Still broken? Is the RAF in better or worse shape than ten years ago

[Jackonicko]

Leafing through an ancient issue of Air Forces Monthly (dated October 2007) I came across a piece entitled 'Is the RAF broken?'

The article went into detail about the definition of stretch and ‘overstretch’, and discussed sustainability (whether the RAF could achieve the tasks set without breaking harmony guidelines), readiness, retention and the mismatch between actual operations and planning assumptions. It talked about the RAF’s diminishing force structure and the fact that the UK was spending 2.2% of GDP on defence - which it said was the lowest proportion since 1930. It criticised what it called 'the ill conceived rush towards PFIs and PPPs, and towards availability based contracting, which it averred would see the loss of key competences and skills among the uniformed engineers.

Out of curiosity, I looked at an order of battle for the RAF in 2007, and saw that it included 15 frontline fast jet squadrons (two Typhoon, three Tornado F3, seven Tornado GR4, two Harrier, and one Jaguar), while we still had 18 Nimrod MR2s for MPA and ASW duties, and a 'gold standard' military SAR provision…..

​​​​​​​Size-wise, it looked like a no-brainer, but we all know that size isn't everything?

So is today's 'Agile, Adaptable and Capable' RAF in better shape than ten years ago?

Has the flood of leavers at the 38/16 point slowed, or does it no longer matter?

Is morale better? Has faith in the senior leadership been restored?

[KPax]

No, no and no

[4everAD]

Sorry Kpax but I think there were 6 questions at the end so if you don't mind I'll answer the 3 remaining ones: no no and no!

[MPN11]

Isn’t it the 40/20 point now?

[andrewn]

JN - I suspect you knew the answers before you hit send, nevertheless...

If you think it was only 3yrs after that OOB that Bagwell (I think) was openly talking about a future FJ force of 5 or 6 squadrons, then at least things appear to be back on the right trajectory (and not forgetting the MPA decision and new Tanker/Transports since either)

From the outside looking in the elephant in the room is obviously manning, in that there appears to be an acute shortage of it. So, on that basis alone, for the guys and gals who are serving then I seriously doubt things feel much better - more likely a whole lot worse.

[Pontius Navigator]

The rush to grey began almost 30 years ago. The immediate size reduction target was over 40,000. Many of those made redundant and who might have transferred their skills and training to PFI will now be nearing or passed retirement age. The pool of trained manpower will be pretty dry.

Is contractorisation working?

The RAAF had a scheme where some grey suits had a reserve commitment and, as grey, had enhanced pay compared with non-reserve employees. Did this work?

[jindabyne]

I don't know.

But I wish those that have chosen a career in the RAF all the very best of fortune. Their RAF is not that in which I served; neither was the one that I joined that of those before me. Good Luck to you all.

[Pontius Navigator]

Doing more with even less. More capable fighting platforms and doing just as much. The people are just as fun to work with as ever. It’s not better.....or worse.
Just different.
And the people are different too. Look at your children and think of your childhood.

I remember car sharing, then lifts home at weekends, then buying a banger and so on. Now
. . .

[Melchett01]

I don’t know how you can be said to be agile when you’re fixed in place by non-discretionary demands that outstrip resource. It’s either or and that’s a decision nobody wants to make.

[India Four Two]

In 1918, the RAF inherited 22,000 aircraft. Has it been all downhill from there?

How many aircraft in today’s RAF?

Would their Airships be able to launch 100 frontline types today?

[airsound]

Well, if we mil Brits want to be really depressed, a look at this piece should do the trick. It's by Ted R Bromund, in an American magazine, The Weekly Standard. It's called Damn, Busted.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/ted-r-bromund/damn-busted

Here are a few snippets:
For two decades, British governments have promised to square the funding circle by achieving greater efficiencies, a promise first heard in that 1998 review. For two decades, the efficiencies achieved have failed to keep the declines in defense spending from gnawing into the size and strength of Britain’s forces.
What’s even more disturbing are the lies the British tell themselves to make all this seem okay. There is the lie that today’s equipment is so much better than yesterday’s that it doesn’t matter how little of it they have. Leaving aside the obvious fact that even the best plane can’t be in two places at once, the problem with this lie is that buying one plane doesn’t get you one plane on the front line: Given training and maintenance, it gets you about a third of a plane, which is much less useful.
Britain’s can-do military culture and its political willingness to deploy mean that Britain is taking on far more risk than it realizes, and on margins that are almost comically slender.
In the end, Britain’s problem isn’t money. It’s the absence of leaders who are able to advance a vision for Britain’s world role that would justify spending more money on it.

Anyone disagree?

airsound

[hunterboy]

Nope, but then maybe it’s about time we wound our necks in and concentrated on looking after the indigenous population of the British Isles first.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Much of this overstretch is down to that mindless phrase that gets wheeled out when required to justify budget cuts - namely, that the UK "punches above its weight"..:ugh:
When the salami gets too thin to slice anymore, then capability holidays step forward. It's enough to make you weep.
Unfortunately, Ted Bromund's comments as quoted by Airsound are right on the money.

[Bob Viking]

Let’s get back to those numbers. Would you say, in order to ensure a decent force mix, we should have about 10000 Typhoons and 5000 F35s?

Lets pick some some semi random but plausible costs. Say £50M per Typhoon and £80M per F35. So, by my maths, we just need to find £900,000,000,000 (shall we just call it a nice round £Trillion?).

All we need to do now is work out the rotary, transport and UAV costs and add in the wages and pensions bill and we can present it to parliament for approval. I’m sure the electorate won’t mind the extra few percent on their income tax. Besides, it’s only the squeezed middle that’ll actually pay and who cares about them anyway?

Do I need to add that I’m only kidding or does that go without saying?

BV

[Pontius Navigator]

The world stage is an expensive place but other countries seem to manage without dozens of fighters and bombers.

But we are a maritime power dependent on SLOC so we need a strong navy. So are many other countries dependent on SLOC but manage with littoral forces, perhaps even just CG cutters.

We need a nuclear deterrent to assure our place on the UNSC. Why? We do have a VETO but do we use it?

