The Enemy within
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark,
I think I avoided any such claim, indeed I accepted fully the need to keep organic air assets with their rightful owners. However, we cannot afford many organic systems and the assets that should remain independent are those that can be employed widely and, therefore, need to be controlled centrally by an airman (note I did not say by the RAF).
As for recent history you have to go back to the demise of the Sea Harrier to see where the trouble began. I would suggest that the RN’s actions and recent priorities have been the preservation of the carriers rather than the aircraft or aircrew that fly from them; this is even more true now as the RN have now mortgaged their surface fleet totally to protect QE & PoW. The fixed wing element of the FAA are as much a part of the RAF’s combat power as their RAF brothers and sisters. Apart from the hairstyles and the rank tabs there is nothing to tell 800 NAS apart from 1(F) Sqn in what and how they deliver. A quick glance at the hierarchy of the RN would suggest that they are not as valued as their more traditional sea going sailors, with SO1 the traditional ceiling in rank (higher appointments seem to be the preserve of rotary aircrew). I think that as we can no longer afford the luxury of small niche force structures the fixed wing element of the FAA is too small and fragile to survive easily. Even now the FAA cannot meet the 50% requirement of the now reduced JFH fleet.
The “if it files it must be RAF” was a single quote from a very long interview; it was convenient for those who had designs on the RAF to blow it out of proportion, which they did. The assets you cite, AH, and RN rotary aviation should remain firmly where they are, quite rightly. However, I do believe that this is less the case for other assets. Moreover, ownership should be about who understands it best not just who uses it – only an intelligent and capable JHC stands between the Army and potential mismanagement of the SH Force.
The forthcoming decisions on the Harrier Force will be about costs and taking risk, not removing the FAA; the most recent cuts to JFH saw only RAF cockpits lost, not RN, so claims that it was about the removal of the FAA are false. There will still be plans to ensure that the FAA crews can still take their place on the JCA ac once they come on line. As for removal from Afghanistan that was done because the Force had eroded all its high end skill sets (including embarked capability) and safety was in danger of being compromised (read the KAF accident report of the final Harrier crash). The subsequent FE@R reduction from Harrier was the most cost effective because it allowed the closure of a base, something that could not be done with GR4 without cutting capability deeper. I am afraid I am no expert on Jetstreams!
Like you with the RAF, I am a huge fan of the RN; their skills and capability are still world class, although somewhat hindered, like all of us, by a lack of resources and kit. As a result, we need to focus on what we do best and learn to work closer together and trust each other more. That will take time, but we must learn quickly if we are not to let this review divide and conquer us. Our inferiority complex is borne from constant attack (show me an airman who has called for the abolition of the Army or the RN?), stop those and you will find us the most loyal and trusted friends.
Two’s In,
As I stated the so-called fast jet focussed High Wycombe is fighting a sustained attack on those very assets, hence the skewed debate. Just take a look at the key seniors and you will see a better balance than has been the case for a long time. I know this is a rumour network, but any belief that the RAF will cast out anything to save fast jets is untrue and unfounded. If you read any of CAS’ speeches you will see that he argues for a balanced air force that possesses a broad mix of capabilities. He has also kept wise counsel whilst others (mostly retired admittedly) have made sweeping, scandalous statements which do us all harm.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, this is about our Country and its Defence capability, all single service agendas need to be kept in check if the debate is to be rational and the outcome sensible.
I think I avoided any such claim, indeed I accepted fully the need to keep organic air assets with their rightful owners. However, we cannot afford many organic systems and the assets that should remain independent are those that can be employed widely and, therefore, need to be controlled centrally by an airman (note I did not say by the RAF).
As for recent history you have to go back to the demise of the Sea Harrier to see where the trouble began. I would suggest that the RN’s actions and recent priorities have been the preservation of the carriers rather than the aircraft or aircrew that fly from them; this is even more true now as the RN have now mortgaged their surface fleet totally to protect QE & PoW. The fixed wing element of the FAA are as much a part of the RAF’s combat power as their RAF brothers and sisters. Apart from the hairstyles and the rank tabs there is nothing to tell 800 NAS apart from 1(F) Sqn in what and how they deliver. A quick glance at the hierarchy of the RN would suggest that they are not as valued as their more traditional sea going sailors, with SO1 the traditional ceiling in rank (higher appointments seem to be the preserve of rotary aircrew). I think that as we can no longer afford the luxury of small niche force structures the fixed wing element of the FAA is too small and fragile to survive easily. Even now the FAA cannot meet the 50% requirement of the now reduced JFH fleet.
The “if it files it must be RAF” was a single quote from a very long interview; it was convenient for those who had designs on the RAF to blow it out of proportion, which they did. The assets you cite, AH, and RN rotary aviation should remain firmly where they are, quite rightly. However, I do believe that this is less the case for other assets. Moreover, ownership should be about who understands it best not just who uses it – only an intelligent and capable JHC stands between the Army and potential mismanagement of the SH Force.
The forthcoming decisions on the Harrier Force will be about costs and taking risk, not removing the FAA; the most recent cuts to JFH saw only RAF cockpits lost, not RN, so claims that it was about the removal of the FAA are false. There will still be plans to ensure that the FAA crews can still take their place on the JCA ac once they come on line. As for removal from Afghanistan that was done because the Force had eroded all its high end skill sets (including embarked capability) and safety was in danger of being compromised (read the KAF accident report of the final Harrier crash). The subsequent FE@R reduction from Harrier was the most cost effective because it allowed the closure of a base, something that could not be done with GR4 without cutting capability deeper. I am afraid I am no expert on Jetstreams!
Like you with the RAF, I am a huge fan of the RN; their skills and capability are still world class, although somewhat hindered, like all of us, by a lack of resources and kit. As a result, we need to focus on what we do best and learn to work closer together and trust each other more. That will take time, but we must learn quickly if we are not to let this review divide and conquer us. Our inferiority complex is borne from constant attack (show me an airman who has called for the abolition of the Army or the RN?), stop those and you will find us the most loyal and trusted friends.
Two’s In,
As I stated the so-called fast jet focussed High Wycombe is fighting a sustained attack on those very assets, hence the skewed debate. Just take a look at the key seniors and you will see a better balance than has been the case for a long time. I know this is a rumour network, but any belief that the RAF will cast out anything to save fast jets is untrue and unfounded. If you read any of CAS’ speeches you will see that he argues for a balanced air force that possesses a broad mix of capabilities. He has also kept wise counsel whilst others (mostly retired admittedly) have made sweeping, scandalous statements which do us all harm.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, this is about our Country and its Defence capability, all single service agendas need to be kept in check if the debate is to be rational and the outcome sensible.
Champagne anyone...?
Whilst the coalition "excuse" can be seen as something of a cop out you do have to realistically consider who it is we will be going up against on our own and why. thebword suggests:
This is of course true and demonstrates the flexibility of air power but are we really going to configure our military to be able to take on someone like Iran on the off chance we get cross with them but no-one else does? Yes, our slack handful of GR4s could flash off across the border in very short order but I'd suggest it would be a brief and inglorious sortie without the full weight of the USA behind us. The UK has long passed on the mantle of unelected World Policeman to the USA and it would have to be a very peculiar set of circumstances that would lead to us loading up the bombers to take on some "rogue state" single-handedly.
Perhaps I lack suitable foresight, am too much of a realist or simply haven't read enough Tom Clancy but I do struggle to see a situation arising that would either require us to vigorously defend our borders alone or see us air-landing main battle tanks into a capital city we've just captured. Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Kosovo, Telic and Herrick were all coalition adventures and set the trend for future coalition warfare. Coalition campaigns are about bringing international unity of purpose to bear on a state or government that the world at large is generally hacked off with. The government can express their support for the cause by sending 1 platoon or one 1 battlegroup - with the USA involved (as they invariably are) it genuinely doesn't matter. Unlike your cartoon The B Word, coalition ops aren't analogous to "disorganised" crime. Gulf War 1 was a swift venture to clear out an invader from a friendly nation. All the key players were united in that aim and the war proceeded to rapidly achieve it's stated aims. The "disorganisation" comes when you insist on hanging about afterwards and the coalition members start poking off, happy that they've achieved what they came for. That's where politics and governmental direction should step in....
