Good letter in the Telegraph
Thread Starter
Good letter in the Telegraph
Sir - I am sure that, as an RAF officer working in the MoD, I am not alone in noting the silence of our current Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Air Staff regarding defence expenditure, despite the concerns expressed publicly by the Chief of the General Staff and now the First Sea Lord in this most important of debates. With two of his service chiefs now publicly calling for an increase in defence spending, surely it is time for the head of our armed services, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, to give us his views ?
RAF personnel appreciate the difficulties faced by military officers in Whitehall. However, they and their families look to our Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, to express publicly, as well as in private, our concerns at this time of ever-reducing budgets.
Name and address supplied
Link is here
He has a point though - Army first, now the Navy - how much leadership does the RAF actually need?
RAF personnel appreciate the difficulties faced by military officers in Whitehall. However, they and their families look to our Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, to express publicly, as well as in private, our concerns at this time of ever-reducing budgets.
Name and address supplied
Link is here
He has a point though - Army first, now the Navy - how much leadership does the RAF actually need?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is even better
Sir - A radical solution to the problem of defence costs would be to remove the Royal Air Force as a separate organisation (report, February 17). The last time we had a possible need for a third force was before the Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrent from the RAF in 1979. Since then, the only war scenarios for which we have been preparing could be categorised as a land battle, commanded by a general, or a sea battle, commanded by an admiral.
Air assets committed to these would have passed out of the hands of the "light blue" chain, to be used by "dark blue" or "brown" as required.
If this seems like sacrilege, I have put the suggestion to three old friends, a wing commander and two squadron leaders, expecting an argument. To my surprise, they were largely in agreement. We had far more fun talking through the problem of what to do with the pieces.
My answer would be to give the Navy the lion's share. A natural synergy exists between the two blue services (they both find it easy to think globally) and Dartmouth is a first-class training establishment.
I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat.
We would be in a position to give the men on the ground the things they need and deserve, including top-quality weapons, armour, transport and good pay and conditions.
When should this happen? As it could take some time to implement fully, I suggest that the final date should be April 1, 2017. That would have a nice symmetry and would be an honourable end to a force in which I was proud to serve.
Sqn Ldr Peter Severn, Totnes, Devon
I know we've been round this particular buoy before (several times no doubt), but seeing as the author indicates to the general public (Telegraph readers presumably wash) that the middle ranking officer corps are in favour what do the rest of you think?
Air assets committed to these would have passed out of the hands of the "light blue" chain, to be used by "dark blue" or "brown" as required.
If this seems like sacrilege, I have put the suggestion to three old friends, a wing commander and two squadron leaders, expecting an argument. To my surprise, they were largely in agreement. We had far more fun talking through the problem of what to do with the pieces.
My answer would be to give the Navy the lion's share. A natural synergy exists between the two blue services (they both find it easy to think globally) and Dartmouth is a first-class training establishment.
I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat.
We would be in a position to give the men on the ground the things they need and deserve, including top-quality weapons, armour, transport and good pay and conditions.
When should this happen? As it could take some time to implement fully, I suggest that the final date should be April 1, 2017. That would have a nice symmetry and would be an honourable end to a force in which I was proud to serve.
Sqn Ldr Peter Severn, Totnes, Devon
I know we've been round this particular buoy before (several times no doubt), but seeing as the author indicates to the general public (Telegraph readers presumably wash) that the middle ranking officer corps are in favour what do the rest of you think?
Sounds like Peter Severn feels like he wasted his entire time in the RAF! (No ret'd after his name?) Anyone know what branch he was?
He shoots himself in the foot halfway through his letter:
"I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat."
errr......we could provide that capability with a unit that specialises in erm......airborne matters, errrrr... RAF maybe?
He and his bitter mates thought it a good idea so thats OK!
What an utter fool.
He shoots himself in the foot halfway through his letter:
"I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat."
errr......we could provide that capability with a unit that specialises in erm......airborne matters, errrrr... RAF maybe?
He and his bitter mates thought it a good idea so thats OK!
What an utter fool.
Not sure what is special about 1 Apr 2017, apart from it being the 99th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force. Perhaps Mr Severn (he doesn't deserve to use his rank) is a current or ex-member of the "Mr Whippy" squadron.
Sir - A radical solution to the problem of defence costs would be to remove the Royal Air Force as a separate organisation (report, February 17). The last time we had a possible need for a third force was before the Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrent from the RAF in 1979. Since then, the only war scenarios for which we have been preparing could be categorised as a land battle, commanded by a general, or a sea battle, commanded by an admiral.
Air assets committed to these would have passed out of the hands of the "light blue" chain, to be used by "dark blue" or "brown" as required.
If this seems like sacrilege
I have put the suggestion to three old friends, a wing commander and two squadron leaders
My answer would be to give the Navy the lion's share. A natural synergy exists between the two blue services (they both find it easy to think globally) and Dartmouth is a first-class training establishment.
I would also abandon plans for expensive submarine-launched nuclear weapons. An airborne system should be enough to deter any foreseeable threat.
