Will the Tories Axe the RAF?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the Tories Axe the RAF?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not will they, it revolves around whether they have to.
Which would people prefer seriously, another 20p in the pound on tax or a single service?
We all have to make our sacrifices in this. The other civil sector agencies will all have to go through the same thing.
Am I happy about it? Like hell I am. But this is what happens when you vote in the Socialist for 3 years and allow them to wreck the economy, whilst we were blinded by cheap credit and booming house prices. Now its payback time I am afraid.
Which would people prefer seriously, another 20p in the pound on tax or a single service?
We all have to make our sacrifices in this. The other civil sector agencies will all have to go through the same thing.
Am I happy about it? Like hell I am. But this is what happens when you vote in the Socialist for 3 years and allow them to wreck the economy, whilst we were blinded by cheap credit and booming house prices. Now its payback time I am afraid.
Barking, absolutely barking. Has my namesake made a re-appearance??
If you abolish the RAF, unless you decide you are going to do without an attack / CAS, rotary/AT, maritime, ISTAR etc capability, then all these capabilities will have to be done by the modified FAA & AAC. So where do you make savings? You still need ac, crews, ground crews, infrastructure etc. On the financial basis alone, the argument doesn't stack up.
Furthermore, with the projected costs for replacing Trident, there could be a very good argument (financial / political rather than military) for re-structuring the nuclear deterrent and returning it to the RAF. Lets face it, when it comes to the nuclear deterrent, the Army don't get a look in. To project that sort of strategic power needs air or a maritime-derived capability. If the naval option is looking too expensive, then lets look at the air option. Getting rid of it in total just isn't a sensible option at the moment.
I would also have to question the sanity of giving air over to the army. They just don't get it - in the same way you wouldn't expect a flying sqn to 'get' the art of clearing a house or hand to hand fighting. Two examples of the danger of letting the army loose with air:
I remember talking to a FC who was telling me about Gulf 1 when the Army rolled out their MLRS and thought they could just let rip. They had no concept that they might need to coordinate, or the sort of damage that could be done by launching an MLRS battery through a COMAO. Then last summer I was working in Div HQ in Basrah. Discussing recce provision, for the coming days I was posed the deadly serious question: "RAPTOR - that's the one that hovers over the battlefield for 24 hrs".
Interesting to see that this argument hasn't been posted in any of the quality UK press. It's very easy for commentators to snipe from the sidelines of another country's press or online, but the fact that it isn't appearing anywhere else suggests it isn't a particularly credible argument.
This is nothing more than a divide and conquer scare story. Yet again, another attempt by the politicians and their Machiavellian sidekicks to get the Services to turn on themselves rather than standing united against those who have spent a decade destroying the country and those who would likely spend the next decade destroying what is left of the country.
Instead of destroying the defence of the country (the Army are so busy in Afghanistan, the Navy are too busy with their new toys - who is keeping an eye on the Russians every time they send a Bear round the Cape?) lets look at the real areas of inefficiency - ID cards, the NHS IT system, millions spent on foreign aid and useless left-wing social engineering policies to name but a few.
If you abolish the RAF, unless you decide you are going to do without an attack / CAS, rotary/AT, maritime, ISTAR etc capability, then all these capabilities will have to be done by the modified FAA & AAC. So where do you make savings? You still need ac, crews, ground crews, infrastructure etc. On the financial basis alone, the argument doesn't stack up.
Furthermore, with the projected costs for replacing Trident, there could be a very good argument (financial / political rather than military) for re-structuring the nuclear deterrent and returning it to the RAF. Lets face it, when it comes to the nuclear deterrent, the Army don't get a look in. To project that sort of strategic power needs air or a maritime-derived capability. If the naval option is looking too expensive, then lets look at the air option. Getting rid of it in total just isn't a sensible option at the moment.
I would also have to question the sanity of giving air over to the army. They just don't get it - in the same way you wouldn't expect a flying sqn to 'get' the art of clearing a house or hand to hand fighting. Two examples of the danger of letting the army loose with air:
I remember talking to a FC who was telling me about Gulf 1 when the Army rolled out their MLRS and thought they could just let rip. They had no concept that they might need to coordinate, or the sort of damage that could be done by launching an MLRS battery through a COMAO. Then last summer I was working in Div HQ in Basrah. Discussing recce provision, for the coming days I was posed the deadly serious question: "RAPTOR - that's the one that hovers over the battlefield for 24 hrs".