On our own then I'd foresee us operating against either failed states/rebels in a former colony or going to the aid of a former colony against an external aggressor. I'd suggest it'll be a long time before we go rolling into another Iraq/Afghanistan again so these scenarios (along with home defence) post-Afghanistan should be our focus. The result is, again, a lightweight but well equipped portable and projectable force. For the RAF this sees a force (forgive the specifics) of multi-role FJ (Typhoon) with modern AAR support (FSTA) and AWACs overwatch (E3D). To maintain an organic ISTAR picture, assets such as the Sentinel & the R1 are key players along with our Reaper/Predator. Your rapid airland/para/airdrop/SF support comes from your TacAT platform (C130J/A400) with C17 providing the heavyweight and rapid airlift. Chinook provides your battlefield rotary support. FJ, rotary and AAR/AT are obviously all key elements of a balanced force structure and only a fool would suggest we denude ourselves of one to bolster another.
Assuming that's the basis for your force structure then the question really becomes one of size within a defined budget. If the Typhoon truly is multi-role then expand that fleet and we operate as a single type with Sqn sub-specialisations. Where does JSF fit in? In the RN on their carrier perhaps but in the RAF? I'm not seeing it frankly. AAR from FSTA with a pax/cargo capability on top is a key enabler but, as other posters have alluded, we have no need for a an RAF internal "airline". Once civilian contract airlines start fitting DAS to their aircraft the justification for us maintaining our own airline evaporates. Our E3 fleet is about twice the size of that of France. Strictly necessary? No. Can we incorporate more sensor suites into it to reduce reliance on other types (R1/RIVET JOINT etc) or do we reduce the fleet down to a sensible size? For the rotary world, can we justify £300M on upgrading the creaking Puma fleet? One could go on.
As the last couple of posters have noted however, it is our internal machinations and "empire-building" that truly threaten us. Perhaps JSF is super important for our future force structure but then so is owning a Aston Martin to my future lifestyle structure. If we can't afford it then we can't afford it. I am just disheartened that we all know that the RAF hierarchy will rip the RAF to pieces just to make it "affordable".
Our aircraft in Afghanistan could very quickly be retasked to meet another threat (not a million miles away) in very quick time and without skipping a beat.
Perhaps I lack suitable foresight, am too much of a realist or simply haven't read enough Tom Clancy but I do struggle to see a situation arising that would either require us to vigorously defend our borders alone or see us air-landing main battle tanks into a capital city we've just captured. Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Kosovo, Telic and Herrick were all coalition adventures and set the trend for future coalition warfare. Coalition campaigns are about bringing international unity of purpose to bear on a state or government that the world at large is generally hacked off with. The government can express their support for the cause by sending 1 platoon or one 1 battlegroup - with the USA involved (as they invariably are) it genuinely doesn't matter. Unlike your cartoon The B Word, coalition ops aren't analogous to "disorganised" crime. Gulf War 1 was a swift venture to clear out an invader from a friendly nation. All the key players were united in that aim and the war proceeded to rapidly achieve it's stated aims. The "disorganisation" comes when you insist on hanging about afterwards and the coalition members start poking off, happy that they've achieved what they came for. That's where politics and governmental direction should step in....
On our own then I'd foresee us operating against either failed states/rebels in a former colony or going to the aid of a former colony against an external aggressor. I'd suggest it'll be a long time before we go rolling into another Iraq/Afghanistan again so these scenarios (along with home defence) post-Afghanistan should be our focus. The result is, again, a lightweight but well equipped portable and projectable force. For the RAF this sees a force (forgive the specifics) of multi-role FJ (Typhoon) with modern AAR support (FSTA) and AWACs overwatch (E3D). To maintain an organic ISTAR picture, assets such as the Sentinel & the R1 are key players along with our Reaper/Predator. Your rapid airland/para/airdrop/SF support comes from your TacAT platform (C130J/A400) with C17 providing the heavyweight and rapid airlift. Chinook provides your battlefield rotary support. FJ, rotary and AAR/AT are obviously all key elements of a balanced force structure and only a fool would suggest we denude ourselves of one to bolster another.
Assuming that's the basis for your force structure then the question really becomes one of size within a defined budget. If the Typhoon truly is multi-role then expand that fleet and we operate as a single type with Sqn sub-specialisations. Where does JSF fit in? In the RN on their carrier perhaps but in the RAF? I'm not seeing it frankly. AAR from FSTA with a pax/cargo capability on top is a key enabler but, as other posters have alluded, we have no need for a an RAF internal "airline". Once civilian contract airlines start fitting DAS to their aircraft the justification for us maintaining our own airline evaporates. Our E3 fleet is about twice the size of that of France. Strictly necessary? No. Can we incorporate more sensor suites into it to reduce reliance on other types (R1/RIVET JOINT etc) or do we reduce the fleet down to a sensible size? For the rotary world, can we justify £300M on upgrading the creaking Puma fleet? One could go on.
As the last couple of posters have noted however, it is our internal machinations and "empire-building" that truly threaten us. Perhaps JSF is super important for our future force structure but then so is owning a Aston Martin to my future lifestyle structure. If we can't afford it then we can't afford it. I am just disheartened that we all know that the RAF hierarchy will rip the RAF to pieces just to make it "affordable".
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thebword:
You set out to defend the RAF from absorption into the other services. I agree with you on this. However you also state some way down:
…A luxury the UK cannot afford as we have insufficient resources to give each of the RN or Army its own private air force.
I have answered your points as raised in the defence of the AAC & FAA:
I am extremely disappointed at the lack of understanding of air power in the recent debate over the SDSR; indeed it was for this very reason that Lord Trenchard formed an independent Air Force in 1918 Indeed it was for a similar lack of understanding that the Royal Naval Air Service was reformed as the Fleet Air Arm only a few years later - the RAF focused entirely upon their bombing to the detriment of every other discipline, including support to the RN. We have an Army Air Corps today for the very same reason.
– a vision that delivered a victory in the War that followed. It prevented defeat and gave us the breathing space to achieve victory. The RAF (and the many members of the FAA involved) did not 'win' WWII alone in the BATTLE of Britain. Just as the RN did not in rescuing the Army at Dunkirk, winning the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-Boats or delivering the Army to the beaches of Normandy - their collective efforts however set the conditions to enable the Army to take the fight back over the Channel and Rhine and defeat the enemy.
If the Army had controlled the Air Force in 1940 we would have lost many of our fighter aircraft in France and the Battle of Britain that followed would have had a very different outcome. Possibly true…and were it not for the Royal Navy and many civilian volunteers we would not have saved the Army, a different outcome again.
At a time when air power has never been more needed (ask any soldier in Afghanistan who is currently only getting less than half the air support he is asking for), Are we talking CAS? If so then I can only speak from very limited experience - it was on station when needed. I understand too that its practical use is now reduced anyway (due circumstance); I did not hear of any shortage of CAS but it may have been the case. If you mean AT then I certainly agree, there need to be far more airframes (and crews?) available; replacement of the older a/c would help too.
If talking SH then I also agree to a point, however there needs to be far better use of the assets there - bean counters need to allow us more hours but also a certain service need to change their approach to the logging of hours (aka 'BA Tokens' by some members of that service); their approach, given the cap on hours available, was (and I believe still is) directly reducing the hours available to task in support of troops. They continued this practice despite direction to do otherwise. That members of that service can then stand and say they should absorb the FAA and AAC I find disgusting and for this example and many other good reasons, ‘one airforce’ is totally counter to the interests of those on the ground and therefore the national interest.
only those who do not understand it call for its abolition or its absorption within the other two Services. And here I wholly agree! The fact that we have evolved into three services and fought successfully says that we should remain that way; as does the Canadian debacle combining into one service.