The argument should be Britain's world role, pay up or get out.

[99 Change Hands]

How many GR1s lofting dumb 1000-pounders would have been needed to achieve the recent action in Syria?

[Bob Viking]

How dare you inject reason and logic into the debate?!

Thankfully someone with much better knowledge than yourself (along with some examples of how many Hunters we had in 1957) will be along shortly to silence your inane ramblings.

BV

[melmothtw]

How many GR1s lofting dumb 1000-pounders would have been needed to achieve the recent action in Syria?

Hard to say, as we don't yet know precisely what was achieved during the recent action in Syria.

[NutLoose]

Hopefully we will have JayTeeto back inside soon to sort them out :)

[sharpend]

Who knows? But I don't think we have the capability of yesteryear. OK, so some of the hardware is more modern. But with complexity comes problems. I gather we have problems with Typhoon; spares being a bit of an issue. But that pales into insignificance when we see what happens with F35. And don't even think about numbers. I watched a program on TV yesterday re HMS Queen Elizabeth. What a farce! Not an aeroplane in sight, expect for one or two imported helos. Excuse me, what is the purpose of an aircraft carrier (there is a clue in the name). If the Isle of White declared independence now, we would lose.

[NutLoose]

I cannot understand how we can have one of the largest budgets in the world, but shrinking assets. I still cannot believe we are closing airfields at the rate we are, stick the army on them, you can build a barracks, but a new airfield, forget it, the locals would be up in arms and a barracks is cheaper to build. it also makes no sense to clump all your transport assets at one airfield, not just from a war point of view, but any problems at Brize on the runway and you in effect shut the transport fleet down in one go.

[VinRouge]

In 1918, the RAF inherited 22,000 aircraft. Has it been all downhill from there?

How many aircraft in today’s RAF?

Would their Airships be able to launch 100 frontline types today?
No, but we could flatten the German trenches, take out all their aircraft on the ground, take out their command headquarters and the Reichstag before 5 pm tea and sarnies. Whilst conducting an info ops campaign on their radio frequencies and deploy a huge field hospital delivering first class critical care.

It's not about numbers.

[VinRouge]

I cannot understand how we can have one of the largest budgets in the world, but shrinking assets. I still cannot believe we are closing airfields at the rate we are, stick the army on them, you can build a barracks, but a new airfield, forget it, the locals would be up in arms and a barracks is cheaper to build. it also makes no sense to clump all your transport assets at one airfield, not just from a war point of view, but any problems at Brize on the runway and you in effect shut the transport fleet down in one go.

I think the icing on the cake from HMG was inclusion of the strategic deterrent in the MoD budget a few years back. Plus growing "soft"capabilities like Cyber (which we are internationally pretty good at) which will place pressure on the likes of bombs, bullets, planes, airfields etc.

[Jimlad1]

Who knows? But I don't think we have the capability of yesteryear. OK, so some of the hardware is more modern. But with complexity comes problems. I gather we have problems with Typhoon; spares being a bit of an issue. But that pales into insignificance when we see what happens with F35. And don't even think about numbers. I watched a program on TV yesterday re HMS Queen Elizabeth. What a farce! Not an aeroplane in sight, expect for one or two imported helos. Excuse me, what is the purpose of an aircraft carrier (there is a clue in the name). If the Isle of White declared independence now, we would lose.

Oh for gods sake, you watched but didnt LISTEN. If you'd paid any attention you'd have learned that the ship is on her very initial sea trials and they were making sure she works, is fit for purpose and can safely embark an airwing. Thats why no fixed wing were embarked on this very early set of sea trials - identical in scope to every other aircraft carrier built in history.

Its akin to expecting a Typhoon fresh out of build at Warton to immediately fill up with munitions and go bomb somewhere without having had a test flight first.

[Finningley Boy]

Leafing through an ancient issue of Air Forces Monthly (dated October 2007) I came across a piece entitled 'Is the RAF broken?'

The article went into detail about the definition of stretch and ‘overstretch’, and discussed sustainability (whether the RAF could achieve the tasks set without breaking harmony guidelines), readiness, retention and the mismatch between actual operations and planning assumptions. It talked about the RAF’s diminishing force structure and the fact that the UK was spending 2.2% of GDP on defence - which it said was the lowest proportion since 1930. It criticised what it called 'the ill conceived rush towards PFIs and PPPs, and towards availability based contracting, which it averred would see the loss of key competences and skills among the uniformed engineers.

Out of curiosity, I looked at an order of battle for the RAF in 2007, and saw that it included 15 frontline fast jet squadrons (two Typhoon, three Tornado F3, seven Tornado GR4, two Harrier, and one Jaguar), while we still had 18 Nimrod MR2s for MPA and ASW duties, and a 'gold standard' military SAR provision…..

​​​​​​​Size-wise, it looked like a no-brainer, but we all know that size isn't everything?

So is today's 'Agile, Adaptable and Capable' RAF in better shape than ten years ago?

Has the flood of leavers at the 38/16 point slowed, or does it no longer matter?

Is morale better? Has faith in the senior leadership been restored?

If you could look at any post war reviews of the RAF's order of battle you'd find very much the same sentiment, however, back in 2007, at that specific time, nobody envisaged an air force with no more than six to eight frontline combat squadrons and no MPA. Where we are now from then is a result of the 2010 SDSR driven by the country's oversized unauthorized overdraft. By 2007, we'd already seen unexpected cuts to assets and personnel driven by the Blair governments need to find savings elsewhere in the defence budget to pay for the sustained British military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, things were getting that tight that certain critics with dark blue and khaki backgrounds resumed openly questioning the need for an independent air force at all. Before 2007, the previous defence review 'delivering security in an ever changing world' under Geoff Hoon in 2004, we had at that time; six Tornado F3 squadrons, seven Tornado GR4/4A squadrons, three Jaguar GR3/3A squadrons and three Harrier GR 7/7A squadrons. The orbat you mentioned from 2007 later that year lost the last Jaguar squadron and by end of July 2009 we were down to just a single Tornado F3 unit. Go back to 1990 about the time 'options for change' revealed the Blue print for the post cold war RAF, we had 30 operational squadrons, variously equipped with Tornado GR1, Tornado F3, F-4M Phantom II, F-4J Phantom II, Jaguar GR1A, Harrier GR3/5 and Buccaneer S2A/B. The TGR1s and Buccaneers were able to carry WE177s and the four Nimrod MR2 squadrons we also had could carry US mk 43 nuclear warheads. Oh how the mighty have fallen!