Interesting to see that this argument hasn't been posted in any of the quality UK press. It's very easy for commentators to snipe from the sidelines of another country's press or online, but the fact that it isn't appearing anywhere else suggests it isn't a particularly credible argument.
This is nothing more than a divide and conquer scare story. Yet again, another attempt by the politicians and their Machiavellian sidekicks to get the Services to turn on themselves rather than standing united against those who have spent a decade destroying the country and those who would likely spend the next decade destroying what is left of the country.
Instead of destroying the defence of the country (the Army are so busy in Afghanistan, the Navy are too busy with their new toys - who is keeping an eye on the Russians every time they send a Bear round the Cape?) lets look at the real areas of inefficiency - ID cards, the NHS IT system, millions spent on foreign aid and useless left-wing social engineering policies to name but a few.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of destroying the defence of the country (the Army are so busy in Afghanistan, the Navy are too busy with their new toys - who is keeping an eye on the Russians every time they send a Bear round the Cape?) lets look at the real areas of inefficiency - ID cards, the NHS IT system, millions spent on foreign aid and useless left-wing social engineering policies to name but a few.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst abolishing the RAF is probably not going to happen, the RAF have opened themselves up for some serious re-organisation by presiding over several high-profile procurement fiascos - eg Nimrod, Typhoon, Chinook Mk3 - which will be absorbing more funds for some time to come.
I can't find the source now, but I may be correct also in writing that the RAF are more top-heavy with senior officers than the other services.
I can't find the source now, but I may be correct also in writing that the RAF are more top-heavy with senior officers than the other services.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly hope not, although doing so may give the prospects for the CFV being completed a helping hand! more fleet capacity means more FAA aircraft (in theory) and more aircrew recruited which is always a good thing, (again in theory.)
We know cuts across the board are inevitable and it looks like the three serivces are going to have to share that burden, it never ceases to amaze me how quick the political spectrum changes.
Each party is now trying to jump in front of the queue to promise cuts! and accuse eachother of spending taxpayers money (how dare they)
We know cuts across the board are inevitable and it looks like the three serivces are going to have to share that burden, it never ceases to amaze me how quick the political spectrum changes.
Each party is now trying to jump in front of the queue to promise cuts! and accuse eachother of spending taxpayers money (how dare they)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CirrusF - I think you'll find that the Naval Service has more flag officers in total than the RAF has air officers (and for a smaller Service too).
Oh, and I'll think you'll also find that the procurement issues of which you speak all have the finger prints of others on them; for a long while now the RAF hasn't been responsible for the procurement of its equipment; that has been an 'all Defence' issue responsible through DCDS(Capability) directly to the Defence Management Board. While some light blue officers may be responsible for some parts of the process it is rather difficult to portray it all as an RAF cock-up!
I'm not defending the outcomes you understand - merely trying to make sure the cap is worn by those it fits
!
Oh, and I'll think you'll also find that the procurement issues of which you speak all have the finger prints of others on them; for a long while now the RAF hasn't been responsible for the procurement of its equipment; that has been an 'all Defence' issue responsible through DCDS(Capability) directly to the Defence Management Board. While some light blue officers may be responsible for some parts of the process it is rather difficult to portray it all as an RAF cock-up!
I'm not defending the outcomes you understand - merely trying to make sure the cap is worn by those it fits
!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When referring to the RAF most usually bring the Battle of Britain into the argument, quite rightly too. But it is worth remembering that SINCE WW2, all British Military air to air victories have been achieved by Fleet Air Arm aircraft flying from aircraft carriers. The RAF hasn't shot anything down since the forties! Also remember the RAF didn't show up until WW1 was nearly over (April Fools Day 1918), and was created by merging the Royal Naval Air Service (which had invented strategic Bombing) with the Royal Flying Corps. The impetus for this merger was the inability of both services to counter the German Zepplin raids, mainly because both services were preoccupied with the western front. So home air defence was the original mission of the RAF, not Strategic Bombing. All the Navy airmen who were behind Strategic bombing were absorbed into the RAF along with those who appreciated the need for shipboard aviation, which is why the Navy was short of 'air minded' officers between the wars.