Regrettably, this is being done by individuals who seek to protect their own self interests, rather than to provide this Country with the Defence capability that it needs to meet the threats of tomorrow – in my dictionary that equates to betrayal or treason and they should think before they speak.Agreed again. Unfortunately the RAF has taken it upon themselves to brief against the other two services recently and over the preceding decades, both in public and behind closed doors. I have many friends in the RAF and they are good folk, however I think on your basis above that as an organisation they are morally corrupt and treasonous, furthering their own service ahead of the national interest. If you want to talk of the threats of tomorrow then consider this: since the end of the Cold War which conflicts were predicted? GW1? Bosnia? Kosovo? Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, GW2? None. All, except Afghan, have involved the use of RN ships and aircraft launched from those ships. In GW1, Sierra Leone and GW2 we were heavily reliant upon Naval aircraft, especially in Sierra Leone and GW2 – remember the Al Faw amphibious assault by 3 Cdo Bde RM that secured the oil fields from further damage? I should not need to tell you that RN / RM operated Harriers and Lx7 have operated and SK4 / SK7 are still operating in Afghan today. We are not bound to our ships and happily deploy forward to the fight. Terry will tell you what the Royal Marines have brought him. The Amphibious capability costs us some money and training but it does not preclude our use ashore in a land-locked country. It is also a capability used often (and I have avoided using the Falklands since you unreasonably discount it). With our reducing budget (and dare I say, ambitions?) an Amphibious capability must remain central to our approach – it delivers the ability to push over the horizon to coerce, to threaten to demonstrate, all without any commitment to protracted conflict. We can aid or raid, assault or secure a situation then hand over to civil authorities before quickly withdrawing – it limits our exposure – all from ships and without land bases, assuming the RAF permit us and the blokes ashore to benefit from organic air defence and CAS aircraft!
In modern warfare there are always competing priorities for air power in support of different phases of a campaign, or in different geographical areas. True enough. It is for this reason that unified air power needs to be controlled centrally and apportioned where the priority is greatest (a central tenet of air power that is universally accepted). Which is why, when required, assets are pooled under a joint command and operate together – JHF(A)? Or do you only talk of Jets? JFH? Not only is this the most efficient use of assets it is also the most effective because weight of effort can be switched quickly in order to unhinge and defeat an enemy... and that central, Joint command within the appropriate theatre effects that coordination and your switching if required, 'central control' of assets back home (in the all encompassing RAF as you evidently would have it) is not required.
Only when there is a need for assets to be permanently attributed to organic tasks, like ship defence (Sea Harrier or GR9?!) or firepower for (lightly equipped) troops (e.g. the USMC) The USMC are hardly lightly equipped troops... they do however have everything from Cobra to CH-53, C-130 and F/A-18, are aircraft directly allocated to those units. A luxury the UK cannot afford as we have insufficient resources to give each of the RN or Army its own private air force. Emotive language. Who says we can not afford it? You? The service that (you assume) would gain from the elimination of these 'Private' airforces?
Can the blokes on the ground (Army and Royal Marines) afford NOT to have the AAC and FAA? Who will champion their cause? Will the RAF fiercely defend the requirement for and support to AH? Will they maintain the Lx force and their role? Will the RAF fiercely defend the capability to mountEMCON silent multi-a/c Amphibious Assaults by night? Will the RAF fight to maintain deck currency for aircrew and also the ships? Yes...? Read on!!!!
Lets face it, the latest change to currency requirements has been brought in to ensure that RAF crews do not allow themselves to go uncurrent night on return from theatre, awaiting pre-deployment training to regain currency... The RAF think that all things flying should be controlled by them -they can't even be trusted to enforce maintenance of the ability to fly at night - that is both dangerous and hardly a ringing endorsement of their resolute will to maintain an interest in the finer points of military aviation,be it in support of troops operating ashore or from afloat. Night flying is for 'Bats and Tw*ts' - few like it but we are professional enough to realise that we should maintain the capability for both Flight Safety and Operational Capability (or ‘effectiveness’ to use your bit below)... funny old thing, flying at night avoids the enemy far more than by day.
Ultimately, such a decision<to retain separate ‘private airforces’ I assume> would cost more money or result in reducing overall effectiveness – with the obvious results. A further point to this effect is that, in the alignment of flying regs we have been forced to adopt the most restrictive – the RAF’s rules. The RAF approach to crew duty / rest is also most restrictive, oft quoted by them and frequently gets in the way of ops. (to avoid debate, that is not a blanket ‘ignore rest’ but an acknowledgment of rules being for guidance in risk assessing circumstance.. 7:59 flown, safe… 8:01 flown = dangerous? No)
The other aspect is the RAF attitude of ‘we can’t do that…so nor shall you!’ Their lack of capability should not hamstring those in other services from using their hard won capability to best operational effect on ops - that is playing politics.
This defence review must reduce costs without impacting unduly on capability, I think I have raised a number of points to argue merger into the RAF would leave us with a REDUCED operational capability and that has only one result – unnecessary loss of life. .only an independent air force can deliver the efficiency required and every other major military power has learned this lesson.
US : USAF, USN, USMC and the US Army all operate aircraft.
Russia : Air force did absorb Army Avn I believe, but Russian Naval Aviation continues. They have a total of SIX services, usual three plus Airborne Forces, Space Forces and Strategic Rocket Forces… bit much perhaps?!
China : PLAAF, PLA Ground Forces (unsure, helos listed in wikki but that’s only mention) PLAN – includes marines with aviation support – moving to blue water ops.
France: Aviation Légère de l’Armée de Terre, ALAT (their AAC) Aeronavale (their FAA) and Armee de l’air (their RAF)
Germany : Marineflieger (Their FAA) Heeresfliegertruppe (their AAC) and the Luftwaffe of course
India : Indian Naval Air Arm, Indian Air Force, Indian AAC (formed in 1987 apparently – they saw the need for independent Army Avn.
Australia : RAAF, RAN and Army all operate aircraft.
I support your assertion – however, you will note that in supporting it I have also demonstrated something else – that every power mentioned has retained their Naval Aviation’s independence and that the vast majority retain their Army Aviation’s independence. Canada is the only single service example I know of and it was a disaster.
In Afghanistan, RAF aircraft operate across the entire country helping and protecting troops wherever they are needed, this allows relatively small numbers of fast aircraft the ability to cover many tasks simultaneously. This is a pretty sweeping and meaningless PR statement. They undoubtedly do support troops through ISTAR, movement & resupply, IRT, CAS and AT. Do they do it across the entire of Afghanistan? Or Kandahar & Helmand only? I only ask because the rest of your information is incomplete so leads me to question… you forget the AAC and FAA (to include RM aircrew of course) both in AH, SH, ISTAR and of course CAS (FAA Harriers). Meaningless: What exactly allows ‘relatively small numbers of fast aircraft the ability to cover many tasks simultaneously.’? Is that the ‘independent air force’? I suppose the AAC & RN/RM crews are numerous and very slow to react and hate to stray too far from BSN / KAF?What a load of ***t, this is exactly the kind of rubbish that is spouted to the media by RAF PR that actually means nothing.
I have heard of a member of an RAF Puma crew include in a familiarisation lecture to a course that the Puma has an Amphibious capability. Of course no one knew better unfortunately. However, this is just the kind of out-right lie that the RAF seem to tell – I’m sure they could land on a ship in the right circumstances – but its massively top heavy, never does so and certainly is not cleared to shut down and they don’t practice – that is NOT an Amphibious capability, it just illustrates the willingness to mislead.
