Two services in ten years 'entirely plausible', says Sir Jock

[NURSE]

Obviously Euroforce don't want 1 of our armed services as if you read the Green paper much is made of closer EU cooperation/integration. Yet the premise at the start wants to expand our defence relationships.

[althenick]

First - lets have only one Army (sorry Rocks and Bootnecks); then only one naval service (bang goes the RLC Port Sqn etc) and only one air force (sorry FAA, AAC, JHC, RA UAV Regt, and the Royal Marine Air Wing or whatever they call themselves)

…Every so often a thread like this comes up saying “get rid of the RAF” or such. Usually what happens is all non RAF types cite operational and cost efficiencies. Pro-RAF will cite the same and usually continuity of air power doctrine.


Cost efficiencies can be achieved by common support and training systems which the military already have in place.
Operational efficiencies – well can someone tell me what is so efficient about an RN Frigate Captain having to signal CINCfleet who then in turn goes to the relevant Air Group in the RAF to get MPA Assistance? How many people does that involve? And if was so efficient then why was coastal command put under the direct control of the admiralty during WW2?
Air power doctrine would probably be maintained and indeed expanded upon as the other to air services will bring their own practices.

But despite the above I would still argue strongly for the retention of an independent air force for 1 reason only -

PEOPLE

Some RAF personnel are not motivated by going to sea for months at a time. Do this and these people will leave the service and also long term there will be a recruitment problem. Also if The RAF were to take over the FAA as some have suggested then at a conservative estimate I’d say 1 in 7 RAF personnel would have to serve at sea and both RAF and RN would end up with recruiting and retention problems. This would cost money – serious money, people are by far the most expensive asset that the military have, forget equipment its people.
When in 1918 the RNAS became the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air force. Squadron personnel consisted of 85% to 15% light to dark blue by 1921 in sea going squadrons that ratio had reversed – why do you suppose? At the time the admiralty could send a man to sea for up to 3 years, I’ll wager that it was the unpopularity of long stretches away from home, Not just Trenchard’s narrow minded views on seapower.
Some smaller countries that have only an Air Force still have flyers from the other two services.

RNLAF – Apache – Flown by Army Aircrew. Orions (when they had them) Flown and maintained jointly by RNLAF but with naval back seaters on board also seen as Naval assets
RDAF – Amalgamated all helicopter squadrons into the RDAF, except it didn’t work with the Navy, They still operate with naval air and ground crew
RNZN – Seasprites – operate 5 of them, come under No 6 Sqn RNZAF – operated by RNZN Aircrew and RNZAF ground crew.
Brazil – Used to have Air force personnel operating Trackers from their carriers but now all Carrier Air squadrons operated by the Navy.

Only 4 countries independent Air forces in the world that I know of operate naval aircraft. Oman, South Africa, and the Philippines, though I’m sure there are more.


Sorry for rambling on - I suppose what i'm trying to say is for the sake of recruitment and retention then lets keep all thre services plus their air wings. Why not place the equipment - whatever it is - where it will be most operationally and cost efficient to do so and try and preserve peoples asperations within their own service.

[skippedonce]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Althenick,
Interesting stat concerning the RNAS in 1918, considering that most of it at the time was land-based, as 'ship's aricraft' generally consisted of a single, single-seat fighter (Camel or Pup) towed on a lighter (read barge) behind a destroyer and the RN's first carrier (HMS Furious) was barely operational. The majority of land-based heavy bomber sqns were ex-RNAS along with a significant number of fighter sqns. Where the RFC had a monopoly was in Army Cooperation (the name's a bit of a giveaway) whcih the RNAS didn't do.

'Only 4 countries independent Air forces in the world that I know of operate naval aircraft. Oman, South Africa, and the Philippines, though I’m sure there are more.'

Okay, let us into the secret, what's the 4th that you know of.

Cheers,

SkippedOnce

[Gnd]

Is that SH to the land or AH to the Air? (think I know what will be said)

[163627]

Flexibility is the key.