Putting Naval Aviation in the hands of a land based Air Force with other priorities has been done three times in the last ninety years, always disastrously. The Navy got the Fleet Air Arm back in the late thirties, but the years under the RAF meant Carrier aircraft had lagged behind other nations naval air arms. The Japanese entered WW2 with the excellent Mitsubishi Zero, we had the Swordfish biplane! By the 60s we had the second most powerful Navy in the world with five strike carriers and two commando carriers, then an idiot in a government of idiots cancelled them and said the RAF could do the job cheaper. They couldn't do it at all, so the Invincible class and the Sea Harrier had to be bouht to retain air cover over the fleet.
In the last few years the Navy was forced to give up it's Sea Harriers because the RAF was having budget problems, leading to Joint Force Harrier, supposedly a 50/50 split of RAF/FAA manning. All sqns were supposed to rotate through Land ops and Carrier ops, but noticeably for the last four years our carrier decks have rarely seen any jets (unless they were USMC Harriers, Spanish Harriers or Italian Harriers!) This seems to be changing for the better now since the RAF's Tornado force has been sent out to the 'Stan at long last. In general if pilots and ground crew want to go to sea they join the FAA, those that don't gravitate to the RAF. That's a godd enough reason for the two air arms to exist separately. In the past, RAF aircrew who wanted to serve at sea could volunteer for a tour with the FAA, now they don't get a choice about sea service, they just grin and bear it. This leads to retention problems, and good aircrew are always in short supply. Also at this point, cutting the Carrier program won't save a penny, most of the money has been spent already and the penalty clauses against cancellation will mean it's actually cheaper to just build them! Without the Carriers, there is no Navy, the 1st Sea Lord understands this only too well and has fought tooth and nail to keep them. Cancellation will also mean an end to British Warship Building capability, as there is nothing else that can be ordered in their place to keep the yards open. Putting tens of thouseands of skilled shipyard workers on the dole helps the economy how exactly? It just puts an extra burden on the welfare budget. So cancellation is a major COST not saving.
Someone earlier posted 'Why do we need a Navy'. Let me educate you. Why would an Island nation 90% of whose trade travels by sea (and not just across the channel either) to all points around the globe and is utterly dependent on that trade for it's very survival need a Navy? If you think a 'Coastal Waters' defence policy would be OK then you have already surrendered to anyone, be they nation state or terrorist group who chooses to attack our Sea Lanes Of Communication (SLOC) You don't need U-Boats to do this either, planting bombs on merchant ships and sinking them mid ocean isn't a big challenge. I know from personal experience that UK port security is a sad joke, and the only reason they haven't been attacked is that the terror groups are as 'Sea Blind' as most people in this Island Nation. We have to be able to defend our supply lines first and foremost or we are finished.
So, the basic problem is not 'should we abolish one of the services' but 'we should acknowledge the importance of all the services and fund them accordingly', a message the Treasury is terrified of the British Public recieving!
Putting Naval Aviation in the hands of a land based Air Force with other priorities has been done three times in the last ninety years, always disastrously. The Navy got the Fleet Air Arm back in the late thirties, but the years under the RAF meant Carrier aircraft had lagged behind other nations naval air arms. The Japanese entered WW2 with the excellent Mitsubishi Zero, we had the Swordfish biplane! By the 60s we had the second most powerful Navy in the world with five strike carriers and two commando carriers, then an idiot in a government of idiots cancelled them and said the RAF could do the job cheaper. They couldn't do it at all, so the Invincible class and the Sea Harrier had to be bouht to retain air cover over the fleet.
