demotivated public sector.

[Melchett01]

MGD - are you sure that the public sector isn't already demotivated?

At my end of the trench, far too many SNCOs are just walking - even those with a few years left to their pensions or with WO on the cards, whilst many if not all the SO2s & 3s are uninspired and frustrated that there is little to do other than chasing targets and triv and that the only people who seem to be able to make a difference are those that hold the purse strings. In fact, I don't know a single SO3 who is staying on past their option point and many are actively looking at what is on the other side of the fence just to get ducks in a row.

I very much doubt that the foundations of the Ivory Towers will hold out for another 2 years, much less if as you suggest, the private sector ramps up ahead of the public sector.

[parabellum]

"Don't Cry for me Sergeant Major"


A good read maybe but the author, (one of them), was the idiot caught in a working 'phone box, (only in the FI!), talking to his newspaper over an unsecured line and giving them all the info about the attack plan of the British Forces!

[FantomZorbin]

parabellum I think the phrase goes - 'There's one in every box of twelve'. What a prat ... I trust he was dealt with appropriately!!

[Blacksheep]

It isn't the Chinese or the Russians we need to be afraid of. Once minor nations that we have annoyed in the past notice that we can't defend ourselves against them, why would they resist the temptation? Think of Argentina when they decided that we couldn't stop them taking over Bennyland.

Meanwhile, ICBMs are so 1970s, time to bring the sunshine back out into the open and fit it into cruise missiles? Turn the navy over to anti-submarine duties, putting it back to its real job of protecting our international lines of supply and the RAF to defending our airspace. The army's job is defending our territory, not fighting other people's wars in far flung outposts. We could disband them into a people's militia, ready to come to arms at a moments notice (rather like Switzerland who have successfully defended themselves this way for centuries) or perhaps merge all the regiments into one giant Royal Corps of Social Workers :hmm:.

The decision to withdraw all our armed forces from East of Suez was taken more than forty years ago and the action was more or less complete by the end of 1971. If we really want to poke our noses back out there, the army needs a quarter of a million pairs of boots on the ground and to support the army the RAF needs to be beefed back up to the 155,000 strength that we had last time we were out there. If HMG can magic up hundreds of billions of pounds to prop up the banks, the cost ought not to be a problem. Meanwhile, as long as we need strategic supplies from beyond our shores, the navy urgently needs a few hundred more ships at sea - regardless of whether or not we're helping Uncle Sam to police the globe.

[henry crun]

parabellum: I might well be wrong, but as I recollect the episode you refer to, he wasn't calling his newspaper, he was ringing his colleague at another location in the Falklands on what was a secure line.

Some army officers strung him along to make him believe he had compromised their plans, but it was not true, the line was down past the point where he was ringing his colleague.

[parabellum]

Maybe Henry, I'll have to see if I can find my books on the FI but I thought they did actually catch him on a useable line.

[Tankertrashnav]

I think this deserves serious argument rather than personal invective. What all the advocates of the sort of thing Hastings proposes are doing is falling into the old trap of generals always fighting the last war - although they probably cant see that.

In this case the mistake is to regard current conflicts as the pattern for the future - no more logical than assuming that WW2 was going to be won and lost in the trenches. Sure, FJ interceptors and Trident have no role to play in Afghanistan, nor did they in Iraq, but surely if we are to learn a lesson from these fiascos it will not be how better to fight that sort of war, but to leave well alone in the future.

In that case our armed forces' primary role will revert to security of the homeland - surely number 1 priority for any country. In this case we may well need sophisticated hardware, including FJs, rather than thousands of boots on the ground.

But what do I know, I'm not a famous journalist and author!

[Mick Strigg]

"Wow, anyone else agree with this?"

Yes, I can think of two - All of the Army and all of the Navy!

[Old-Duffer]

When MH wrote "Bomber Command", I pointed out a shed load of factual inaccuracies - which included the unjust denigration of a respected officer.

Hastings response was that it was information he had been given. I reminded him that we were much the same age and if I could do my research properly, he - with all the resources at his command - could do likewise and that to accept as fact bar room gossip was not good enough.

He said he would correct the errors if he republished!!

[SPIT]

He is a CRETIN of the 1st order :mad::mad::=

[Chicken Leg]

This thread seems to re-appear about as often as someone asks when the next FRI is due. Each time, instead of entering the debate, and offering a balanced argument as to why it's tosh, you crabs just tell us what a complete knob this person is.