What is needed ultimately is a balanced force, TRUE and that would be best achieved through a balanced argument TRUE – armchair generals who have retired with the benefit of unparalleled air superiority in every campaign they fought (except perhaps the Falklands and look at the casualties suffered in that Campaign) Where there was no RAF air defence or Airborne Early Warning (despite previous promises) and the organic Air Defence in the form of SHAR was only there because the RN had fought tooth and nail to keep it in the face of the RAF’s vehement opposition to British Carrier Aviation – Hardly an advertisement for listening to the RAF’s demands to subsume the AAC and FAA? would do best to study their history (and you yours) and recognise how that superiority was achieved. The terrible casualties suffered by our brave soldiers in Afghanistan through relatively low tech threats today would pale in to insignificance if they ever faced a credible air threat. TRUE A quick look at the World’s Air Forces (and indeed Army and Naval Aviation!!!) will quickly show that other Nations are not so keen to remove their asymmetric advantage or have them parcelled out to have them defeated piecemeal!
You raise some interesting points, however, in your defending the scrapping of the RAF you also call for the destruction of the FAA and AAC. Your arguments are at times confused and also seek to cherry pick the facts. You appear to speak as a Fast Jet pilot with little appreciation of the Rotary side. That is not a criticism, we are all necessarily specialists, but it does come through. Given that, I shall use a FJ example: HMS Invincible, Med, 1997. Dark night, very low millilux. Two ship GR7 to launch for NVG sortie. This is the first NVG deck landing for the crews, indeed I believe it may have been the first NVG deck landing for a Harrier. At the brief, the RN Sea Harrier boss said in no uncertain terms that the sortie would result in an accident and was foolish in the extreme. RN crews always went through an exhaustive series of ‘Duskers’ before working up to full night capability the more so for new pilots. IIRC this was also their first night deck landing, if not ever then of the deployment. Couple that with the low millilux, at sea and lack of references. The RAF cracked on, unfortunately lost the jet - far too high on approach with no overshoot, correcting gave a very high ROD and a swim. Happily he was fished out alive and his wingman flew to a successful landing moments after – bloody good effort.
What do we learn? There was an enormous amount of pressure on that deployment to achieve and much of that came from above. Nonetheless, an undeniably capable pilot came to grief ignoring the clear advice of someone who was vastly more experienced in role. You can not just jump on board ship and expect to fly without accident. Nor can you rock up, bounce the deck and depart job done – one a/c fine, six ship lift? How about those procedures, at night, no radios, no horizon, poor weather on 1 Spot… no references? How about the ship and deck crew’s currency? You MUST maintain currency and where uncurrent allow a progressive workup.
You and the RAF seem to think that you can take over all aspects of Military aviation. I do not believe for one second that the RAF has the interest to maintain an effective Naval / Amphibious capability nor an Army Avn one. Maintenance of experience within an organisation is critical as it prevents (assuming it is listened to) costly accidents and loss of life… and funnily enough, your Operational Effectiveness / Capability.
Petty, but since you bash on about air superiority perhaps we ought to consider the number of enemy aircraft shot down since the end of WW2. The exact FAA total escapes me, but 22 or 24 springs to mind…. How many by the RAF? None.
I do not seek the dissolution of the RAF, however I note their corrosive attitude towards the FAA and AAC over the years and our resultant reduction in OC – You reap what you sow; now you know how it feels perhaps your organisation ought to wind its neck in, cease feathering its nest and focus on its job like the rest of us.
SW… with apologies for length, hope you’ve all got colour screens…
You set out to defend the RAF from absorption into the other services. I agree with you on this. However you also state some way down:
…A luxury the UK cannot afford as we have insufficient resources to give each of the RN or Army its own private air force.
I have answered your points as raised in the defence of the AAC & FAA:
I am extremely disappointed at the lack of understanding of air power in the recent debate over the SDSR; indeed it was for this very reason that Lord Trenchard formed an independent Air Force in 1918 Indeed it was for a similar lack of understanding that the Royal Naval Air Service was reformed as the Fleet Air Arm only a few years later - the RAF focused entirely upon their bombing to the detriment of every other discipline, including support to the RN. We have an Army Air Corps today for the very same reason.
– a vision that delivered a victory in the War that followed. It prevented defeat and gave us the breathing space to achieve victory. The RAF (and the many members of the FAA involved) did not 'win' WWII alone in the BATTLE of Britain. Just as the RN did not in rescuing the Army at Dunkirk, winning the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-Boats or delivering the Army to the beaches of Normandy - their collective efforts however set the conditions to enable the Army to take the fight back over the Channel and Rhine and defeat the enemy.
If the Army had controlled the Air Force in 1940 we would have lost many of our fighter aircraft in France and the Battle of Britain that followed would have had a very different outcome. Possibly true…and were it not for the Royal Navy and many civilian volunteers we would not have saved the Army, a different outcome again.
At a time when air power has never been more needed (ask any soldier in Afghanistan who is currently only getting less than half the air support he is asking for), Are we talking CAS? If so then I can only speak from very limited experience - it was on station when needed. I understand too that its practical use is now reduced anyway (due circumstance); I did not hear of any shortage of CAS but it may have been the case. If you mean AT then I certainly agree, there need to be far more airframes (and crews?) available; replacement of the older a/c would help too.
If talking SH then I also agree to a point, however there needs to be far better use of the assets there - bean counters need to allow us more hours but also a certain service need to change their approach to the logging of hours (aka 'BA Tokens' by some members of that service); their approach, given the cap on hours available, was (and I believe still is) directly reducing the hours available to task in support of troops. They continued this practice despite direction to do otherwise. That members of that service can then stand and say they should absorb the FAA and AAC I find disgusting and for this example and many other good reasons, ‘one airforce’ is totally counter to the interests of those on the ground and therefore the national interest.
only those who do not understand it call for its abolition or its absorption within the other two Services. And here I wholly agree! The fact that we have evolved into three services and fought successfully says that we should remain that way; as does the Canadian debacle combining into one service.
Regrettably, this is being done by individuals who seek to protect their own self interests, rather than to provide this Country with the Defence capability that it needs to meet the threats of tomorrow – in my dictionary that equates to betrayal or treason and they should think before they speak.Agreed again. Unfortunately the RAF has taken it upon themselves to brief against the other two services recently and over the preceding decades, both in public and behind closed doors. I have many friends in the RAF and they are good folk, however I think on your basis above that as an organisation they are morally corrupt and treasonous, furthering their own service ahead of the national interest. If you want to talk of the threats of tomorrow then consider this: since the end of the Cold War which conflicts were predicted? GW1? Bosnia? Kosovo? Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, GW2? None. All, except Afghan, have involved the use of RN ships and aircraft launched from those ships. In GW1, Sierra Leone and GW2 we were heavily reliant upon Naval aircraft, especially in Sierra Leone and GW2 – remember the Al Faw amphibious assault by 3 Cdo Bde RM that secured the oil fields from further damage? I should not need to tell you that RN / RM operated Harriers and Lx7 have operated and SK4 / SK7 are still operating in Afghan today. We are not bound to our ships and happily deploy forward to the fight. Terry will tell you what the Royal Marines have brought him. The Amphibious capability costs us some money and training but it does not preclude our use ashore in a land-locked country. It is also a capability used often (and I have avoided using the Falklands since you unreasonably discount it). With our reducing budget (and dare I say, ambitions?) an Amphibious capability must remain central to our approach – it delivers the ability to push over the horizon to coerce, to threaten to demonstrate, all without any commitment to protracted conflict. We can aid or raid, assault or secure a situation then hand over to civil authorities before quickly withdrawing – it limits our exposure – all from ships and without land bases, assuming the RAF permit us and the blokes ashore to benefit from organic air defence and CAS aircraft!
In modern warfare there are always competing priorities for air power in support of different phases of a campaign, or in different geographical areas. True enough. It is for this reason that unified air power needs to be controlled centrally and apportioned where the priority is greatest (a central tenet of air power that is universally accepted). Which is why, when required, assets are pooled under a joint command and operate together – JHF(A)? Or do you only talk of Jets? JFH? Not only is this the most efficient use of assets it is also the most effective because weight of effort can be switched quickly in order to unhinge and defeat an enemy... and that central, Joint command within the appropriate theatre effects that coordination and your switching if required, 'central control' of assets back home (in the all encompassing RAF as you evidently would have it) is not required.