[Pontius Navigator]

We would have to find the Isle of White first. Is it in the White Sea?

[Bing]

Not an aeroplane in sight, expect for one or two imported helos.

I didn't realise Somerset had declared independence.

[Just This Once...]

How many GR1s lofting dumb 1000-pounders would have been needed to achieve the recent action in Syria?

Different times with respect to collateral damage, but you could loft 8 x cheap air-burst Ks and easily achieve utter carnage at the target. We could also drop cluster munitions too, so a single aircraft could wreak havoc.

Precision has its place but it should not have become as all-consuming as it has. Watching a successful Brimstone hit slicing through a car, before some of the occupants opened doors and exited with little more than tinnitus, suggests that surgical strikes can sometimes be too clinical.

[Pontius Navigator]

Consider counter air mission. The ultimate aim is to destroy the enemy aircraft. The traditional approach was to crater the runway thus pinning the aircraft to the ground. The program then continued with further attacks on the runway with the hope of collateral damage hitting the aircraft. HAS were a counter and area denial a counter-counter.

These programs need lots of aircraft. PGM may reduce the number of aircraft needed to crater the runway and PGM can more easily plink the HAS, but you still need lots of weapons over target. 4 Paveway on a Typhoon don't cut it.

[Melchett01]

Consider counter air mission. The ultimate aim is to destroy the enemy aircraft. The traditional approach was to crater the runway thus pinning the aircraft to the ground. The program then continued with further attacks on the runway with the hope of collateral damage hitting the aircraft. HAS were a counter and area denial a counter-counter.

These programs need lots of aircraft. PGM may reduce the number of aircraft needed to crater the runway and PGM can more easily plink the HAS, but you still need lots of weapons over target. 4 Paveway on a Typhoon don't cut it.

I think the answer these days is now a lot more clinical, and I suspect you could stop a Sqn getting airborne without ever even dropping a bomb on the airfield. Identify key personnel - arrange an RTA, bring people on base for security - unfortunate Gas explosion in the Mess, aircraft need IT for key parts of their operation - computers catch a cold just like humans. And those options are far more calculating and sinister because they are far more personal than dropping a bomb and bring with them a whole host of considerations that would tie the chain of command in knots rather than actually doing their warfighting role.

Of course, a degree of depth and resilience would go some way to mitigating those risks.

[frodo_monkey]

Consider counter air mission. The ultimate aim is to destroy the enemy aircraft.

Is it though? Surely what you want is to prevent those aircraft from impeding friendly freedom of manoeuvre? If they are trapped in the ground because they’ve “blue screen of death” on their maintenance system, or you’ve put an ALCM into the base power supply so that they can’t pump fuel out of the BFI, have you actually achieved your aim?

I do subscribe to the ‘precision isn’t a substitute for mass’ argument somewhat, but arguing that 8x airburst 1000lb’ers is going to have a lasting effect on a target is probably a little disingenuous.

[India Four Two]

We would have to find the Isle of White first. Is it in the White Sea?

PN,
That’s not the “white answer”. ;) It’s in the Bay of Plenty!

White Island is New Zealand’s most active volcano.

https://www.newzealandshores.com/wp-content/uploads/white-island-eruption-2.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

Melchett, that was the regular security issue in Cyprus. In the exercise, one year we would lose the aircraft, the next the crews.

Frodo, what you are saying is a mobility kill will enable freedom of movement by friendlies. This is true. Similarly disabling systens will achieve a firepower kill. Ultimately only a hard kill will give you freedom of movement. Pebble Island was an effective firepower kill whereas the Vulcan attack was a mobility kill.

A B2 with JADM or TLAM attacks can achieve the firepower kill without the need to deny movement and then plink each aircraft. To achieve the first strike kill you might need 8 or more Typhoon with 4 missiles each.

Against a modern air force you need mass and precision.

Oh, and I never suggested 8x1000 was an effective solution. In my day we planned 36 with aircraft unrevetted and that was still not enough.

[POBJOY]

Considering the RAF could not even keep a fleet of Gliders and SLMG serviceable to the point that the SLMG's are having to go back to the manufacturer and hardly any of the VGS Squadrons (those that are left) are operating as normal must be an indicator as to level of technical ability actually at the head of the service nowadays. Surprising :- NO Disappointing :- YES. Once you loose the 'Technical' control and the bean counters think that outsourcing is the way ahead then all is lost. Has this saved shed loads of money ! NO; it merely wastes loads of money on trying to keep old equipment going, and also puts the whole organisation under even more stress trying to keep up a capability level. The people at the coal face do a good job 'making it work', but get little back up from those that should be supporting them, and the 'leadership' that has allowed the decline to continue for many years. Many people in the service took their skills on into another related career that also passed on a valuable experience level gained in service of the Country, the true benefit of that has never been considered when looking at defence spending, and is now being felt with a lack of expertise out in the workplace.

[typerated]

I think rather than comparing RAF capability with yesteryear, surely you need to compare capability relative to a potential enemy against time.
Are we safer now than before?
We certainly have been worse - 1940 and the cold war for example.
Its very difficult to imagine a scenario where UK air defence could be challenged.
And how different is our ability to project airpower from 10 years ago?

But having said that I think we get very little for our defence spend. We spend more than France and (I understand) we have less than half the fast jets in service.
Also they have a (functioning) carrier with aircraft that they don't share with the airforce - how does that work?
Train crashes in slow motion are a bit more painful to watch.

I think our carriers and F-35B purchase is an albatross around our financial neck - not just the (lack of) capability they will offer but the drain on resources from the services will hurt.