Lt Col (as was) Tim Collins was the perfect example. I remember reading the plaudits on these threads after his pre war speech. Each and every one giving the view that he was an inspirational leader and 'clearly a top boss'.

He then made the mistake of uttering an opinion similar to this latest Max Hasings article. Over night, he became simply a plonker who knows nothing about nothing!

Here's a thought. If you think it's tosh (I do), hold the debate, explain why - and try and do it with facts instead of emotion.

Oh, and one more thing

What is done by sqn ldrs is done by lt col who are overseen by a full col

Is that some sort of joke? Are you talking about the same people who could have made Sqn Ldr without ever commanding people - and still may not even then? Or are you talking about the Sqn Ldr's commanding a flight, Wing Commander a Sqn etc etc. Or are you talking about the Flying Officer I was chatting to in Aldergrove a couple of years ago, who had her OJAR 1st RO drafted by WO under her command (absolutely true BTW). Or are you thinking of the Army's use of Sgt's (Cpl's until very recently) as pilots. Or OC admin being a Wg Comd (Captain/Major in the Army). OC Ops Wg Comd against Regt Ops Offr - Captain. OC Catering Sqn Ldr against WO2......

I could go on. I think the disbandment of the RAF is an easy debate to fend off, but pontius........ do you really want to start THAT debate!!

[Chicken Leg]

Thanks theprior

So Mr Hastings get back to your world of ill informed stupidity and stick to what you know about


The next post but one, and you make my point beautifully!

[Jackonicko]

There's nothing wrong with labelling a fool as such, Chicken Leg.

Indeed when someone who has an exaggerated reputation is actually fatally lacking in insight, knowledge, and common sense, it might be better to point that out, and question their credibility than to exhaustively go through countering each nonsensical point.

Theprior did so while also listing some of the essential capability that Air provides, and which make the point that proves how narrow-minded and witless the arguments offered up by Messrs Hastings, Page, Harding, Richards and Dannatt have been.

They have not espoused 'balanced debate', they have embraced a childishly simplistic land-centric position that is self-evidently tosh. What has needed correcting is any lingering impression that these people might have a f***ing clue.

Theprior listed/drew attention to:
1) Transport to and from theatre, and rapid mobility within it.
2) ISTAR ('seeing over the hill').
3) The Counter-air/CAS/BAI/Interdiction that provides land with the freedom of movement that the enemy would deny.
4) Casualty recovery etc.

There is a much longer list.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Now I know why I prefer the breast to the chicken leg, it's all a matter of taste (and quality).
To disband the RAF is foolishness in the extreme and to hand ultimate power and authority to an insular Regiment obsessed bunch of brown jobs will ensure the end of the Armed Forces in the UK.:*

[thunderbird7]

Heads up - Mad Max is on the panel tonight - get ready to send in some pointed questions for him.

[Old-Duffer]

Chicken Leg is absolutely right. Every organisation (service/civilian) needs to look at the 'what', 'why', 'how', of the things they do and examine whether their role is even needed in the circumstances that obtain.

The RAF is no exception and it is rediculous to think that the RAF is in some way sacrosanct. The case for the RAF (and the other services) and the relationships between the services needs to be made periodically and tested by logical argument. That time is now with us. Where Hastings is completely wrong is he wants to do something before we've had a foreign policy review and it is that review which will inform the debate on our defence forces.

There remain many things wrong with all the services, the rank pyramid for a start. Can the RAF continue to justify - say - the Red Arrows? What about the various other display teams operated by the armed forces. Does the Army need its armoured corps or would it be better to put the money into attack helicopters. Large numbers of Parachute Regt soldiers aren't parachute qualified - do we need that capability or shall we keep the regiment because it is a catalyst for the aggressive get up and go soldier? Can we still afford ceremonial cavalry?

Maybe, given the many joint service activities, we ought to examine the pros and cons of a Defence Force.

Let's have the debate - bring it on, says I

[Melchett01]

Old-Duffer,

There is no debate. Disband the RAF at your peril. Disband the RAF and watch the effectiveness of ground forces drop quicker than an elevator with the cables cut.

In a nut shell, to do everything Hastings et al are advocating would mean transfering all the Armed Forces to the Infantry. And then we could probably only cope for one or 2 roulements. Air power is the glue that holds the overall campaign together, providing the necessary logistical reach and firepower support to ground forces as well as providing a Coalition presence in areas to remote or too dangerous to station ground forces long term.