Only when there is a need for assets to be permanently attributed to organic tasks, like ship defence (Sea Harrier or GR9?!) or firepower for (lightly equipped) troops (e.g. the USMC) The USMC are hardly lightly equipped troops... they do however have everything from Cobra to CH-53, C-130 and F/A-18, are aircraft directly allocated to those units. A luxury the UK cannot afford as we have insufficient resources to give each of the RN or Army its own private air force. Emotive language. Who says we can not afford it? You? The service that (you assume) would gain from the elimination of these 'Private' airforces?
Can the blokes on the ground (Army and Royal Marines) afford NOT to have the AAC and FAA? Who will champion their cause? Will the RAF fiercely defend the requirement for and support to AH? Will they maintain the Lx force and their role? Will the RAF fiercely defend the capability to mountEMCON silent multi-a/c Amphibious Assaults by night? Will the RAF fight to maintain deck currency for aircrew and also the ships? Yes...? Read on!!!!
Lets face it, the latest change to currency requirements has been brought in to ensure that RAF crews do not allow themselves to go uncurrent night on return from theatre, awaiting pre-deployment training to regain currency... The RAF think that all things flying should be controlled by them -they can't even be trusted to enforce maintenance of the ability to fly at night - that is both dangerous and hardly a ringing endorsement of their resolute will to maintain an interest in the finer points of military aviation,be it in support of troops operating ashore or from afloat. Night flying is for 'Bats and Tw*ts' - few like it but we are professional enough to realise that we should maintain the capability for both Flight Safety and Operational Capability (or ‘effectiveness’ to use your bit below)... funny old thing, flying at night avoids the enemy far more than by day.
Ultimately, such a decision<to retain separate ‘private airforces’ I assume> would cost more money or result in reducing overall effectiveness – with the obvious results. A further point to this effect is that, in the alignment of flying regs we have been forced to adopt the most restrictive – the RAF’s rules. The RAF approach to crew duty / rest is also most restrictive, oft quoted by them and frequently gets in the way of ops. (to avoid debate, that is not a blanket ‘ignore rest’ but an acknowledgment of rules being for guidance in risk assessing circumstance.. 7:59 flown, safe… 8:01 flown = dangerous? No)
The other aspect is the RAF attitude of ‘we can’t do that…so nor shall you!’ Their lack of capability should not hamstring those in other services from using their hard won capability to best operational effect on ops - that is playing politics.
This defence review must reduce costs without impacting unduly on capability, I think I have raised a number of points to argue merger into the RAF would leave us with a REDUCED operational capability and that has only one result – unnecessary loss of life. .only an independent air force can deliver the efficiency required and every other major military power has learned this lesson.
US : USAF, USN, USMC and the US Army all operate aircraft.
Russia : Air force did absorb Army Avn I believe, but Russian Naval Aviation continues. They have a total of SIX services, usual three plus Airborne Forces, Space Forces and Strategic Rocket Forces… bit much perhaps?!
China : PLAAF, PLA Ground Forces (unsure, helos listed in wikki but that’s only mention) PLAN – includes marines with aviation support – moving to blue water ops.
France: Aviation Légère de l’Armée de Terre, ALAT (their AAC) Aeronavale (their FAA) and Armee de l’air (their RAF)
Germany : Marineflieger (Their FAA) Heeresfliegertruppe (their AAC) and the Luftwaffe of course
India : Indian Naval Air Arm, Indian Air Force, Indian AAC (formed in 1987 apparently – they saw the need for independent Army Avn.
Australia : RAAF, RAN and Army all operate aircraft.
I support your assertion – however, you will note that in supporting it I have also demonstrated something else – that every power mentioned has retained their Naval Aviation’s independence and that the vast majority retain their Army Aviation’s independence. Canada is the only single service example I know of and it was a disaster.
In Afghanistan, RAF aircraft operate across the entire country helping and protecting troops wherever they are needed, this allows relatively small numbers of fast aircraft the ability to cover many tasks simultaneously. This is a pretty sweeping and meaningless PR statement. They undoubtedly do support troops through ISTAR, movement & resupply, IRT, CAS and AT. Do they do it across the entire of Afghanistan? Or Kandahar & Helmand only? I only ask because the rest of your information is incomplete so leads me to question… you forget the AAC and FAA (to include RM aircrew of course) both in AH, SH, ISTAR and of course CAS (FAA Harriers). Meaningless: What exactly allows ‘relatively small numbers of fast aircraft the ability to cover many tasks simultaneously.’? Is that the ‘independent air force’? I suppose the AAC & RN/RM crews are numerous and very slow to react and hate to stray too far from BSN / KAF?What a load of ***t, this is exactly the kind of rubbish that is spouted to the media by RAF PR that actually means nothing.
I have heard of a member of an RAF Puma crew include in a familiarisation lecture to a course that the Puma has an Amphibious capability. Of course no one knew better unfortunately. However, this is just the kind of out-right lie that the RAF seem to tell – I’m sure they could land on a ship in the right circumstances – but its massively top heavy, never does so and certainly is not cleared to shut down and they don’t practice – that is NOT an Amphibious capability, it just illustrates the willingness to mislead.
What is needed ultimately is a balanced force, TRUE and that would be best achieved through a balanced argument TRUE – armchair generals who have retired with the benefit of unparalleled air superiority in every campaign they fought (except perhaps the Falklands and look at the casualties suffered in that Campaign) Where there was no RAF air defence or Airborne Early Warning (despite previous promises) and the organic Air Defence in the form of SHAR was only there because the RN had fought tooth and nail to keep it in the face of the RAF’s vehement opposition to British Carrier Aviation – Hardly an advertisement for listening to the RAF’s demands to subsume the AAC and FAA? would do best to study their history (and you yours) and recognise how that superiority was achieved. The terrible casualties suffered by our brave soldiers in Afghanistan through relatively low tech threats today would pale in to insignificance if they ever faced a credible air threat. TRUE A quick look at the World’s Air Forces (and indeed Army and Naval Aviation!!!) will quickly show that other Nations are not so keen to remove their asymmetric advantage or have them parcelled out to have them defeated piecemeal!
You raise some interesting points, however, in your defending the scrapping of the RAF you also call for the destruction of the FAA and AAC. Your arguments are at times confused and also seek to cherry pick the facts. You appear to speak as a Fast Jet pilot with little appreciation of the Rotary side. That is not a criticism, we are all necessarily specialists, but it does come through. Given that, I shall use a FJ example: HMS Invincible, Med, 1997. Dark night, very low millilux. Two ship GR7 to launch for NVG sortie. This is the first NVG deck landing for the crews, indeed I believe it may have been the first NVG deck landing for a Harrier. At the brief, the RN Sea Harrier boss said in no uncertain terms that the sortie would result in an accident and was foolish in the extreme. RN crews always went through an exhaustive series of ‘Duskers’ before working up to full night capability the more so for new pilots. IIRC this was also their first night deck landing, if not ever then of the deployment. Couple that with the low millilux, at sea and lack of references. The RAF cracked on, unfortunately lost the jet - far too high on approach with no overshoot, correcting gave a very high ROD and a swim. Happily he was fished out alive and his wingman flew to a successful landing moments after – bloody good effort.
What do we learn? There was an enormous amount of pressure on that deployment to achieve and much of that came from above. Nonetheless, an undeniably capable pilot came to grief ignoring the clear advice of someone who was vastly more experienced in role. You can not just jump on board ship and expect to fly without accident. Nor can you rock up, bounce the deck and depart job done – one a/c fine, six ship lift? How about those procedures, at night, no radios, no horizon, poor weather on 1 Spot… no references? How about the ship and deck crew’s currency? You MUST maintain currency and where uncurrent allow a progressive workup.