[Just This Once...]

POB - The glider situation is a poor bellwether when you are struggling to produce crews, technicians, aircraft and weapons for recent conflicts. Running out of Brimstone missiles during 2 simultaneous conflicts whilst keeping the glider fleet in top shape could be seen as odd. Non-combat units have always suffered when resources are stretched and air cadets are as far away from combat as it gets.

That said, the glider issues were a shambles and I breath a sigh of relief in that the air cadets still exist and still receive MoD money.

[Jimlad1]

The french look good by prioritising shop window projects and not the enablers, hence a major reliance on UK and US strat airlift. They also pay appallingly and offer little support to troops who get bad equipment.

I shared a room on HERRICK with a French Officer who told me a few horror stories of how bad the French military is beyond their shop window.

[POBJOY]

Just This Once My point being how would you expect the 'High Tec' part of the service to be fit for purpose when the same responsible people (Up Top) can not even organise something simple. It is not even about money in that case, its about not having the right people being in charge who any idea about tech matters and or how to organise themselves. The ATC case was just an example of a system not being fit for purpose despite it being funded and not getting anything for large sums of money already spent. The same scenario is the same even at the higher level of hands on 'Combat' part of the service, in that large amounts of money are wasted yet there s a lack of capability at the sharp end due to poor leadership and past decisions. Every sympathy with those who actually strive to keep it going DESPITE the poor leadership and back up from up top.

[Jumping_Jack]

The Armed Forces mantra at present is 'Managing Decline', the RAF is a subset of that.

[Pontius Navigator]

Traditionally the VSO in the RAF were from the cohorts that had trained for 3 years as cadets. In 1990 they led an air force of over 100,000. Shortly after the numbers dropped to under 60,000 and the last of these cohorts will have retired a few years ago. The strength is now below 35,000.

The point is that the pool from which VSO are appointed has declined to third; admittedly the RAF 4* posts are now only CAS/CinC Air Command.

Will this impact on leadership capability, especially as the proportion of capable SNCO/JO/SO who chose to leave early is probably greater in relation to the strength now?

[Jackonicko]

Go back to 1990 about the time 'options for change' revealed the Blue print for the post cold war RAF, we had 30 operational squadrons, variously equipped with Tornado GR1, Tornado F3, F-4M Phantom II, F-4J Phantom II, Jaguar GR1A, Harrier GR3/5 and Buccaneer S2A/B. The TGR1s and Buccaneers were able to carry WE177s and the four Nimrod MR2 squadrons we also had could carry US mk 43 nuclear warheads. Oh how the mighty have fallen!

I think the 1990 orbat represented the final Cold Wat force structure - prior to cuts being imposed - rather than a deliberately scaled force structured to meet some considered Post Cold War blueprint.

You could argue that a sensible post Cold War restructuring would have scythed armour, and perhaps even the strategic 'Moscow-capable' deterrent, while leaving agile, deployable air power unscathed to meet the challenges of what would inevitably be a more unstable world. In my dreams, anyway!

But in the event the fast jet force was reduced, and it is the 2004 situation that seemed to represent a sensible post Cold War strength, nearly matching resources to sensible planning assumptions, and configured to meet that considered Post Cold War blueprint.

As you pointed out:

we had at that time; six Tornado F3 squadrons, seven Tornado GR4/4A squadrons, three Jaguar GR3/3A squadrons and three Harrier GR 7/7A squadrons. The orbat you mentioned from 2007 later that year lost the last Jaguar squadron and by end of July 2009 we were down to just a single Tornado F3 unit.

About 18 Fast Jet Squadrons would seem to me to be 'about right' to be able to do what the UK aspires to do - leaving a capability to do a Granby-sized op, or to sustain a 'Warden' and a Balkans simultaneously.

Personally I'd have kept an air launched deterrent - albeit with a 'nuke Storm Shadow' replacing a WE177-type weapon at some point around the Millennium. No. you might not be able to bring Armageddon to Moscow, and yes, you'd be vulnerable to a Russian first strike, but it would be enough to deter and enough to 'deserve' a seat at the top table. And Mr Corbyn and his ilk could have enjoyed the real reduction in nuclear capability, perhaps?

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

No, but we could flatten the German trenches, take out all their aircraft on the ground, take out their command headquarters and the Reichstag before 5 pm tea and sarnies. Whilst conducting an info ops campaign on their radio frequencies and deploy a huge field hospital delivering first class critical care.

It's not about numbers.

Doesn't that kind of assume that our German friends are just going to sit around eating sausage and drinking beer while we do all this?

What chance would our forces realistically have against a credible and determined adversary? Or to put it another way, what countries could we consider our equals in terms of fighting capability on neutral territory?

[esscee]

Look at the German Air force, only got 4 Typhoons it can offer to NATO, not much use.
What was the old reason for originally forming NATO, keep the Russians out and the Americans and the Germans in.
"sigh".

[VinRouge]

Doesn't that kind of assume that our German friends are just going to sit around eating sausage and drinking beer while we do all this?

What chance would our forces realistically have against a credible and determined adversary? Or to put it another way, what countries could we consider our equals in terms of fighting capability on neutral territory?

I suppose I will answer a question by asking a question. Never say never, but how feasible do you consider full-scale, single nation (no allies) state on state war these days?

I would say its pretty unlikely. Its worth pointing out the UK is exceptionally niche at what it does very well and those things are appreciated by our allies I suspect.

The OP was reminiscing about having 20,000 sopwith camels or something. Firstly, I dont see how those aircraft could be used in multiple roles. Secondly, the pensions bill for the maintainers and pilots at a 2 to one manning ratio alone would bankrupt the country. Finally, the glue and string wouldnt meet first contact post Haddon-Cave with the MAA. Far too flammable.

[melmothtw]

What was the old reason for originally forming NATO, keep the Russians out and the Americans and the Germans in.

Close. To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Or so the story goes...

[sharpend]

Oh for gods sake, you watched but didnt LISTEN. If you'd paid any attention you'd have learned that the ship is on her very initial sea trials and they were making sure she works, is fit for purpose and can safely embark an airwing. Thats why no fixed wing were embarked on this very early set of sea trials - identical in scope to every other aircraft carrier built in history.

