Will the Tories Axe the RAF?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Barnsley
Age: 64
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers
If we put into service the 2 new CVF when they were first to go in to service in the Mid to late 70s, there is doubt that the Argys would have ever invaded the Falklands, saving:
250 dead, 1000 or so wounded, God knows how many poor souls have taken their lives since, plus 1000 Argy dead and a few thousand wounded.
Plus how much would we have saved year on year if we did not have to have the amount of forces down there.
I hope we get the Carriers and they are never used due to the fact they are deterrents, first and formost. Nobody not even the experts on here knows what round the corner.
Afghanistan is important but its not the be all and end all.
We need a Royal Navy, British Army and the Royal Air Force.
250 dead, 1000 or so wounded, God knows how many poor souls have taken their lives since, plus 1000 Argy dead and a few thousand wounded.
Plus how much would we have saved year on year if we did not have to have the amount of forces down there.
I hope we get the Carriers and they are never used due to the fact they are deterrents, first and formost. Nobody not even the experts on here knows what round the corner.
Afghanistan is important but its not the be all and end all.
We need a Royal Navy, British Army and the Royal Air Force.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Out West
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could save an awful lot of money by:
a. Having flt lts command flights.
b. Having sqn ldrs command squadrons.
c. Having wg cdrs commands wings (stations).
d. Having gp capts command groups.
e. Having air cdres command commands.
f. Having an AVM command the RAF.
What a saving in wages!
a. Having flt lts command flights.
b. Having sqn ldrs command squadrons.
c. Having wg cdrs commands wings (stations).
d. Having gp capts command groups.
e. Having air cdres command commands.
f. Having an AVM command the RAF.
What a saving in wages!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skua,
New CGS was also touting a few months ago that Afghanistan was a long-long job (which it is). Unfortunately the Brit public probably don't have the stomach for the long haul and his words are not being repeated by politicians from any party.
The new Defence Review needs to get to the bottom of what the next government really thinks Britain's place in the world is. The current shower of s*ite have spent a vast amount of money trying to be everything but succeeding at little. They haven't spent sufficient to maintain the high-end capabilities well and certainly didn't invest in the expeditionary capability before it was needed.
Do we want to sit here and defend ourselves in our little island and wave 2 fingers at everyone who wants us to participate in the next war - in which case, Typhoon, MRA4, Astute and (maybe) Trident are necessary - or do we just want to do expeditionary in which case big army, less combat air, more ISTAR is what we require. We probably can't afford both and irrespective of what CGS would like to do, the British public appear to have different priorities.
In answer to the original question - no chance of the next govt getting rid of any service. Just won't happen. Would need to be a manifesto pledge and would detract from everything else that they want to do.
New CGS was also touting a few months ago that Afghanistan was a long-long job (which it is). Unfortunately the Brit public probably don't have the stomach for the long haul and his words are not being repeated by politicians from any party.
The new Defence Review needs to get to the bottom of what the next government really thinks Britain's place in the world is. The current shower of s*ite have spent a vast amount of money trying to be everything but succeeding at little. They haven't spent sufficient to maintain the high-end capabilities well and certainly didn't invest in the expeditionary capability before it was needed.
Do we want to sit here and defend ourselves in our little island and wave 2 fingers at everyone who wants us to participate in the next war - in which case, Typhoon, MRA4, Astute and (maybe) Trident are necessary - or do we just want to do expeditionary in which case big army, less combat air, more ISTAR is what we require. We probably can't afford both and irrespective of what CGS would like to do, the British public appear to have different priorities.
In answer to the original question - no chance of the next govt getting rid of any service. Just won't happen. Would need to be a manifesto pledge and would detract from everything else that they want to do.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me, we need - and will always need - a credible Air Defence capability.
For me, that means as near to Air Supremacy in the skies over our soil and littoral zone as we can get.