And if Hastings cannot or is unwilling to see that,then at best he is ill-informed and at worse pushing a dangerous line that could quite easily see the wholesale relegation to the Third Division of the UK's military capability.

[melmothtw]

"...RAF and watch the effectiveness of ground forces drop quicker than an elevator with the cables cut."

Wouldn't happen - "While it is possible (though extraordinarily unlikely) for an elevator's cable to snap, all elevators in the modern era have been fitted with several safety devices which prevent the elevator from simply free-falling and crashing. An elevator cab is typically borne by six or eight hoist cables, each of which is capable on its own of supporting the full load of the elevator plus twenty-five per cent more weight. In addition, there is a device which detects whether the elevator is descending faster than its maximum designed speed; if this happens, the device causes bronze brake shoes to clamp down along the vertical rails in the shaft, stopping the elevator quickly, but not so abruptly as to cause injury.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator#cite_note-newyorker.com-8) "


...Just saying.

[London Eye]

Is that an African or European elevator, laden or unladen?

[Melchett01]

It's a third world elevator. It doesn't have all the cables as the commissioning organization's management cut corners and extended the contract to save money - the remaining cables will be delivered sometime before 2014. Ditto for the brakes which have been delayed so that funds can be diverted to pay for the through life support costs of the lift project.

Seems a more fitting descriptor of the potential state of the Army. Happy now?

Do people turn to pedants deliberately, or is it a way of stalling for time whilst they try to rebutt other's points and scrabble around for their own counter-arguments?

[Wrathmonk]

Old Duffer

Some interesting points ....

What about the various other display teams operated by the armed forces. Does the Army need its armoured corps or would it be better to put the money into attack helicopters. Large numbers of Parachute Regt soldiers aren't parachute qualified - do we need that capability or shall we keep the regiment because it is a catalyst for the aggressive get up and go soldier? Can we still afford ceremonial cavalry?

And some of these areas you mention are why the debate will never happen (outside of these kind of forums;)) - it's very easy to say 'disband the RAF' because it takes the spotlight off some of the shocking waste (sorry, capabilities not required to support THE war:E) in their own Service .....

[andyy]

As an alternative to Hastings, I post this, completely cut & pasted from another forum, by some one with the nom de plume, "Change Agent":

TIME FOR A STRUCTUAL CHANGE

There is no doubt that the defence budget is about to take a hammering and yet we are still a maritime trading nation, have commitments to our overseas territories, are fighting a land campaign a long way from home, and cannot predict the future.

Whether we like it or not, the Armed Forces of the UK are about to get smaller and yet the Service Chiefs, and their Staffs’ are fighting their turf wars and arguing in public for investment in their pet environment. They seem to be considering a very narrow future.

In the late 1970s we could not predict the Falklands War, in the 80s we did not predict the Gulf Wars or Kosovo and in the 1990s we did not predict Afghanistan. And yet we had to fight campaigns in these areas using the kit we had at the time.

The only predictable thing, then, is that the next campaign will be in an unpredictable environment and that we will have to use what we have at the time. Smaller forces and a smaller budget mean that we will have to be even more flexible and adaptable than we are already. We are saddled with our existing kit and procurement programmes, as is always the way, but we need to make a structural change in the type of kit we buy in the future and in the way we operate it.

There will always be the need for some items of deep specialist kit whether it’s for intelligence gathering, SF insertion, strategic effect, whatever, but the vast majority of kit needs to be operable in a variety of theatres, from a variety of platforms and in a variety of environments. For that reason I would suggest that the Armed Forces of the future need to have the vast majority of its aviation assets capable of operating at sea and from land – aircraft that are Carrier capable and Support or Attack helicopter that can be folded and struck down in to hangars.

Ships need to be modularised so that they can carry aircraft or troops or aid packages (hospitals or water or fuel plants). Yes they will need sensors and weapon packages, too, but should be containerised to match the mission.

Troops will need to be able to operate in Security or peace keeping roles, disaster relief, as Commando raiding and recce forces or in larger formations delivered from sea or by air. There will be no place for many single role specialist Corps. Maybe its time that the tank was replaced by the attack helicopter (because it can provide offensive action on land or against shipping) and the Artillery by air delivered ordnance (because that, too, can operate from land or against maritime targets.

Essentially what I am arguing for is a Land Component that has flexible light forces, and Air Component that has air assets that can largely be used from land or sea bases and a Maritime Component that can protect the UKs maritime requirements and provide the means to deliver both of the above Components to where they need to be, safely.