Its akin to expecting a Typhoon fresh out of build at Warton to immediately fill up with munitions and go bomb somewhere without having had a test flight first.


Yes I did. We will see. At the end of it's sea trials (incidently some time ago) no aircraft were assigned to the ship. They still have not, nor do we have any. Not for a very long time. Read the news my friend. It was madness hastily giving away our Harriers (for twopence) before we had anything to replace them with. That was the Government wanted to make short term gains.

[Valiantone]

Sharpend

It (HMS QE) is STILL doing Sea Trials as and when, (its still effectively a prototype) and has yet to finish them. Which it will do once its been over the pond to conduct trials with the future aircraft that will fly off it later this year. By the way the first Sqn to operate off it has reformed and will be arriving in Norfolk sometime this summer.

Oh and Yes we do have them, 15 at the last count with 17 Sqn at Edwards which is the Test And Evaluation Sqn and the now reformed 617 Sqn do keep up with credible news items.

As for Harriers too late they have gone and ain't coming back. TTTFN

[Jimlad1]

QEC completed initial sea trials till late laat year to make sure the basics worked. She then did more troals woth about 8 helos embarked to esrablish RW operating limits and make sure she can support helo ops and other things like rough weather trials etc. Now they know this critical informatipn, she is doing a short upkeep period like all ships, then embarking jets in the summer.

its almost like the RN has over 100 years experience in trials needed to ensure a carrier is safe to embark and operate airceaft isnt it?

[Fareastdriver]

I hope that the QE's computers are better than yours.

[Treble one]

In 1918, the RAF inherited 22,000 aircraft. Has it been all downhill from there?

How many aircraft in today’s RAF?

Would their Airships be able to launch 100 frontline types today?

Don't forget I42 that there was an early post WWI SDSR which removed approx 90% of the newly formed RAF's aircraft from service.

Fortunately Trenchard and Churchill got together to keep the RAF as an independent fighting force...albeit with no money to spend....

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Look at the German Air force, only got 4 Typhoons it can offer to NATO, not much use.


Observing that adversaries may also be woefully unable to function reminds me of a Luftwaffe staff officer's diary entry in summer 1944 which, if memory serves, went along the lines of "Our only hope is that the chiefs of staff of the enemy air forces are as scatter-brained as ours"...didn't turn out well for the Germans...

[Valiantone]

This bit of the telegraph article was interesting....

All but 10 of the fighters are suffering from serious issues with their automated systems. Cooling fluid is leaking from sensors in the wings that are supposed to detect enemy aircraft, making the sensors unreliable.

The problem could be easily repaired, but engineers are unable to source the necessary parts because the manufacturer has gone out of business.

Really ?

[POBJOY]

Having a quick car wash this morning wondering why no Hawks in the sky, and then from the north came 'that unmistakeable sound' of a powerful machine at low level.
Seconds later a Tornado creamed overhead (full stores and tanks) going like a B O O H at about 300ft.
I immediately thought about this thread and what has been said. It was difficult to comprehend how long these machines have been in front line service and yet I got the feeling that here was a fighting machine with a capable crew that could still do the business, and looked the part. Much more impressive than a 100 year fly past.

[Buster15]

Having a quick car wash this morning wondering why no Hawks in the sky, and then from the north came 'that unmistakeable sound' of a powerful machine at low level.
Seconds later a Tornado creamed overhead (full stores and tanks) going like a B O O H at about 300ft.
I immediately thought about this thread and what has been said. It was difficult to comprehend how long these machines have been in front line service and yet I got the feeling that here was a fighting machine with a capable crew that could still do the business, and looked the part. Much more impressive than a 100 year fly past.

I fully agree with you and I have been saying that for a long time. Some of the responses pointed out that Tornado operation could not be sustained due to the severe manning shortages etc. Yes it is getting old but that is not the real issue as it is still extremely capable. Money is the real issue.
Unfortunately the decision to withdraw it from March next year is irreversible and we must hope that the Project Centurion Typhoon jets will give the same level of service for many years to come

[NutLoose]

Lets face it, we are screwed, we no longer have the capability to fight a sustained or even short war against anyone with an equivalent capability, its ok bombing the crap put of third world sh*tholes, but going up against a country that can shoot back, we wouldn't stand a chance.

[Buster15]

Lets face it, we are screwed, we no longer have the capability to fight a sustained or even short war against anyone with an equivalent capability, its ok bombing the crap put of third world sh*tholes, but going up against a country that can shoot back, we wouldn't stand a chance.

But....isn't that why we are spending all those billions on the F35???

[Bob Viking]

I’m sure the guys and girls would thank you for your vote of confidence.

Perhaps its it’s more likely that we have reached a situation of cascading mutually assured destruction.

We we all realise that there’s little point using nukes against people with nukes. It would seem equally futile nowadays to go up against a similarly equipped adversary in the air to air environment and probably in the ground environment as well, since it would always utilise the third dimension. I can’t speak for naval power but I could believe a similar scenario.

Perhaps, due to large multi national alliances the idea of a state vs state war is just far more unlikely than it ever was.

I’m not stupid enough to believe the planet will become a more peaceful place as time goes on (I’d say the exact opposite is true) but name me one country of a similar stature to ourselves that we could realistically see ourselves at war with on a 1 v 1 basis in the next 100 years.

BV

[Pontius Navigator]

BV, remember the various war options: wars of necessity and wars of choice. The Falklands was arguably the former though, as a n overseas territory we could have left them to their fate.

Kuwait, like Poland, was a war of moral choice.

Now which first world power might involve us in a war of necessity? Spain is a possibility as are Turkey or Greece over the SBAs. Of choice? A country with whom we have a mutual assistance treat, say one of the former colonies? We can discount Africa as they are not first world class opponents. We can also discount the Middle East which really leaves the Far East. Our commitment is probably the traditional Malaysian one with a threat from the North rather than the south.