You and the RAF seem to think that you can take over all aspects of Military aviation. I do not believe for one second that the RAF has the interest to maintain an effective Naval / Amphibious capability nor an Army Avn one. Maintenance of experience within an organisation is critical as it prevents (assuming it is listened to) costly accidents and loss of life… and funnily enough, your Operational Effectiveness / Capability.
Petty, but since you bash on about air superiority perhaps we ought to consider the number of enemy aircraft shot down since the end of WW2. The exact FAA total escapes me, but 22 or 24 springs to mind…. How many by the RAF? None.
I do not seek the dissolution of the RAF, however I note their corrosive attitude towards the FAA and AAC over the years and our resultant reduction in OC – You reap what you sow; now you know how it feels perhaps your organisation ought to wind its neck in, cease feathering its nest and focus on its job like the rest of us.
SW… with apologies for length, hope you’ve all got colour screens…
Last edited by Wholigan; 25th Jul 2010 at 06:40.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart.
A well balanced response. Well played.
The corrosive attitude against anything which wasn't small and pointy was also effectively demonstrated (and commented about on here) in Spring last year http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...called-10.htmlwhen the previous CAS pointed out that
CAS said:
We need much better intellectual capacity than arrse comments like that if the RAF is going to come out of this decade as an integrated air arm and not just the AD wing of something purple.
However, if being FJ streamed and operational is the only requirement, there are a couple of Booties who are not only qualified, but also bring other combat command experiences to the table.
We need all 3 air arms IMO.
Now all I need to understand is why we can't have very effective and highly skilled NCO pilots across all 3 air arms.
A well balanced response. Well played.
The corrosive attitude against anything which wasn't small and pointy was also effectively demonstrated (and commented about on here) in Spring last year http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...called-10.htmlwhen the previous CAS pointed out that
CAS said:
".......the majority of key appointments are held by FJ pilots (indeed exclusively at 3* and above at the moment). This is not by accident.....the very intellectual and mental capacity attributes that help distinguish a FJ pilot.....drive these statistics."
However, if being FJ streamed and operational is the only requirement, there are a couple of Booties who are not only qualified, but also bring other combat command experiences to the table.
We need all 3 air arms IMO.
Now all I need to understand is why we can't have very effective and highly skilled NCO pilots across all 3 air arms.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something Witty,
A very comprehensive response, which regrettably lost its way towards the end. It would appear that the RAF have either killed your first born or stolen your inheritance! Yet again, I state that I did not make an attempt to steal the AAC or FAA assets from them. Independent air forces are for wider roles than those filled by organic assets. I accept your counter arguments on many of the themes you identify; however, your assertion that the RAF are up to something is unfair and unfounded. The SDSR work is challenging and potentially harsh for each of the Services – you would expect any Service to defend what it feels to be right. You go on to appear to suggest that RAF aircraft would not support Army or RM units on the ground – that is complete b******s and does a dis-service to the brave men and women who do so every single day. Be emotional by all means, but do not sully the sacrifice and efforts of airman who never question who they are supporting or responding to.
Your comments on night flying and currency are so very wide of the mark. If you are referring to the current regeneration plan then the slow recovery is about safe operations and seeks to avoid the very case you highlight. Our regulations are now enshrined in Joint publications, and now the MAA, do not accuse the RAF of making them up for their own gain.
Your passion is self evident but your overt defence of the FAA is misplaced and not required – I do not call for its abolition. I am sorry that you feel the way you do, I hoped to keep the argument balanced but you clearly disagree with much of what I say. We will have to agree to differ, but please don’t accuse me of things I have not said. I accept that my argument was rather fixed wing centric, but that was because we have very clearly worked up structures and processes for rotary and I do not question those at any time in this thread. I have re-read my submissions and have struggled to find anything corrosive from me here; I did try to ask for a balanced debate and I appreciate your candour and engagement.
I entitled this thread “the enemy within” because I was seeking to expose those who are using poor and emotional arguments to further their own self interest. It will not surprise you that I was not pointing the finger at the RAF (or RN) in this regard. In case it has escaped anyone’s knowledge, it is certain retired Generals at whom I aimed my criticism. Fly safe friend.
A very comprehensive response, which regrettably lost its way towards the end. It would appear that the RAF have either killed your first born or stolen your inheritance! Yet again, I state that I did not make an attempt to steal the AAC or FAA assets from them. Independent air forces are for wider roles than those filled by organic assets. I accept your counter arguments on many of the themes you identify; however, your assertion that the RAF are up to something is unfair and unfounded. The SDSR work is challenging and potentially harsh for each of the Services – you would expect any Service to defend what it feels to be right. You go on to appear to suggest that RAF aircraft would not support Army or RM units on the ground – that is complete b******s and does a dis-service to the brave men and women who do so every single day. Be emotional by all means, but do not sully the sacrifice and efforts of airman who never question who they are supporting or responding to.
Your comments on night flying and currency are so very wide of the mark. If you are referring to the current regeneration plan then the slow recovery is about safe operations and seeks to avoid the very case you highlight. Our regulations are now enshrined in Joint publications, and now the MAA, do not accuse the RAF of making them up for their own gain.
Your passion is self evident but your overt defence of the FAA is misplaced and not required – I do not call for its abolition. I am sorry that you feel the way you do, I hoped to keep the argument balanced but you clearly disagree with much of what I say. We will have to agree to differ, but please don’t accuse me of things I have not said. I accept that my argument was rather fixed wing centric, but that was because we have very clearly worked up structures and processes for rotary and I do not question those at any time in this thread. I have re-read my submissions and have struggled to find anything corrosive from me here; I did try to ask for a balanced debate and I appreciate your candour and engagement.
I entitled this thread “the enemy within” because I was seeking to expose those who are using poor and emotional arguments to further their own self interest. It will not surprise you that I was not pointing the finger at the RAF (or RN) in this regard. In case it has escaped anyone’s knowledge, it is certain retired Generals at whom I aimed my criticism. Fly safe friend.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congrats to TheBword (and I never thought I would say that) for raising the tone with some intellectual rigour. It’s a shame that this has to be done through this forum as "at work" we as a force are not engaged in any form of meaningful discussion (apart from "will there be a redundancy package?").
This lack of discussion or awareness of our place in the military jigsaw has been an endemic fault in the RAF for many years. I remember back in the 80s being most impressed when talking to a USAF serviceman who when asked what his job was pointed to an F4 (I show my age) getting airborne and stated "I keep them flying" not the response I suspect one would get from one of our MT drivers.
Most right minded people (apart from a few rabid posters on this forum) would accept that we require a balanced Air Force and similarly balanced Navy and Army too. We must remember that we don't know where the next war or commitment is coming from. The UK military (and yes that includes all services) that went to war against Saddam in Jan 1991 was up until August 1990 configured equipped trained and postured to fight only in North West Europe against the Russian hordes.
So for Gawd's sake stop fighting amongst ourselves, we all know the pot is getting smaller and we will all have pain to bear. Our real enemy is the politicians who are prepared to pay fast and loose with our countries security for the purpose of short term political gain. One only has to look at the lack of medals on our political leaders at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday to see that they have no comprehension that part of the reason we have so many war dead to remember was the woeful state of the UK armed forces in the 1920's and 30's when defence spending was halved.
So I appeal to all members of UK defence (especially the retired “leaders” from all services). Yes defend your corner but remember to say:
THE UK REQUIRES A BALANCED CAPABILITY TO FIGHT ON THE LAND, ON AND UNDER THE SEA AND IN THE AIR
(+cyber and space but that’s another thread!)
This lack of discussion or awareness of our place in the military jigsaw has been an endemic fault in the RAF for many years. I remember back in the 80s being most impressed when talking to a USAF serviceman who when asked what his job was pointed to an F4 (I show my age) getting airborne and stated "I keep them flying" not the response I suspect one would get from one of our MT drivers.