Perhaps for that, the Typhoon is great - and if additional mission capability can be bolted on, then even better (at the right price). Any more airframes than those which we need for that role (inc spares) seems to be a luxury.
For power projection it makes sense to me to have fast air which can deploy off the boat and from rough field so that they can go anywhere that is needed.
If they have acres of pristine tarmac to jump off and on to, then that can only be for the better.
Obviously these beasts of war need to be truly multi / swing role so that one type can do lots.
PS - If they go for an EW / ECM F35, would it follow the USN Prowler & Growler convention and be called a "Howler"?
For me, that means as near to Air Supremacy in the skies over our soil and littoral zone as we can get.
Perhaps for that, the Typhoon is great - and if additional mission capability can be bolted on, then even better (at the right price). Any more airframes than those which we need for that role (inc spares) seems to be a luxury.
For power projection it makes sense to me to have fast air which can deploy off the boat and from rough field so that they can go anywhere that is needed.
If they have acres of pristine tarmac to jump off and on to, then that can only be for the better.
Obviously these beasts of war need to be truly multi / swing role so that one type can do lots.
PS - If they go for an EW / ECM F35, would it follow the USN Prowler & Growler convention and be called a "Howler"?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to put things in perspective.
In order to raise the cash necessary to cover last months' deficit alone, not including Interest on the outstanding debt, we would have to raised the fuel duty escalator by 15p a litre for a year. Alternatively, we could raise income tax across the board by 15p on the pound. We arent even paying off the debt yet and assumes current levels of pay, employment and consumption.
We need to face facts. There are going to be some savage, and I mean savage choices to make, whether we like it or not. Balls can gripe on about 2 billion cuts in education spending. Cable can stir up electoral rage with 0.5% annual tax on properties over 1 million. It isnt going to be enough, by half, by a tenth. They are going to hike everything, by pretty savage amounts. The other option being state default and a letter to the IMF, the penalty of which will be an enforced budet and hiked interest rates. They are also going to cut pretty savagely - I very much doubt promises on the NHS will remain extant with this FY's deficit likely to hit 225 billion this year alone, 50 billion more than the budgeted 175 billion amount. Trident, the cancellation of which, would currently cover just over 2 months' deficit, is a pipe dream that politically is desirable as a pair of boll*cks stapled to ones forehead. The pound is going to get trashed, they will have to continue printing QE to fund the horrendous amount of gilts that will need funding.
I think whatever happens, no matter how much it pains me to say this, we will be the lucky ones (other than my GP or local NHS surgeon). We WILL have to learn how to say "no" a lot more though, especially if cuts in resources, be they manpower or parts, lead to situations where we cannot maintain the safe operation of aircraft. Anything else will be a bonus. We need to survive as single services, I agree. But someone is going to need to decide what our long term aim is, and base spending priorities off that, capability cuts are most definately coming.
When Joe Shmoe in th the street is paying Ł1.60 a litre and getting hit with 35% tax on everything over a 10K salary, his tax credits has been cut and the number of overtime hours he can work due to a stalling economy is starting to hurt the family coffers, you can guarantee Defence spending will feature pretty low on the cabinet's spending priority list. It doesnt matter if it is right or wrong, thats where we are.
In order to raise the cash necessary to cover last months' deficit alone, not including Interest on the outstanding debt, we would have to raised the fuel duty escalator by 15p a litre for a year. Alternatively, we could raise income tax across the board by 15p on the pound. We arent even paying off the debt yet and assumes current levels of pay, employment and consumption.
We need to face facts. There are going to be some savage, and I mean savage choices to make, whether we like it or not. Balls can gripe on about 2 billion cuts in education spending. Cable can stir up electoral rage with 0.5% annual tax on properties over 1 million. It isnt going to be enough, by half, by a tenth. They are going to hike everything, by pretty savage amounts. The other option being state default and a letter to the IMF, the penalty of which will be an enforced budet and hiked interest rates. They are also going to cut pretty savagely - I very much doubt promises on the NHS will remain extant with this FY's deficit likely to hit 225 billion this year alone, 50 billion more than the budgeted 175 billion amount. Trident, the cancellation of which, would currently cover just over 2 months' deficit, is a pipe dream that politically is desirable as a pair of boll*cks stapled to ones forehead. The pound is going to get trashed, they will have to continue printing QE to fund the horrendous amount of gilts that will need funding.