We would be in a position to give the men on the ground the things they need and deserve, including top-quality weapons, armour, transport and good pay and conditions.
When should this happen? As it could take some time to implement fully, I suggest that the final date should be April 1, 2017. That would have a nice symmetry and would be an honourable end to a force in which I was proud to serve.
Do we really need another, "my Service is better than your Service" slanging match? Can we not agree that we all do a vital role, different to either of the other services, and we specialize in that role for a reason?
Lets also not forget that manpower cuts hurt, no matter who you remove there will be an impact. There's a powerful lot of blunty bashing going on in some areas of this board but look what happens when you remove TG17 staff. A quick glance at the JPA thread tells me that there's a lot of aircrew out there either leaving or intending to leave as a result of a pile of distractions that weren't there when they joined up. Could it be that these distractions were dealt with by the very people they were deriding only 10 months ago allowing them to get on with their primary task?
Last edited by Stuff; 20th Feb 2007 at 08:19. Reason: Spellin and those little apostrophe thingies
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All Bar One
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What utter tosh. Perhaps Mr Severn should consider why the nuke deterrent was passed from the air force to the navy in the first place (why submarine basing of the alert was preferred to air delivery).
I wonder what our army colleagues would think if all their air support was owned by the navy. IOf course, come the day of the Ball, they would be apportioned on the ATO (unless it is a litoral op and the Navy wants to keep them to support the booties) No p*ssing contest there then.
I wonder what our army colleagues would think if all their air support was owned by the navy. IOf course, come the day of the Ball, they would be apportioned on the ATO (unless it is a litoral op and the Navy wants to keep them to support the booties)
No p*ssing contest there then.
Isn't Severn's comment about the RN taking over the nuclear deterrent role about 10 years in error?
After Skybolt was binned in 1962, the UK went for SLBMs, with the Resolution class coming into service at the end of the decade. The deterrent role was assumed by the RN on 30 June 1969.
Oh - and it's a very naive letter, by the way!
After Skybolt was binned in 1962, the UK went for SLBMs, with the Resolution class coming into service at the end of the decade. The deterrent role was assumed by the RN on 30 June 1969.
Oh - and it's a very naive letter, by the way!
Gentleman Aviator
Anyone know what branch he was?
It may be that he was an acting sqn ldr who may have been allowed to retain his rank on retirement.............
.... to be fair the 1 Jul retirement date may support this possibility.As to not using "RAF Ret'd", it's not strictly necessary. In the absence of "RAF" after the name, retired status might be assumed. That said, it would be normal where confusion with a serving officer might be made for "RAF Ret'd" to be used.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shows a PJ Severn born in 1942 who retired 1 Jul 77 as a GD Flt Lt
As to CR's officer working in the MoD, do you think he got a bollocking for putting too many sugars in Sir Glen's tea?
Hmm
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly hope that this guy is having a laugh, not sure at who's expense, but as previously said - notwithstanding light blue bias - a particularly naive view.
Perhaps we do need a review to change our strategic structure - after all haven't had one for at least 6 months now.........
Perhaps we do need a review to change our strategic structure - after all haven't had one for at least 6 months now.........
More from the sage that is Peter Severn: Telegraph 2004:
"SIR - Little has been made of the beneficial effect that good intelligence and analysis can have on world peace. Knowledge of what the other fellow is up to both deters nasty surprises and helps to prevent disastrous misunderstanding.
During the Cold War, Nato and the famously paranoid Soviet Union exchanged details of military exercises so that a conflict might not get "hot" by misunderstanding. Today, the Open Skies treaties with our old Warsaw Pact opponents allows short-notice mutual surveillance overflights.
So if spies are peacemakers, what do we call those such as Clare Short, who would make their job more difficult?
Peter Severn, Totnes, Devon"
"SIR - Little has been made of the beneficial effect that good intelligence and analysis can have on world peace. Knowledge of what the other fellow is up to both deters nasty surprises and helps to prevent disastrous misunderstanding.
During the Cold War, Nato and the famously paranoid Soviet Union exchanged details of military exercises so that a conflict might not get "hot" by misunderstanding. Today, the Open Skies treaties with our old Warsaw Pact opponents allows short-notice mutual surveillance overflights.
So if spies are peacemakers, what do we call those such as Clare Short, who would make their job more difficult?
Peter Severn, Totnes, Devon"
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it does seem a ludicrous idea, there are one or two elements of sense in it. For example, Nimrod - why aren't they run by the RN? Would seem to make sense wouldn't it? Would be interested to hear (and I'm sure I will), why not...
If you went the whole hog and subsumed everything into the RN and Army, surely it would save a bag of cash and at the same time give what was the world's finest navy something useful to do.
Wannabee
If you went the whole hog and subsumed everything into the RN and Army, surely it would save a bag of cash and at the same time give what was the world's finest navy something useful to do.
Wannabee
For the purpose of the discussion, why should the RN operate Nimrod? Why not the Army?