And lets not forget Logistics – perhaps there should just be one Logistics Component that can support all three other components.

I don’t want to talk about Army, Navy, or Air Force but it is easier to illustrate the point with examples.

An Air Component with specific AT and long range ISTAR assets plus combat power invested in carrier capable aircraft (if we are talking about now or the near future we’d be looking at every FJ squadron having F18, Rafale or F35 rather than Typhoon & Tornado, but probably smaller numbers of deployable squadrons). Support helicopters would not be Chinook or Puma, I’m afraid (unless they were foldable) but would be CH53 & Merlin. Attack Helicopter would be Sea Cobra unless a foldable Apache was built.

Every FJ pilot would have to be carrier capable and every helo pilot would have to be comfortable operating from either a pitching deck in the N Atlantic or from a clearing in Burma.

There would have to be a recognition that aircraft are key enablers and key force multipliers…whatever the environment.

The Maritime Component would have floating airfields (and probably more than 2) - Long range offensive and defensive power would be invested in the aircraft such ships carried. There would be no Type 45s or 23s but several HMS Ocean type vessels. All would have containerised sensor, analysis and weapon system designed for the mission in hand. UAVs would also be needed.
There would be no dedicated “ships flight” for eg but aircraft would be allocated dependent on the tasks to be carried out.

Smaller multi-role ships would have to be deployed for mine warfare, survey, coastal patrol and anti-piracy functions, again with containerised systems and fit for purpose “drones” or submersibles.

As with the Air Component, specialisms would remain in certain areas – Submarine operations for example. Maybe ships would have core “sailing crews” but have “bolt on” combat packages taken up from a small “pool” of deep specialists.

The Land Component may have a few deep specialist elements to enable training of others in NBCD or amphibious operations and to conduct Signals or Intelligence work but I don’t see an RAF Regt, a Royal Marines, A Parachute Regt, A Tank Regt etc. Similarly I don’t see an RMP, RAF Police, RN Regulating Branch and a MoD police – Just “the Military Police”.

When it comes to operations then the Joint Command structures are well established but every operation, deployment & training exercise would need to be considered in terms of the effect required and the force package generated would have to reflect that.

Of course we are where we are & have masses of legacy kit which is really designed for operation in a single environment; we are also in the process of procuring more of such kit, so the transformation I am advocating would have to take place over decades. Nevertheless the philosophy should be adopted now, the transformation should start now and every decision taken from now on forwards should be taken with the philosophy as outlined clearly understood. There has to be a complete change away from the “cap badge” mind set and there has to be investment in training and simulation tools to enable familiarisation with a number of roles at the very least, with deep training on a pre-deploymment, task specific basis. We would become “Jack of all trades and master of none” (or at least master of only a few very narrow specialisations) but that, in my view, is the only way forward for the UK Armed Forces.

I am sure that there will be howls of protest at such ideas and claims that I am clearly naïve, & that is maybe so but we cannot go on as we are. There has to be a clear recognition that:


Notwithstanding our current commitments we do have vast worldwide interests & responsibilities and that is likely to remain the case
The future requirements are unclear
We have to be able to meet our current and potential tasks with less.
Having a large number of “penny packet” size capabilities is irrelevant because it means that we can’t actually achieve what we say we can.
There just will not be the momentum to get things done and there’s likely to be little political will to deploy (and risk) single, but important assets/ capabilities
An 80% solution across the board is better than no solution


For clarity, I am suggesting a 3 Force structure (with possibly a seperate Joint logs function or retention of that within the core Forces, TBD). Each force concentrates on delivering capability in its core environmental area; on land, at sea and in the air, whilst recognising that most campaigss require joint capabilities and would be commanded by a Joint Commander . In fact I would suggest that CDS & CJO are one and the same at 4* level whilst the heads of each of the individual components are 3*.

The Land Component would be responsible for all land centric activity; inc amphibiosity in terms of the troops deployed; force protection of airfields etc

The Air Component would be responsible for everything that flies. Note I do not envisage this stopping maritime or land personnel serving in aviation.

The Maritime Component would be responsible for everything that floats.

The Joint Commander would be responsible for deciding what kit made up the force package to deliver the effect that the politicians wanted.

Yes, I know that there will be howls of protest but tough. We can't do it all anymore and if the Maritime Component require Air assets in support of their priority tasking, then it would be up to the Air Component to deliver that capability. Given competing requirements then the Joint Commander would decide which priorites were paramount in accordance with the political directives he has received and the other Components would "get fell in" & do as they were told.