Most right minded people (apart from a few rabid posters on this forum) would accept that we require a balanced Air Force and similarly balanced Navy and Army too. We must remember that we don't know where the next war or commitment is coming from. The UK military (and yes that includes all services) that went to war against Saddam in Jan 1991 was up until August 1990 configured equipped trained and postured to fight only in North West Europe against the Russian hordes.
So for Gawd's sake stop fighting amongst ourselves, we all know the pot is getting smaller and we will all have pain to bear. Our real enemy is the politicians who are prepared to pay fast and loose with our countries security for the purpose of short term political gain. One only has to look at the lack of medals on our political leaders at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday to see that they have no comprehension that part of the reason we have so many war dead to remember was the woeful state of the UK armed forces in the 1920's and 30's when defence spending was halved.
So I appeal to all members of UK defence (especially the retired “leaders” from all services). Yes defend your corner but remember to say:
THE UK REQUIRES A BALANCED CAPABILITY TO FIGHT ON THE LAND, ON AND UNDER THE SEA AND IN THE AIR
(+cyber and space but that’s another thread!)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It is even arguable that WW2, at least at the outset, was a war of choice. Korea was a war of choice, Suez was a war of choice.
Malaya, Cyprus, Malaysia, Borneo, Belize, Falklands, Sierra Leone and Kuwait were wars of necessity.
The first question that has to be addressed by our political masters where and to what extent might we have to engage in wars of necessity?
The second is to what extent we wish to engage in wars of choice?
Only once these have been answered and likely scenarios agreed can we even decide if we even need an Army, Navy or Air Force.
A minimalist scenario would see an expanded brown water fleet with day-running patrol boats no more than 2 hours steaming from any port. A few interceptors for air policing; the F3 would do but the Typhoon is probably cheaper now we have it. The Army would be largely lightly armed, highly mobile and trained as a heavyweight backup or even subsume the border agency.
The scenario was have right now is a slimline maxi-force capable of intervention at any level on a 'hold' basis but not capable of the 'hold-win' scenario.
Between the two it looks as if the capability to meet any scenario is the one likely to lost. We already have taken a holiday on maritime patrol. Dannatt was quite keen to relinquish armour and rocket systems. The Navy might be required to forego world-wide deployments although FCO might have a say here, and foot the bill?
Air Force wise we talk of 20-year lead times but do we need constant readiness? Can we not reduce active squadrons and reduce to a cadre basis on some types putting spare jets into mothballs?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fighting the wrong enemy
Gentlemen.
You all make compelling and logical arguments which are all correct.
ALL 3 services need their own organic Air. What is needed is funding.
The real enemys are the DHSS, NHS and DEFRA. All three are huge money gobbling giants and are hugely inefficient.
What The Services need is to bond together and get Dr Fox to man up and explain to the "Brokeback mountain" boys what is really important and how a strong military actually increases foreign trade, regenerates heavy engineering industries and "encourages" other countries to listen what the UK wants them to think.
Talk softly and carry a big stick.
Sound familiar?
You all make compelling and logical arguments which are all correct.
ALL 3 services need their own organic Air. What is needed is funding.
The real enemys are the DHSS, NHS and DEFRA. All three are huge money gobbling giants and are hugely inefficient.
What The Services need is to bond together and get Dr Fox to man up and explain to the "Brokeback mountain" boys what is really important and how a strong military actually increases foreign trade, regenerates heavy engineering industries and "encourages" other countries to listen what the UK wants them to think.
Talk softly and carry a big stick.
Sound familiar?
Originally posted by Pontius Navigator:
The first question that has to be addressed by our political masters where and to what extent might we have to engage in wars of necessity?
The second is to what extent we wish to engage in wars of choice?
Only once these have been answered and likely scenarios agreed can we even decide if we even need an Army, Navy or Air Force.
The first question that has to be addressed by our political masters where and to what extent might we have to engage in wars of necessity?
The second is to what extent we wish to engage in wars of choice?
Only once these have been answered and likely scenarios agreed can we even decide if we even need an Army, Navy or Air Force.
Last edited by Lyneham Lad; 25th Jul 2010 at 16:48. Reason: spulling :(
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something Witty, A very comprehensive response, which regrettably lost its way towards the end. It would appear that the RAF have either killed your first born or stolen your inheritance! Not yet! 
Yet again, I state that I did not make an attempt to steal the AAC or FAA assets from them.
…A luxury the UK cannot afford as we have insufficient resources to give each of the RN or Army its own private air force.
Did I miss read the above? I accepted and acknowledged at the start of my post that you sought to defend the RAF from breakup. I agreed and will always agree with you on this. How otherwise though should we read the quote above? As pointed out, yours was something of a party political broadcast for the RAF and required some balance.
Independent air forces are for wider roles than those filled by organic assets. Can you clarify? What is wrong with talking about the RAF? The problem is, the more you talk about an 'independent airforce' the more we suspect that you want something other than what the RAF currently is - that’s not likely to be smaller and denuded of assets (something I would fight against myself) - so what is it? Expanded to assume some FAA / AAC assets and capabilities? If it is then define those assets, if not then why not defend the RAF, not some notional independent airforce?!
I accept your counter arguments on many of the themes you identify; however, your assertion that the RAF are up to something is unfair and unfounded. The SDSR work is challenging and potentially harsh for each of the Services – you would expect any Service to defend what it feels to be right. I would defend that right absolutely, although I would hope that any service would set their position in the context of the other two services and what is right. The RAF therefore have an interservice PR issue - because it is widely recognised that they have at best been unhelpful toward the maintenance of a FJ capability in the FAA for instance. Many members of the RAF appear to have some kind of indoctrinated need to explain why 'if it flys it should be RAF.' I understand (hearsay only) that the RAF had an entire department devoted to securing Apache for itself! The run-up to the Falklands shows the RAF's historical attitude to the FAA and its result.
You go on to appear to suggest that RAF aircraft would not support Army or RM units on the ground – that is complete b******s and does a dis-service to the brave men and women who do so every single day. Be emotional by all means, but do not sully the sacrifice and efforts of airman who never question who they are supporting or responding to. The RAF as an organisation is poor at supporting their own SH / AT fleets that operate in support of troops - the FJ mentality of the heirachy. Crew duty is oft quoted, again that is an RAF thing - if the organisation's line is so hard that is the organisation's choice and I argue it does not offer the level of support it could to their crews or troops. If there is such inflexibility on ops then to be fair to the crew they are right to call time in the way they do. I do not seek to sully the crews, Terry's lead and RPGs fly at us all and the RAF IRT crews do a particularly good job in the most difficult of circumstances. Nonetheless, reference to hours as ‘BA tokens’ and the logging of time sat on a refuel spot awaiting pax for 10 min plus (easily an hour or more a day) does not do them any favours or their troops. As an organisation the RAF's ethos is certainly not as strong in this area as it is in terms of FJ. It is an organisation thing.
It is worth reiterating the point regarding the RAF’s desire not to be shown up by the capabilities of the other services. There is no justifiable reason to deny the use of capabilities on ops when the situation is ripe for their employment. That attitude is hardly helpful to those on the ground is it?
Your comments on night flying and currency are so very wide of the mark. If you are referring to the current regeneration plan then the slow recovery is about safe operations and seeks to avoid the very case you highlight. It was a comment on maintenance, of, not regeneration, unless it has got that bad. We may be talking cross purposes here I am not referring to FJ which I understand is very short on hours (100 pa vs NATO 180 pa? A good example of an organisation failing its crews and putting them in a very dangerous place - I wish you and your oppos all the luck in regaining this in safety) Our regulations are now enshrined in Joint publications, and now the MAA, do not accuse the RAF of making them up for their own gain. I never implied or said that they were making rules up for their own gain, merely that a new rule had to be brought in to enforce something that should have been happening anyway, that rule has no benefit for the RAF (or any other service) other than to reinforce the need to remain night current. That suggests that at a Squadron and Unit/Station level an awful lot were choosing to go night uncurrent and that at those levels nothing was done about it. If this was due to a lack of airframes then I suggest that imposing a new rule would have had no useful benefit.