I think whatever happens, no matter how much it pains me to say this, we will be the lucky ones (other than my GP or local NHS surgeon). We WILL have to learn how to say "no" a lot more though, especially if cuts in resources, be they manpower or parts, lead to situations where we cannot maintain the safe operation of aircraft. Anything else will be a bonus. We need to survive as single services, I agree. But someone is going to need to decide what our long term aim is, and base spending priorities off that, capability cuts are most definately coming.
When Joe Shmoe in th the street is paying Ł1.60 a litre and getting hit with 35% tax on everything over a 10K salary, his tax credits has been cut and the number of overtime hours he can work due to a stalling economy is starting to hurt the family coffers, you can guarantee Defence spending will feature pretty low on the cabinet's spending priority list. It doesnt matter if it is right or wrong, thats where we are.
Last edited by VinRouge; 21st Sep 2009 at 17:54.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Out West
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really need to pretend that Victoria is still on the throne and that we "own" half of the known world?
Are we still as rich as when we were a really competitive industrial nation and used the mineral wealth etc that came from our colonies and dependencies to ensure we stayed at the top of our power and influence?
Can we still afford to be one of the "world's policemen"?
Would it not be better to approach our situation realistically and accept that the past is the past?
So what if retrenching a bit (or a lot) may mean that we end up not keeping our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? It doesn't seem to have done countries like Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Holland, Japan, and Sweden etc a lot of harm.
In fact, maybe by not being a permanent member, there would be less expectation of what we could or should do around the world from other countries.
If we were not playing at "world's policeman", we would need far fewer armed forces which could then be focussed and specialised so they could become even better at their jobs than they are now.
If from the above, you have deduced that I think we should become more insular and more selfish about how we spend our national resources and wealth, then you would be right.
I expect a major haranguing for this post, but I believe that a realistic appraisal of our place in the world is long overdue.
I believe that we have some of the best armed forces in the world and I also believe that we are not doing any of them justice by trying to extend ourselves beyond reason or capability.
Are we still as rich as when we were a really competitive industrial nation and used the mineral wealth etc that came from our colonies and dependencies to ensure we stayed at the top of our power and influence?
Can we still afford to be one of the "world's policemen"?
Would it not be better to approach our situation realistically and accept that the past is the past?
So what if retrenching a bit (or a lot) may mean that we end up not keeping our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? It doesn't seem to have done countries like Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Holland, Japan, and Sweden etc a lot of harm.
In fact, maybe by not being a permanent member, there would be less expectation of what we could or should do around the world from other countries.
If we were not playing at "world's policeman", we would need far fewer armed forces which could then be focussed and specialised so they could become even better at their jobs than they are now.
If from the above, you have deduced that I think we should become more insular and more selfish about how we spend our national resources and wealth, then you would be right.
I expect a major haranguing for this post, but I believe that a realistic appraisal of our place in the world is long overdue.
I believe that we have some of the best armed forces in the world and I also believe that we are not doing any of them justice by trying to extend ourselves beyond reason or capability.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoons
Two points of information, please
Jackonico quoted that currently 180 Typhoons are to be purchased giving 5 Squadrons. I've no idea how many aircraft would be needed for conversion units but, being generous, that still leaves over 30 aircraft per squadron. Is this realistic?
Secondly, since the SH operate entirely or nearly so in support of the Army, could someone explain what is the point of having them operated by another service?