In essence, apart from maintaining a policing role against Russia, the balance of our forces is probably adequate for the more likely different role in our areas of interest. What we have to hope is that our bluff isn't called.

[NutLoose]

But....isn't that why we are spending all those billions on the F35???


But we are not buying enough to equip two carriers and one well placed torpedo or sea skimming missile and those billions are forming the next reef for the local fish population. I take it you have seen what damage was inflicted upon the USS Cole by a bunch of Suicide bombers with intent to inflict damage on their target..hi tech no and pretty powerless to react to in a rush.

Bob I was just being realistic, how long would you give the UK forces in a modern war where the opposition had a roughly equal capability in assets? we have sold our souls to the devil and destroyed our capability to produce squat to replace losses, we just do not have the facility to ramp up production to replace losses anymore, look at the current RAF and how much is actually home produced.

Now which first world power might involve us in a war of necessity? Spain is a possibility as are Turkey or Greece over the SBAs

and who will be maintaining the F-35 engines for us??? Ohhh Turkey of course.

[India Four Two]

Don't forget I42 that there was an early post WWI SDSR which removed approx 90% of the newly formed RAF's aircraft from service.

Treble one,
Yes, I aware of that. My post was slightly tongue-in-cheek. However, if I compare the reduced size of the present day RAF with the RAF I remember from my UAS days in the 60s and if the trends continue, when does the government say “What’s the point?”

[Not_a_boffin]

But we are not buying enough to equip two carriers and one well placed torpedo or sea skimming missile and those billions are forming the next reef for the local fish population. I take it you have seen what damage was inflicted upon the USS Cole by a bunch of Suicide bombers with intent to inflict damage on their target..hi tech no and pretty powerless to react to in a rush.

I think we'll probably manage to equip two carriers when the full 138 have been bought. Unless someone does something daft on the variant choice.

I'd love to know where the idea that one well-placed torpedo or sea-skimmer being fatal comes from. Yes, the stationary and unfortunately unaware Cole got a hole blown in her, by a substantially larger blast warhead than you'd find in most missiles. Strangely that event (nearly 20 years ago now btw) triggered a sea-change in FP measures, which substantially reduces that threat.

You may be interested to know that the USN did a sinkex on one of their decommissioned carriers (ex-America) about a decade ago. The ship had been in reserve for several years, had no DC parties aboard and was therefore significantly less well-prepared to absorb damage than an operational ship would have been. They fired all sorts at her (and in her) and after some weeks of this, ended up having to scuttle her....

[gr4techie]

I think we'll probably manage to equip two carriers when the full 138 have been bought. Unless someone does something daft on the variant choice.

I'd love to know where the idea that one well-placed torpedo or sea-skimmer being fatal comes from. Yes, the stationary and unfortunately unaware Cole got a hole blown in her, by a substantially larger blast warhead than you'd find in most missiles. Strangely that event (nearly 20 years ago now btw) triggered a sea-change in FP measures, which substantially reduces that threat.

You may be interested to know that the USN did a sinkex on one of their decommissioned carriers (ex-America) about a decade ago. The ship had been in reserve for several years, had no DC parties aboard and was therefore significantly less well-prepared to absorb damage than an operational ship would have been. They fired all sorts at her (and in her) and after some weeks of this, ended up having to scuttle her....


Wasn't USS Cole put out of action by two guys with some C4 explosive in a small fishing boat

webkit-fake-url://343e3a51-3db5-4059-b20a-fa84502c7d3e/imagejpeg

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Wasn't USS Cole put out of action by two guys with some C4 explosive in a small fishing boat

webkit-fake-url://343e3a51-3db5-4059-b20a-fa84502c7d3e/imagejpeg

Your point being?

[Bob Viking]

Why do we (Brits that is) insist on beating ourselves up about such things?

I still maintain that, superpowers aside, there isn’t really anyone that we should really fear in a realistic sense. Putting aside who we class as allies currently (I know these things can be fickle) who would we fear? Germany? France? Spain? Italy? Brazil? Argentina?

You may say Turkey or Iran or Saudi but our new carriers which, despite what the naysayers would have you believe, will be an awesome capability and could happily project power far beyond our island.

Assuming our alliances hold I still don’t think we should fear anyone for a while yet.

I know I am an eternal ray of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy world but a military that has 7 frontline Sqns of Typhoons, 2-3 Sqns of F35, carriers, nukes, MPA, modern AT aircraft, 30-40000 (tel:30-40000) highly trained, well equipped fighting soldiers (I’m just talking teeth arms here) and the Red Arrows (cheeky one to see if you’re still paying attention) does not look too bad in comparison to most of our peers.

BV

[Buster15]

From my perspective, our politicians are either deluded or see the electorate as half wits; probably a mixture of both. I was watching the BBC news this morning and a Conservative politician was saying (nothing at all to do with the local elections by the way) that under the Conservative Party Great Britain has now the best defence capabilitiy in the world......
I am not sure what he was on but it cannot be legal.

[George K Lee]

It's a bit annoying when people like Bromund, who wear their academic credentials like medals, bewail the inadequacy of the money coming into defense and utterly ignore the inefficiency with which it has been spent.

A few weeks back I heard a political hack from a shipyard state outgassing about the desperate need for a 355-ship Navy and whingeing that sequestration had cost the Navy $4 billion in investment. How does that compare with the cost of the Little Crappy Ship? The whole Zumwalt misadventure? The overruns on one CVN?

As for UK air power, where would its strength stand today if the F-35 had arrived on schedule and on cost? The force would be six years past IOC, <80 aircraft in service and arriving at a rate of 12 per year. What if MRA4 had not been gooned up?

[tucumseh]

I strongly suspect someone has written a staff paper saying 'drones' will do it all within 15 years, and this has hit the desk of a beancounter who already has guidelines saying aircraft must exhibit a 40 year useful life - and he's submitted a GEMS suggestion.

[Jackonicko]

99 C HHow dare you inject reason and logic into the debate?!

Thankfully someone with much better knowledge than yourself (along with some examples of how many Hunters we had in 1957) will be along shortly to silence your inane ramblings.