In the last few years the Navy was forced to give up it's Sea Harriers because the RAF was having budget problems, leading to Joint Force Harrier, supposedly a 50/50 split of RAF/FAA manning. All sqns were supposed to rotate through Land ops and Carrier ops, but noticeably for the last four years our carrier decks have rarely seen any jets (unless they were USMC Harriers, Spanish Harriers or Italian Harriers!) This seems to be changing for the better now since the RAF's Tornado force has been sent out to the 'Stan at long last. In general if pilots and ground crew want to go to sea they join the FAA, those that don't gravitate to the RAF. That's a godd enough reason for the two air arms to exist separately. In the past, RAF aircrew who wanted to serve at sea could volunteer for a tour with the FAA, now they don't get a choice about sea service, they just grin and bear it. This leads to retention problems, and good aircrew are always in short supply. Also at this point, cutting the Carrier program won't save a penny, most of the money has been spent already and the penalty clauses against cancellation will mean it's actually cheaper to just build them! Without the Carriers, there is no Navy, the 1st Sea Lord understands this only too well and has fought tooth and nail to keep them. Cancellation will also mean an end to British Warship Building capability, as there is nothing else that can be ordered in their place to keep the yards open. Putting tens of thouseands of skilled shipyard workers on the dole helps the economy how exactly? It just puts an extra burden on the welfare budget. So cancellation is a major COST not saving.
Someone earlier posted 'Why do we need a Navy'. Let me educate you. Why would an Island nation 90% of whose trade travels by sea (and not just across the channel either) to all points around the globe and is utterly dependent on that trade for it's very survival need a Navy? If you think a 'Coastal Waters' defence policy would be OK then you have already surrendered to anyone, be they nation state or terrorist group who chooses to attack our Sea Lanes Of Communication (SLOC) You don't need U-Boats to do this either, planting bombs on merchant ships and sinking them mid ocean isn't a big challenge. I know from personal experience that UK port security is a sad joke, and the only reason they haven't been attacked is that the terror groups are as 'Sea Blind' as most people in this Island Nation. We have to be able to defend our supply lines first and foremost or we are finished.
So, the basic problem is not 'should we abolish one of the services' but 'we should acknowledge the importance of all the services and fund them accordingly', a message the Treasury is terrified of the British Public recieving!
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Whether it's just another piece of long range sniping by some disaffected journalist or not (his girlfriend was probably being porked by a fat Tornado Nav), the effective counter to this is for the RAF to establish its relevance in today's conflicts. By relevance, that means providing a demonstrable example of how the bulk of RAF funding is delivering a significant capability to the warfighters.
That's an easy enough exercise when looking at transport, support helicopters, dedicated CAS (Harrier) and the supporting infrastructure that goes with it. The logic falters somewhat when the 232 (or whatever is is today) Typhoons show up with the £32 billion price tag. However long and hard you argue about "future threats" and "Air Superiority', when you can't run the AT fleet without robbing museums, and can't you provide a software fix for a few very critical rotary assets because you don't have the money, that £32 billion starts to look like the biggest White Elephant in Christendom.
It doesn't have to be true, it only needs to provide the detractors with a foothold and suddenly the future of the RAF is open to debate.
Relevance is the only thing that matters.
That's an easy enough exercise when looking at transport, support helicopters, dedicated CAS (Harrier) and the supporting infrastructure that goes with it. The logic falters somewhat when the 232 (or whatever is is today) Typhoons show up with the £32 billion price tag. However long and hard you argue about "future threats" and "Air Superiority', when you can't run the AT fleet without robbing museums, and can't you provide a software fix for a few very critical rotary assets because you don't have the money, that £32 billion starts to look like the biggest White Elephant in Christendom.
It doesn't have to be true, it only needs to provide the detractors with a foothold and suddenly the future of the RAF is open to debate.
Relevance is the only thing that matters.
Well wouldn’t you know it?
More FAA and AAC centric bol.locks from the usual suspects.
First Brandnew, whose witless nonsense needs no response.
And then ObiWanRussell, who comes out with the usual RN PR spin
RAF owned fighters may not have done (stand fast those itching to leap in with the politically sensitive subject of kills in the Confrontation), but RAF fighter pilots have done so. Flying F-86s in Korea and your beloved SHars in the Falklands.
You may recall that the RAF hasn’t actually deployed fighters in most of the conflicts that resulted in kills. You can’t get a kill if you’re not there. Which is why SHar got no kills in Granby.