Jackonico quoted that currently 180 Typhoons are to be purchased giving 5 Squadrons. I've no idea how many aircraft would be needed for conversion units but, being generous, that still leaves over 30 aircraft per squadron. Is this realistic?
Secondly, since the SH operate entirely or nearly so in support of the Army, could someone explain what is the point of having them operated by another service?
Boslandew
No doubt someone with more specific knowledge can give you a more accurate answer, but in the interim consider these points:
I think the average RAF fighter Sqn has 12 aircraft, but I think they may be aiming for 16 per Typhoon Sqn. (60-80)
The OCU may well have 20+ airframes, and there is an OEU too. (20+)
Attrition. If the Typhoon fleet is to last 30 years, and on average you expect to lose 1, 1.5, 2 a year for that period then you need to buy 30, 45, 60 above your minimum requirement not to lose capability as you lose aircraft. (30-60?)
Not all airframes are "in use" by a Sqn/OCU at any one time, some are in deep maintenance, being upgraded, etc.
I believe there is an attempt to rotate aircraft around the fleet to spread the usage, so you don't get some aircraft with lots of hours on them, and some with very few...
No doubt someone can give you a better answer!
No doubt someone with more specific knowledge can give you a more accurate answer, but in the interim consider these points:
I think the average RAF fighter Sqn has 12 aircraft, but I think they may be aiming for 16 per Typhoon Sqn. (60-80)
The OCU may well have 20+ airframes, and there is an OEU too. (20+)
Attrition. If the Typhoon fleet is to last 30 years, and on average you expect to lose 1, 1.5, 2 a year for that period then you need to buy 30, 45, 60 above your minimum requirement not to lose capability as you lose aircraft. (30-60?)
Not all airframes are "in use" by a Sqn/OCU at any one time, some are in deep maintenance, being upgraded, etc.
I believe there is an attempt to rotate aircraft around the fleet to spread the usage, so you don't get some aircraft with lots of hours on them, and some with very few...
No doubt someone can give you a better answer!
In truth, no-one can tell you quite how the Typhoon figures for aircraft and squadrons add up, because neither is the planned number.
It should have been 232 aircraft for seven squadrons.
Seven squadrons for UK AD (then seven squadrons) and to replace the three squadrons of Jaguars.
232 aircraft for seven squadrons because you need:
137 frontline jets:
Seven squadrons with 15 aircraft each, (105 aircraft)
OCU with 24 aircraft
OEU with 4 aircraft
and four aircraft in the Falklands.
Nine further aircraft were categorised as in-use reserves (one per squadron, two with the OCU), and the remaining 84 were to have been rotated in and out of service to balance flying hours across the whole fleet and to serve as an attrition reserve. Plus two IPAs.
It should have been 232 aircraft for seven squadrons.
Seven squadrons for UK AD (then seven squadrons) and to replace the three squadrons of Jaguars.
232 aircraft for seven squadrons because you need:
137 frontline jets:
Seven squadrons with 15 aircraft each, (105 aircraft)
OCU with 24 aircraft
OEU with 4 aircraft
and four aircraft in the Falklands.
Nine further aircraft were categorised as in-use reserves (one per squadron, two with the OCU), and the remaining 84 were to have been rotated in and out of service to balance flying hours across the whole fleet and to serve as an attrition reserve. Plus two IPAs.
Secondly, since the SH operate entirely or nearly so in support of the Army, could someone explain what is the point of having them operated by another service?
Because the Army are not currently in a position to take over SH, and SH don't want to become Army.
The AAC have a great number of fine pilots, but not enough to replace the entire SH Force when they PVR. Then there is Engineers.........
A good idea, yet a little simplistic.
since the SH operate entirely or nearly so in support of the Army, could someone explain what is the point of having them operated by another service?
and because the core function of the RAF is air power. The RAF understands air (even when that 'air' is being used to support 'land') and prioritises it.
The Army Air Corps is not a core activity for the Army, is not understood, appreciated or prioritised by senior Army people outside the Corps, and is frequently mis-used.