BV

You're a witty chap, BV. But no-one is looking to return to a 1957-sized air force, and nor does anyone think that tossing eight dumb 1,000-lb bombs around is really going to cut it nowadays. But PGMs have been part of the scenery for most of this century, and their use has been routine (unless you're Russian). And a PGM-delivering air force in 2007 had five dedicated AD squadrons to sustainably do QRA and the Falklands, and about a dozen Tornado/Harrier/Jaguar units to do the deployed stuff, whether that was a Telic, or a simultaneous Herrick and Grapple.

​​​​​​​That doesn't seem unreasonable, does it?

Arguing for a 12-18 Squadron FJ force is arguing for an air force that is comparable with nations like Turkey, France and Italy - all of whom spend less on defence than we do. For an air force big enough to support a Granby-sized op. For an air force that can sustain more modest commitments without people becoming so disillusioned by the quality of life that they leave in droves.

[Treble one]

Treble one,
Yes, I aware of that. My post was slightly tongue-in-cheek. However, if I compare the reduced size of the present day RAF with the RAF I remember from my UAS days in the 60s and if the trends continue, when does the government say “What’s the point?”

My apologies I42. I guess that's 'Agile, Adaptable and Capable' for you. The RAF has some very state of the art kit. just not very much of it. Budgets eh?

[Finningley Boy]

How many GR1s lofting dumb 1000-pounders would have been needed to achieve the recent action in Syria?

This is quite an old argument now, does anyone actually sit down and calculate just how many GR4s are needed as compared with the number GR1s? Are the possible and probable scenarios where HM Forces could be deployed fed into a computer somewhere which then spits out an answer saying something like you'll manage with just x number of GR4s, just don't be careless and allow any to be shot down! Military assets and personnel are given the boot for one multi-facet reason.. Primarily to save money, the driver is the next facet; to secure expected votes by spending savings on other government departments. And of course, the government will always fend off criticism of some unsatisfactory state of affairs in the nation's defence arrangements by saying in a 'lets have no more of this nonsense' tone; We have the fourth/fifth largest blah blah blah budget in the whole wide world! So there!!

FB

[flighthappens]

It seems to me that the RAF is not resourced adequately to perform the tasks required by your political masters.

[Jackonicko]

…..large multi national alliances the idea of a state vs state war is just far more unlikely than it ever was.
I’m not stupid enough to believe the planet will become a more peaceful place as time goes on (I’d say the exact opposite is true) but name me one country of a similar stature to ourselves that we could realistically see ourselves at war with on a 1 v 1 basis in the next 100 years

BV, remember the various war options: wars of necessity and wars of choice. The Falklands was arguably the former though, as a n overseas territory we could have left them to their fate.

Kuwait, like Poland, was a war of moral choice.

Now which first world power might involve us in a war of necessity? Spain is a possibility as are Turkey or Greece over the SBAs. Of choice? A country with whom we have a mutual assistance treat, say one of the former colonies? We can discount Africa as they are not first world class opponents. We can also discount the Middle East which really leaves the Far East. Our commitment is probably the traditional Malaysian one with a threat from the North rather than the south.

In essence, apart from maintaining a policing role against Russia, the balance of our forces is probably adequate for the more likely different role in our areas of interest. What we have to hope is that our bluff isn't called.

Great posts, BV and PN. Good points well made.

But surely the point is that in today's World you don't get sufficient warning to reconfigure or grow your armed forces to meet a developing threat. Nor can you necessarily rely on being able to make only a small tokenistic contribution to a multinational coalition, or to rely overly on a particular ally. In the 1930s we had enough warning to train lots of people, build lots of kit, and to be ready (more or less) when war broke out - though arguably we had to let the Czechs and the Poles down while we completed our preparations.

How much warning would we get of a growth of isolationism in the US that would compel us to take on more of the burden of our own defence?

And remember that these threats emerge quickly and unpredictably.

In 1977, who could have predicted an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands?

In 1986, who was predicting that Saddam Hussein would march into Kuwait?

In 1998 who would have predicted 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan?

In 2008 who would have predicted the rise of Daesh?

You necessarily have to size and scale your armed forces not to meet predictable threats, but to be able to deal with the unpredictable-yet-conceivable. The old planning assumptions that sought to size the forces to 'do a Granby' or to undertake two smaller commitments simultaneously were not, in my view, unreasonable or unrealistic.

[Tengah Type]

We all know the RAF is not as good as it was " in my day ". I know it has gone downhill since 29 July 2012, because that was the day I retired!

Puts on kevlar helmet, takes tongue out of cheek and ducks!

How do you get the Smilies to work in this new site?

[Brian 48nav]

Tengah Type,

Wow! Did you really retire when you were 68?

[Fareastdriver]

How do you get the Smilies to work in this new site?

You have to go to 'Post Reply' instead of 'Quick Reply'.

[goudie]

In the early 60s I attended a lecture on ‘The Role of the RAF’. The Wng/Cmdr, giving the lecture started off by saying the RAF had 97 plans requiring possible RAF involvement. When the first invasion of Kuwait took place, the 98th plan was drawn up!

[MPN11]

Tengah Type,

Wow! Did you really retire when you were 68?
That exemplifies the Front Line overstretch ;)

[Tengah Type]

Fareastdriver.
Thanks for the steer on the smilies.https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon14.gif

Brian 48nav
Aged 68 yrs 6 months and two days to be exact. After 37 yrs Regular Service, I was lucky enough to be offered a post under the old Retired Officer scheme, and served just shy of 14yrs with a Reserve Commission. I was able to continue later, but thought it was time to go for " a proper job " rather than continue with my hobby. Enjoyed about 98% of it. https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif
MPN11
Frontline overstretch! You have obviously been looking at my trouser belt!https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon11.gif

[MPN11]

Trés bon, Tengah Type. I never had that sort of work ethic, which is why I walked from the RAF happily at 49y 9m after 29 fairly happy years ... clutching my Rediundancy cheque, of course!