[octavian]

andyy: Ref post 52, Any chance you could edit your cut and pasted post to clear the double spacings between sentences and perhaps combine sentences into paragraphs. Not being picky, just find it is too spread out.

thank you

octavian

[Tourist]

andyy

you either have little comprehension of the impossibility and foolishness of what you propose, or you are just having a laugh to make the crabs bite.

"no type 45 or 23s":rolleyes:

[knowitall]

andyy

UK apache has blade fold

CVF is designed to take chinook unfolded and there is a blade fold for it

where exactly do you think the cash to scrap most of our current kit and buy new kit (EG scrap typhoon and buy f18) is coming from?

"Long range offensive and defensive power would be invested in the aircraft such ships carried. There would be no Type 45s or 23s but several HMS Ocean type vessels."

not the smartest move in the world when even the likes of Hezbollah has anti-ship missiles

if wishes were horses we'd all have one

[Chicken Leg]

There is no debate

You're either arrogant or stupid. There's always a debate, where public finances and spending are concerned. Particularly when the country's so skint.

[Jackonicko]

You're either arrogant or stupid.

"Instead of entering the debate, and offering a balanced argument as to why it's tosh, you just tell us what a complete knob this person is..... If you think it's tosh, hold the debate, explain why - and try and do it with facts instead of emotion."

[Chicken Leg]

Fair one Jacko!

I think my point was that nothing is beyond having to justify itself when public finances are concerned. People are not stupid for raising the question, but maybe they are by refusing to acknowledge that a question exists!

[Jackonicko]

I'm sorry, Chick, it was a cheap shot, and I wasn't adult enough to ignore the open goal.

However, there is such a thing as a stupid question, that is without merit, and that serves only to divide - and which serves primarily to distract from the real issues, and that tends to be offered up only by the disingenuous and by the terminally witless.

The argument against the need for a separate, independent, expert air force is just such a question, and rather than rehashing the same old answers, it may be more useful to point out the character, wit and motives of those raising it (yet) again.

[Melchett01]

Quote:
There is no debate

You're either arrogant or stupid. There's always a debate, where public finances and spending are concerned. Particularly when the country's so skint.

Sorry chap, I have to disagree. I don't doubt that the question exists, but I do maintain that there is no debate in what the correct and only sane answer is. Defence and security of the country comes above all considerations in my book (well I would say that wouldn't I!) and must be the first priority of those in government. And the RAF is a key provider of that defensive umbrella.

Weakening it or disbanding it would lead to a massive drop in capabilty of the UK to defend itself both at home and abroad. Indeed, as has already been alluded to, even looking outside of support to the Army, if economic reasons force the canibalisation of much of UK plc's defensive capabilities and we become more isolationist, then the RN and RAF will become even more important in keeping those with nefarious intentions at arms length.

Whilst the Army is good at taking and holding ground, I'm afraid it has yet to develop the capability to deliver defence and a precision offensive capability in depth. When we pull out of Afghanistan, and we will sooner rather than later - considerations other than military will mean that DFID, FCO et al will play more of a role than the military in the medium-long term - having all but scrapped the RAF and RN will mean the the UK's defensive capability will have been reduced to little more than a militia. And I don't think you will find anyone that thinks that is a winning debate point!

[Grabbers]

How did Mighty Max get on tonight? I'll be hitting the iPlayer tomorrow but wondered how he fared?

[andyy]

Tourist, Knowitall,

No one is suggesting scrapping existing kit.

CA's key para is, "Of course we are where we are & have masses of legacy kit which is really designed for operation in a single environment; we are also in the process of procuring more of such kit, so the transformation I am advocating would have to take place over decades. Nevertheless the philosophy should be adopted now, the transformation should start now and every decision taken from now on forwards should be taken with the philosophy as outlined clearly understood."

So, its about what comes next. Its not about Typhoons, Type 45s or Challengers, its about the Type 23 replacement (Future Surface Combatant) and so on. Its about planning for a differently structured future.

In any case, my original post was taken from a Naval biased web site, so preumably someone is thinking out of the box & prepared to think about different ways of doing things in the future.

Presumably, on this forum, most of us recognise the utility of air power, & the fact that air assets are key enablers and force multipliers. CAs piece is just arguing that the smaller numbers we have are capable of being used in a number of environments & scenarios. JFH for across the piste, if you like.