Fortunately, with JFH, the strengths of the AAC and the RAF SH Force (and the Junglies) can be properly co-ordinated and well exploited.
Moreover, there will be times when helicopters may best be used in support of the RN (loading or unloading ships, perhaps) or of the RAF (moving fuel bladders, perhaps), and SH is best if tasked and controlled by a specialist organisation (eg JHF) rather than directly by Army commanders.
If it ain't broke.........
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me, we need - and will always need - a credible Air Defence capability.
For me, that means as near to Air Supremacy in the skies over our soil and littoral zone as we can get.
Perhaps for that, the Typhoon is great - and if additional mission capability can be bolted on, then even better (at the right price).
Suppose the RAF got all the Typhoons that it is requesting, complete with pilots and support people.
And suppose a time machine took all these Typhoon squadrons back to 1944-45.
How many V-2's/A-4's could the Typhoons successfully intercept?
Major incidents concerning the V2 onslaught on London include the bombing of Woolworth’s store in New Cross (November 1944, 160 Killed and 108 Injured); houses in Blackheath (November, 40 Killed and 60 Injured); Islington (MacKenzie Road, December, 68 Killed and 99 Injured); East Stepney (Hughes Mansions, March 1945,134 Killed and 49 Injured); Smithfield Market (March, 110 Killed and 123 Injured); Deptford (flats and houses, March 1945, 52 Killed and 32 Injured); Brentford (houses, March 1945, 30 Killed and 100 Injured).
108 Interesting Facts Pertaining to the German V1 and V2 Flying Bombs of World War II | Socyberty
For me, that means as near to Air Supremacy in the skies over our soil and littoral zone as we can get.
Perhaps for that, the Typhoon is great - and if additional mission capability can be bolted on, then even better (at the right price).
Suppose the RAF got all the Typhoons that it is requesting, complete with pilots and support people.
And suppose a time machine took all these Typhoon squadrons back to 1944-45.
How many V-2's/A-4's could the Typhoons successfully intercept?
Major incidents concerning the V2 onslaught on London include the bombing of Woolworth’s store in New Cross (November 1944, 160 Killed and 108 Injured); houses in Blackheath (November, 40 Killed and 60 Injured); Islington (MacKenzie Road, December, 68 Killed and 99 Injured); East Stepney (Hughes Mansions, March 1945,134 Killed and 49 Injured); Smithfield Market (March, 110 Killed and 123 Injured); Deptford (flats and houses, March 1945, 52 Killed and 32 Injured); Brentford (houses, March 1945, 30 Killed and 100 Injured).
108 Interesting Facts Pertaining to the German V1 and V2 Flying Bombs of World War II | Socyberty
From Racedo
Hell, what's a hundred ships among friends.
600-ship Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Say Jacko, once in your life time, hmm. Using whatever cost to benefit analysis tickles your fancy, how many times would you need to use them to put them on the ledger as an asset?
Wonder how many times a situation has been avoided because they were there. Kinda hard to factor that into an argument centered around finances rather than a macro view of the UK's strategic responsibilities.
RR was pee'd off at Maggie flogging everything when he was pushing his 500 ship navy concept
600-ship Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Say Jacko, once in your life time, hmm. Using whatever cost to benefit analysis tickles your fancy, how many times would you need to use them to put them on the ledger as an asset?
Wonder how many times a situation has been avoided because they were there. Kinda hard to factor that into an argument centered around finances rather than a macro view of the UK's strategic responsibilities.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH
MGD
It wasn't an idea, it was a question.
You have stated the current position but not the reason why it should be that way. Any transition, SH to the Army would be fraught with problems, (not really sure that the wishes of SH are relevant to the defence of the realm) but the end result, I submit, would be more effective.
Jackonico
I'm part persuaded by your argument for a JHF. Might I ask what percentage of its flying hours the SH use for RN/RAF resupply ie. other than support for the Army, 'cos I suspect it's a bit a a red herring?