A life of freedom and leisue awaited ... until I discovered Voluntary Work, which leaned toward a 7-day week until I quit again some 10 years later!,

[BEagle]

On the software test system today, I 'flew' a trail from Souda to Abu Dhabi, with 4 x receivers who joined at a down route RV point. During the first bracket one of the pods failed, so the trail continued single hose. Then during the second bracket, one of the receivers couldn't fill his external tanks. The software solved both snags very quickly indeed (a few seconds in each case) - but I thought at the time that in VC10K days, probably the only tanker nav who could have solved the problem as quickly was you, Tengah Type!

Software is great and I know that it doesn't crash hire cars or get itself banned from Atlanta :oh:, but somehow I doubt whether AAR trails are as much fun these days, without chaps with the vast amount of experience and knowledge as there once were...

[Onceapilot]

Something that just might concentrate the thoughts is, a military conflict where we have to put boots on the ground to fight for the ground, advance and hold the ground, against a relatively capable enemy in a hostile environment. It seems to me that the UK is now unable to achieve that in anything other than a very limited way. I think that there is a world of difference between thwacking the odd Toyota Landcruiser or, hitting a lightly hardened bunker/HAS capability and, the Tactical Nuke capability that we had with the WE177. I certainly feel that we should have the Tactical Nukes and, if we are going to have the ridiculous carriers, we should at least have the balls to deploy usable Nukes on them because otherwise, they are stealing a huge part of the budget for very little capability. :D

OAP

[Onceapilot]

Beags. Does that program have the ability to allow for: Live Notams, Wx, Tafs, Snowtams, Runway suitability, X-wind limits, fuel availability/suitability, crew qualifications, Day/Night, bar opening hours??

OAP

[racedo]

Something that just might concentrate the thoughts is, a military conflict where we have to put boots on the ground to fight for the ground, advance and hold the ground, against a relatively capable enemy in a hostile environment. It seems to me that the UK is now unable to achieve that in anything other than a very limited way. I think that there is a world of difference between thwacking the odd Toyota Landcruiser or, hitting a lightly hardened bunker/HAS capability and, the Tactical Nuke capability that we had with the WE177. I certainly feel that we should have the Tactical Nukes and, if we are going to have the ridiculous carriers, we should at least have the balls to deploy usable Nukes on them because otherwise, they are stealing a huge part of the budget for very little capability. :D

OAP

Fair point

Spoke with a friend restoring a MK1 Landrover yesterday and he remarked despite all the millions been spent on latest tehnology, we now see Syrian war where a pick up truck with weapons on the back (Technical from African wars) is now seen as a weapon of choice, manned by 2 people.
Speed, mobility, off road capability, comfort means that it is a big deal....................... going to war in latest spec with Air Con, Bluetooth, Sat Nav for $50k plus get 90mph easy.
Sure a tank will take care of it but 50 of them with Anti Tank weapons and it would even out.

Great firing from aircraft to hit one but at $250k a time plus everything to support the aircraft it starts to get expensive very quickly.

His biggest fear is someone adapts a technical for use in Western world.

[BEagle]

Onceapilot, the original plan can easily be updated for any late notice constraint from NOTAMs etc. But I would hope that, in this day and age, promulgation of such information (e.g. TAFs) is better than it was 15 years ago! Trying to get en-route TAFs for the AARC once almost meant ringing the flying club on my mobile phone and asking them to check met on-line (from the MetO), as the RAF system of fax and signal was working as well as ever....

If an abort aerodrome goes out of limits en-route, or an ATC re-route is directed, the mission plan can easily be recomputed by the operator. Rather more quickly than a trail I recall taking a fighter from Bermuda to the US, spending ages trying to find another abort aerodrome with acceptable weather, then waiting for the AARC (who was with us, fortunately) to replan the trail.

But technology is only a tool which should assist rather than dominate!

Neither does it have the wealth of route experience which mates like TenghaType used to have - such as how to get the best out of '10% Carlos' at Lajes….

[Tengah Type]

BEagle
Sounds like a normal Trail to me! Try a slightly more difficult one - Pair of Lightning 6s across the North Atlantic with one of they having Full Overwing tanks that will not feed. Max Range 880nm and En-route Diversion at 660nm+. This in the days when the Receiver Leader decided on the diversion. After this Critical Areas were invented. Oh, and just to make it interesting, using a Mercator Chart, so the "Piece of String" method did not work as I did not have any "Mercator String".

Atlanta brings back very fond memories, but I think the hire car was Buffed. https://www.pprune.org/images/icons/46.gif

[BEagle]

Bonjour, TT! Yes, the hire car was indeed 'Buffed' - he hated the fact that there was a photo in the sqn album shortly afterwards. But other AARCs were scarier - one with a wooden name frequently so. Driving from Punta Raisi to not-Mondello with him once, I remarked as we reached the hotel that I was rather concerned - he hadn't scared me once during the drive. But tradition was restored when he switched off the engine with the car still in gear and it bumped into the kerb...:rolleyes: Another tried a U-turn on the main road into Palermo in the rush hour...:eek:

The trail I described is the second training exercise for certain new tanker crews, so is quite basic as you suggest.

Critical areas and pieces of string - tell that to 't folk of today, eh? We've actually included a 'critical area' option in the software after hearing about an RAAF tanker crew which took some F-18s on a trans-Pacific trail with a segment beyond max diversion range.

Time for a glass of chilled pink soon?

I hope that trails are as entertaining these days as the ones we remember (rather more in your case, of course) - perhaps without the joys of Lightning T5s back from Akrotiri, or the Harrier GR3 'Sondi' out' plan from Goose though!

[Tengah Type]

BEagle
Unlike the old days of Trails across France having to be out of France by 0800 Local time, and hence having a Post Flight wind down, in Palermo, of Chilled Lambrusco at breakfast time, I think I will leave the Rose until this evening.
I remember the look of astonishment on the faces of the hotel guests when they opened their shutters in the morning and saw 30 people in flying suits partying by the pool.

[BEagle]

Tengah Type, no doubt these days such revelry would have been filmed by some ar$e with a smart phone and posted on YoofTube before the last of the Lambrusco had been polished off.....