Like Trenchard, you mean? The father of bombing for strategic effect.
While I would not wish to diminish the work of officers like Marix in flying long range bombing missions against Zeppelin sheds in their Short 184s, to claim from this that Strategic bombing was a Navy game is a bit of a stretch, and ignores the pioneering (and rather more effective) work of Louis Strange and other RFC officers.
Yes, the RNAS ordered the 0/100 – but then used it first for recce, and later, rather ineffectively, as a bomber, while the RFC’s DH4s and FE2bs were more effective, if less headline-grabbing.
And the Independent Force was dominated by ex-RFC officers, and by RFC doctrine.
Oh yes, the parlous state of the FAA in 1939 was all the fault of the wicked RAF, and nothing to do with the funding priorities of the Sea Lords……
The RN put up withdrawal of the SHar as an option – a cut the Admirals were willing to bear. And they got more from JHF than was fair or sensible. You take an RAF Harrier Force that had never had a problem manning three squadrons with 12-16 aircraft and 18-20 pilots each (and with countless pilots on exchange, or on instructional tours) and an RN SHar force that struggled to man a pair of eight aircraft squadrons… (even with RAF exchange officers). What's the logical split? 75:25? 66:33? (The Navy might struggle with the latter.....)
No. You aim for a 50:50 split, and give the RN half of the senior posts and two of the four squadron numberplates.
The RAF had to get rid of people, while the Navy failed to meet its manning obligations. And then you blame the RAF for the ensuing mess!
Cancelling the carriers saves billions. It removes the immediate requirement for JSF, saving billions more. The Japanese are an island nation dependent on sea trade and exist without carriers and a blue water Navy, and so could we. And carrier air power is one of those ‘nice to have’ niche capabilities – and one that we haven’t actually NEEDED since 1982.
Two’s in,
It’s 180 Typhoons today, for a total cost of about £20 Bn including R&D. NOT £32 Bn. (Did you get that from that useless tw@t Page?).
That will give us enough aircraft for five squadrons – the bare number required for peacetime UK AD, QRA and Falklands commitments.
Mercifully, the British public are intelligent enough to see UK AD as a core role, and it will get more support than niche expeditionary capabilities that are so niche that they are of little or no use to current operations (yep, I mean carriers).
We need the RN to finally take its share of the pain. The other forces have been dramatically down-sized since the 1980s (the RAF’s FJ force is about one third of the size it was then, infantry battalions have been cutback similarly), yet the surface fleet is still about half the size it was, and yet is far less relevant.
I'd be rightly criticised if I exaggerated the extent by which the Navy should be cut back, or if I suggested that it should be run by a resurrected RAF Marine Branch, but actually, if you had to take a radical solution, cutting the Navy is more justifiable than cutting either of the other services.
We don’t need cavalry horses any more. I am not suggesting that nor do we need much more than a coastal defence Navy. But we should now let the Admirals finally take their fair share of the pain.
More FAA and AAC centric bol.locks from the usual suspects.
First Brandnew, whose witless nonsense needs no response.
And then ObiWanRussell, who comes out with the usual RN PR spin
“SINCE WW2, all British Military air to air victories have been achieved by Fleet Air Arm aircraft flying from aircraft carriers. The RAF hasn't shot anything down since the forties!”
You may recall that the RAF hasn’t actually deployed fighters in most of the conflicts that resulted in kills. You can’t get a kill if you’re not there. Which is why SHar got no kills in Granby.
“The Royal Naval Air Service (which had invented strategic Bombing)….”
“All the Navy airmen who were behind Strategic bombing were absorbed into the RAF….”
While I would not wish to diminish the work of officers like Marix in flying long range bombing missions against Zeppelin sheds in their Short 184s, to claim from this that Strategic bombing was a Navy game is a bit of a stretch, and ignores the pioneering (and rather more effective) work of Louis Strange and other RFC officers.
Yes, the RNAS ordered the 0/100 – but then used it first for recce, and later, rather ineffectively, as a bomber, while the RFC’s DH4s and FE2bs were more effective, if less headline-grabbing.
And the Independent Force was dominated by ex-RFC officers, and by RFC doctrine.