I must dispute your implication that the RAF alone understands air. The Apache operation shows a real appreciation of the advantages of having attack pilots who have extensive experience of ground war fighting.
I have read little to support your assertion that senior Army people, lets call them Generals, do not understand and appreciate Army Air. Development and introduction of the Westland Apache with its quantum jump (for the AAC) in technology, skill-levels both flying and engineering and capability, let alone the colossal cost, suggests that the movers and shakers in the Army appreciate all too well what integral air-support offers.
Finally, may I make it clear that my view in no way implies any criticism of the SH crews in Afghanistan or elsewhere. They do a superb job, day after day, with little of the much deserved publicity given to the ground troops.
It wasn't an idea, it was a question.
You have stated the current position but not the reason why it should be that way. Any transition, SH to the Army would be fraught with problems, (not really sure that the wishes of SH are relevant to the defence of the realm) but the end result, I submit, would be more effective.
Jackonico
I'm part persuaded by your argument for a JHF. Might I ask what percentage of its flying hours the SH use for RN/RAF resupply ie. other than support for the Army, 'cos I suspect it's a bit a a red herring?
I must dispute your implication that the RAF alone understands air. The Apache operation shows a real appreciation of the advantages of having attack pilots who have extensive experience of ground war fighting.
I have read little to support your assertion that senior Army people, lets call them Generals, do not understand and appreciate Army Air. Development and introduction of the Westland Apache with its quantum jump (for the AAC) in technology, skill-levels both flying and engineering and capability, let alone the colossal cost, suggests that the movers and shakers in the Army appreciate all too well what integral air-support offers.
Finally, may I make it clear that my view in no way implies any criticism of the SH crews in Afghanistan or elsewhere. They do a superb job, day after day, with little of the much deserved publicity given to the ground troops.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst many here have made some valid arguments, I fail to see how axeing an entire service, or handing one fleet of assets over to another service, will solve the problem - lack of funds.
If you wish to retain the same level of capability, you will need to retain the same levels of equipment and personnel, surely? So please explain exactly how taking an entire unit, or fleet, and simply changing the colour of their uniforms, is going to save anything? It will, in fact, cost money in the short term - which kind of defeats the entire object!
If you wish to retain the same level of capability, you will need to retain the same levels of equipment and personnel, surely? So please explain exactly how taking an entire unit, or fleet, and simply changing the colour of their uniforms, is going to save anything? It will, in fact, cost money in the short term - which kind of defeats the entire object!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH
Inquisitor
I suspect you've hit the real nail on the head. However, my question wasn't simply about cost even though that will inevitably, in these straitened times, be the decider.
My experience of Inter-service working, back in the 70's in Hong Kong and NI was not encouraging. However, that was a long time ago and no doubt things have changed. Perhaps someone could confirm that?
I can appreciate the cost and problems involved in making the change. I still believe that the end result would be far more effective with integrated planning, training, engineering, command, communication and operation. And a reduction in overall manning levels.
Meanwhile, back to my Horlicks.
I suspect you've hit the real nail on the head. However, my question wasn't simply about cost even though that will inevitably, in these straitened times, be the decider.
My experience of Inter-service working, back in the 70's in Hong Kong and NI was not encouraging. However, that was a long time ago and no doubt things have changed. Perhaps someone could confirm that?
I can appreciate the cost and problems involved in making the change. I still believe that the end result would be far more effective with integrated planning, training, engineering, command, communication and operation. And a reduction in overall manning levels.
Meanwhile, back to my Horlicks.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kinda hard to factor that into an argument centered around finances rather than a macro view of the UK's strategic responsibilities.
a) Defence of the Realm, including off-shore dependencies?
b) Assisting the US in spreading the religion of Democracy?
c) Just simply Saving The World?
Like a very large number of the electorate, I'm with Ace Brave on this one (obviously).