As none of us (however exulted) has a crystal ball and thus is unable to see clearly into the future, the sensible strategy should surely be one of giving us maximum flexibility, the colour of the driver’s uniforms doesn’t matter. Therefore, we should be aiming for an air component that is not tied to concrete; the link below says it all, in particular the last two paragraphs.

www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-why.asp

I’m sure many will rubbish the concept saying we have no money but to those I say are all the emerging powers (China, India, and Brazil) wrong in their plans to join the carrier club? To stay in the game we need the right toys.

[vecvechookattack]

In that respect, would you ever think that the Future Commanding Officer of HMS Queen Elizabeth would be a Group Captain? Why not?

[Easy Street]

What about the following mix of senior officers to operate aboard HMS QE2? Following the current tradition, why have 1 when you could have 4?

1 x Commodore / Rear Admiral - Maritime component commander
1 x Captain (RN) - Carrier commander
1 x Air Cdre / AVM - Air component commander
1 x Gp Capt - Carrier air gp commander

[vecvechookattack]

No, No, no.....

You can't have a Group Capt in charge of the Air Group when the Carrier Group is commanded by a similar rank.... There has to be a willy waving contest her.... No, the Carrier Group has to be commanded by a Commodore.

[althenick]

Skippy,

I got the info from Antony Preston's book "Royal Navy of the 20th century" I would argue the point about single seater Aircraft as the reason for the 15% dark blue element was for Observers. I'd also say in those 3 years that much more air capable ships came into commission however I will check.

The FOURTH Air Force was going to be the Noggies but having Just seen their wedsite it appears that they are reorganising into a single defence force.

10/10 for spotting the mistake

Al

[althenick]

What about the following mix of senior officers to operate aboard HMS QE2? Following the current tradition, why have 1 when you could have 4?

1 x Commodore / Rear Admiral - Maritime component commander
1 x Captain (RN) - Carrier commander
1 x Air Cdre / AVM - Air component commander
1 x Gp Capt - Carrier air gp commander

An Aircraft carrier is essentially a floating air base right therefore logically the Captain of the carrier would be the same rank as a Base commander yes? then surely the senior man involved in air ops on the base would be subordonate to the base commander?

[Gnd]

How could the fleet have Air ranks if we end up with only the Army and Navy? Or is the original thread to put all land componants into the RAF?

[Tourist]

VVHA
"In that respect, would you ever think that the Future Commanding Officer of HMS Queen Elizabeth would be a Group Captain? Why not?"

Erm.....because the Captain of a ship has, ideally, some knowledge of how to drive a ship. And a Carrier is never someones first floating command, thus making it somewhat tricky to fit in the required experience for a Crab?

[Easy Street]

An Aircraft carrier is essentially a floating air base right therefore logically the Captain of the carrier would be the same rank as a Base commander yes? then surely the senior man involved in air ops on the base would be subordonate to the base commander?

Not necessarily. American bases are commanded by 2 colonels - one is the base commander, responsible for providing the infrastructure and support, and the other is the ops group commander, responsible for the flying units on the base. The base cdr is a blunty and the ops gp cdr is a fully current and combat-ready aviator. Neither is subordinate to the other as their spheres of responsibility are different. It seems that RAF stn cdrs are doing more admin and less flying these days, perhaps we could look at this way of doing it?

[vecvechookattack]

Erm.....because the Captain of a ship has, ideally, some knowledge of how to drive a ship. And a Carrier is never someones first floating command, thus making it somewhat tricky to fit in the required experience for a Crab?

Not at all. The Captain of a ship doesn't have to know how to drive it. he would have a team of Navigators for that...

The Captain of a Frigate / Destroyer is the Authorising Officer for the organic aircrafts flying and yet he isn't an aviator.

An Aircraft carrier is essentially a floating air base right therefore logically the Captain of the carrier would be the same rank as a Base commander yes? then surely the senior man involved in air ops on the base would be subordonate to the base commander?

The CVF isn't just a floating air base. its the lead ship of a Carrier Battle Group.

Such as this (Although, we will never be able to muster any where near that size of CBG.) Be aware that there will also be 2 or 3 vessels in that Group which you cannot see at the moment.

[SASless]

I cannot but wait to hear the wailing about Hat Badges and Red Trousers!

[Geehovah]

Therein lies the problem. The pic in the CBG above shows the current orbat of the Navy. We cant afford to field a CVF any more; nor can we field adequate ASW cover with 9 MPA