“Putting Naval Aviation in the hands of a land based Air Force with other priorities has been done three times in the last ninety years, always disastrously.”
“In the last few years the Navy was forced to give up it's Sea Harriers because the RAF was having budget problems, leading to Joint Force Harrier, supposedly a 50/50 split of RAF/FAA manning.”
No. You aim for a 50:50 split, and give the RN half of the senior posts and two of the four squadron numberplates.
The RAF had to get rid of people, while the Navy failed to meet its manning obligations. And then you blame the RAF for the ensuing mess!Cancelling the carriers saves billions. It removes the immediate requirement for JSF, saving billions more. The Japanese are an island nation dependent on sea trade and exist without carriers and a blue water Navy, and so could we. And carrier air power is one of those ‘nice to have’ niche capabilities – and one that we haven’t actually NEEDED since 1982.
Two’s in,
It’s 180 Typhoons today, for a total cost of about £20 Bn including R&D. NOT £32 Bn. (Did you get that from that useless tw@t Page?).
That will give us enough aircraft for five squadrons – the bare number required for peacetime UK AD, QRA and Falklands commitments.
Mercifully, the British public are intelligent enough to see UK AD as a core role, and it will get more support than niche expeditionary capabilities that are so niche that they are of little or no use to current operations (yep, I mean carriers).
We need the RN to finally take its share of the pain. The other forces have been dramatically down-sized since the 1980s (the RAF’s FJ force is about one third of the size it was then, infantry battalions have been cutback similarly), yet the surface fleet is still about half the size it was, and yet is far less relevant.
I'd be rightly criticised if I exaggerated the extent by which the Navy should be cut back, or if I suggested that it should be run by a resurrected RAF Marine Branch, but actually, if you had to take a radical solution, cutting the Navy is more justifiable than cutting either of the other services.
We don’t need cavalry horses any more. I am not suggesting that nor do we need much more than a coastal defence Navy. But we should now let the Admirals finally take their fair share of the pain.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my mind (a small thing) this thread portrays all that is wrong with the RAF. Petty bickering, sniping at the other two services, and a pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face. Will we be 'chopped'? Probably. Is it a good idea? An unquantifiable failure of defence is just that-unquantifiable. Until it's too late of course.
Unfortunately there are no votes in defence. As long as Joe public can carry on as normal and there is no tangible effect on their lives the government of the day will look to the MoD first. Unfortunately this will only prove to be a bad idea in the face of an attack (internal or external) at that point it will be too late. The real shame is that after decades of underfunding we couldn't defend ourselves against a concerted attack from another nation state anyway. The government must know this therefore what's more cuts to an already dying animal?
Unfortunately there are no votes in defence. As long as Joe public can carry on as normal and there is no tangible effect on their lives the government of the day will look to the MoD first. Unfortunately this will only prove to be a bad idea in the face of an attack (internal or external) at that point it will be too late. The real shame is that after decades of underfunding we couldn't defend ourselves against a concerted attack from another nation state anyway. The government must know this therefore what's more cuts to an already dying animal?
I don't think they will BUT they will axe certain programs.
I believe longer term the concept of having a Pilot actually flying a plane will become outdated as the cry will be for Aircraft / Drones that can do the same while being flown by someone at a desk in Milton Keynes or where ever they site it.
Of course the inherent weakness of this in that (correct me if wrong) is that IF you can shut down the Satellites / Up / Downlinks then you become blind very quickly.
Potentially the concept of outsourcing your military requirements may start to happen where a private company does all the work.
I believe longer term the concept of having a Pilot actually flying a plane will become outdated as the cry will be for Aircraft / Drones that can do the same while being flown by someone at a desk in Milton Keynes or where ever they site it.
Of course the inherent weakness of this in that (correct me if wrong) is that IF you can shut down the Satellites / Up / Downlinks then you become blind very quickly.
Potentially the concept of outsourcing your military requirements may start to happen where a private company does all the work.
An interesting question, indeed.
Assuming that the carriers come in at £4 Bn each (as is now looking likely), and assuming that we went ahead with the originally planned 150 aircraft JSF deal....
No-one's willing to say how much JSF will cost us, but looking at present US flyaway costs, you can safely assume that they'll be at least $100 m each, so that's $15 Bn (£9.2 Bn) for the jets. But that's only including a unit flyaway cost for each JSF, and so you must add a +Y
So the CVF and JSF come in at about £17 Bn +Y.
(If you can get two CVF and 150 JSF for £4 Bn, or £8 Bn then I'll take 'em, and I'll swallow every possible objection. That would be such good value for money that niche capability or not, I'd strongly support them. Alternatively, restore the RAF FJ fleet to a proper size (18-24 squadrons) and I'll support them even at £10-12 Bn).
Do you include R&D on Typhoon, or not? Do you take off the export earnings from the Saudi Typhoons?
Including R&D, and excluding any export earnings, the last official, NAO audited total cost of 232 Typhoons (more than we're getting) was £19.3 Bn.
Seven squadrons of Typhoon, or two carriers and four squadrons of JSF?
I know which seems to fill a core UK national defence requirement. Which is a 'must have'.
Assuming that the carriers come in at £4 Bn each (as is now looking likely), and assuming that we went ahead with the originally planned 150 aircraft JSF deal....
No-one's willing to say how much JSF will cost us, but looking at present US flyaway costs, you can safely assume that they'll be at least $100 m each, so that's $15 Bn (£9.2 Bn) for the jets. But that's only including a unit flyaway cost for each JSF, and so you must add a +Y
So the CVF and JSF come in at about £17 Bn +Y.
(If you can get two CVF and 150 JSF for £4 Bn, or £8 Bn then I'll take 'em, and I'll swallow every possible objection. That would be such good value for money that niche capability or not, I'd strongly support them. Alternatively, restore the RAF FJ fleet to a proper size (18-24 squadrons) and I'll support them even at £10-12 Bn).
Do you include R&D on Typhoon, or not? Do you take off the export earnings from the Saudi Typhoons?
Including R&D, and excluding any export earnings, the last official, NAO audited total cost of 232 Typhoons (more than we're getting) was £19.3 Bn.
Seven squadrons of Typhoon, or two carriers and four squadrons of JSF?
I know which seems to fill a core UK national defence requirement. Which is a 'must have'.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Whilst I don't believe getting rid of the RAF or any single service is the answer (though I think in truth what we will end up with in 20 or 30 years time is one defence force), the above argument is slightly at odds with what you are trying to say.
Such arguments might lead to a response of "so why do we need an RAF?"
also
Being an island nation, that'll be a strong Navy then... and force projection requires flat tops.
Your arguments are totally flat Jackonicko, the fact is we need expertise in all 3 services. Another fact is that the Air Force is probably the service that is the easiest to break up and share out to the Army, Navy and Marines.
By stating that fact, I am in now no way saying it should happen
You may recall that the RAF hasn’t actually deployed fighters in most of the conflicts that resulted in kills. You can’t get a kill if you’re not there
Such arguments might lead to a response of "so why do we need an RAF?"
also
I know which seems to fill a core UK national defence requirement. Which is a 'must have'.
Your arguments are totally flat Jackonicko, the fact is we need expertise in all 3 services. Another fact is that the Air Force is probably the service that is the easiest to break up and share out to the Army, Navy and Marines.
By stating that fact, I am in now no way saying it should happen
The cubs don't count?
But I was a sixer and everything.
You'll be poo-poohing my distinguished service in the Noddy club next. And my participation in the Abdhi and Ahmed Island League (BFBS kids thing in RAF Germany).
(I do have a rather militaristic cycling proficiency badge, and I'm a UAS-trained pilot, too, but I daresay that they won't count either.)
You're always so keen to point out my supposed lack of any qualifications to have an opinion, yet you're so gutless and coy when it comes to your own.
But I was a sixer and everything.
You'll be poo-poohing my distinguished service in the Noddy club next. And my participation in the Abdhi and Ahmed Island League (BFBS kids thing in RAF Germany).
(I do have a rather militaristic cycling proficiency badge, and I'm a UAS-trained pilot, too, but I daresay that they won't count either.)
You're always so keen to point out my supposed lack of any qualifications to have an opinion, yet you're so gutless and coy when it comes to your own.