Your passion is self evident but your overt defence of the FAA is misplaced and not required – I do not call for its abolition. Unfortunately that is just how it could be read - the quote at the start and your 'independent air force.' I am sorry that you feel the way you do, I hoped to keep the argument balanced but you clearly disagree with much of what I say. I seek balance too; be plain in your argument and we will all know what you are arguing for.
We will have to agree to differ, but please don’t accuse me of things I have not said. I accept that my argument was rather fixed wing centric, but that was because we have very clearly worked up structures and processes for rotary and I do not question those at any time - Thank you, so you confirm that the Rotary 'Private Airforces' of the Army and RN should remain? By implication you do question Fixed Wing? Is that your FW vs cuts or other people's FW, i.e. carrier based? Please be clear, rather than talking of 'central control' and 'independent airforces,' either admit to wanting to take over the other service’s FW assets or clarify that you have no designs on the other services and you merely wish to protect the RAF. Then we can then get on with a balanced argument or defending the RAF together!
I have re-read my submissions and have struggled to find anything corrosive from me here; I did try to ask for a balanced debate and I appreciate your candour and engagement. And I yours, thank you. It is the organisation's corrosive attitude over the decades to which I referred and I remain to be convinced otherwise to be honest, we have had a lot of smoke and areguably some flames over the years; time will tell.
I entitled this thread “the enemy within” because I was seeking to expose those who are using poor and emotional arguments to further their own self interest. It will not surprise you that I was not pointing the finger at the RAF (or RN) in this regard. In case it has escaped anyone’s knowledge, it is certain retired Generals at whom I aimed my criticism. Fly safe friend.
As others have said, fighting amongst ourselves does no good. Typhoon, Nimrod, Merlin Mk1... all have their place, all are required, as is the RAF itself.
Stay safe too fella!
Yet again, I state that I did not make an attempt to steal the AAC or FAA assets from them. …A luxury the UK cannot afford as we have insufficient resources to give each of the RN or Army its own private air force.
Did I miss read the above? I accepted and acknowledged at the start of my post that you sought to defend the RAF from breakup. I agreed and will always agree with you on this. How otherwise though should we read the quote above? As pointed out, yours was something of a party political broadcast for the RAF and required some balance.
Independent air forces are for wider roles than those filled by organic assets. Can you clarify? What is wrong with talking about the RAF? The problem is, the more you talk about an 'independent airforce' the more we suspect that you want something other than what the RAF currently is - that’s not likely to be smaller and denuded of assets (something I would fight against myself) - so what is it? Expanded to assume some FAA / AAC assets and capabilities? If it is then define those assets, if not then why not defend the RAF, not some notional independent airforce?!
I accept your counter arguments on many of the themes you identify; however, your assertion that the RAF are up to something is unfair and unfounded. The SDSR work is challenging and potentially harsh for each of the Services – you would expect any Service to defend what it feels to be right. I would defend that right absolutely, although I would hope that any service would set their position in the context of the other two services and what is right. The RAF therefore have an interservice PR issue - because it is widely recognised that they have at best been unhelpful toward the maintenance of a FJ capability in the FAA for instance. Many members of the RAF appear to have some kind of indoctrinated need to explain why 'if it flys it should be RAF.' I understand (hearsay only) that the RAF had an entire department devoted to securing Apache for itself! The run-up to the Falklands shows the RAF's historical attitude to the FAA and its result.
You go on to appear to suggest that RAF aircraft would not support Army or RM units on the ground – that is complete b******s and does a dis-service to the brave men and women who do so every single day. Be emotional by all means, but do not sully the sacrifice and efforts of airman who never question who they are supporting or responding to. The RAF as an organisation is poor at supporting their own SH / AT fleets that operate in support of troops - the FJ mentality of the heirachy. Crew duty is oft quoted, again that is an RAF thing - if the organisation's line is so hard that is the organisation's choice and I argue it does not offer the level of support it could to their crews or troops. If there is such inflexibility on ops then to be fair to the crew they are right to call time in the way they do. I do not seek to sully the crews, Terry's lead and RPGs fly at us all and the RAF IRT crews do a particularly good job in the most difficult of circumstances. Nonetheless, reference to hours as ‘BA tokens’ and the logging of time sat on a refuel spot awaiting pax for 10 min plus (easily an hour or more a day) does not do them any favours or their troops. As an organisation the RAF's ethos is certainly not as strong in this area as it is in terms of FJ. It is an organisation thing.
It is worth reiterating the point regarding the RAF’s desire not to be shown up by the capabilities of the other services. There is no justifiable reason to deny the use of capabilities on ops when the situation is ripe for their employment. That attitude is hardly helpful to those on the ground is it?
Your comments on night flying and currency are so very wide of the mark. If you are referring to the current regeneration plan then the slow recovery is about safe operations and seeks to avoid the very case you highlight. It was a comment on maintenance, of, not regeneration, unless it has got that bad. We may be talking cross purposes here I am not referring to FJ which I understand is very short on hours (100 pa vs NATO 180 pa? A good example of an organisation failing its crews and putting them in a very dangerous place - I wish you and your oppos all the luck in regaining this in safety) Our regulations are now enshrined in Joint publications, and now the MAA, do not accuse the RAF of making them up for their own gain. I never implied or said that they were making rules up for their own gain, merely that a new rule had to be brought in to enforce something that should have been happening anyway, that rule has no benefit for the RAF (or any other service) other than to reinforce the need to remain night current. That suggests that at a Squadron and Unit/Station level an awful lot were choosing to go night uncurrent and that at those levels nothing was done about it. If this was due to a lack of airframes then I suggest that imposing a new rule would have had no useful benefit.
Your passion is self evident but your overt defence of the FAA is misplaced and not required – I do not call for its abolition. Unfortunately that is just how it could be read - the quote at the start and your 'independent air force.' I am sorry that you feel the way you do, I hoped to keep the argument balanced but you clearly disagree with much of what I say. I seek balance too; be plain in your argument and we will all know what you are arguing for.
We will have to agree to differ, but please don’t accuse me of things I have not said. I accept that my argument was rather fixed wing centric, but that was because we have very clearly worked up structures and processes for rotary and I do not question those at any time - Thank you, so you confirm that the Rotary 'Private Airforces' of the Army and RN should remain? By implication you do question Fixed Wing? Is that your FW vs cuts or other people's FW, i.e. carrier based? Please be clear, rather than talking of 'central control' and 'independent airforces,' either admit to wanting to take over the other service’s FW assets or clarify that you have no designs on the other services and you merely wish to protect the RAF. Then we can then get on with a balanced argument or defending the RAF together!
I have re-read my submissions and have struggled to find anything corrosive from me here; I did try to ask for a balanced debate and I appreciate your candour and engagement. And I yours, thank you. It is the organisation's corrosive attitude over the decades to which I referred and I remain to be convinced otherwise to be honest, we have had a lot of smoke and areguably some flames over the years; time will tell.
I entitled this thread “the enemy within” because I was seeking to expose those who are using poor and emotional arguments to further their own self interest. It will not surprise you that I was not pointing the finger at the RAF (or RN) in this regard. In case it has escaped anyone’s knowledge, it is certain retired Generals at whom I aimed my criticism. Fly safe friend.
As others have said, fighting amongst ourselves does no good. Typhoon, Nimrod, Merlin Mk1... all have their place, all are required, as is the RAF itself.
Stay safe too fella!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thebword,
Thank you for your fulsome reply. However, I think you view the world through somewhat rose-tinted glasses. The attempt by the RAF to remove the FAA from FW aviation (via the Harrier Force) was blatant and led from the very top of the shop (CAS and ACAS with strong support from CDS). SDR made a very clear case for CVF and JCA, indeed it was set as one of its key capabilities, yet the RAF set about undermining this capability from the start (and in your time....but I make no assertions against you). No matter what you say about how many times the quote "if it flies it must be RAF" was used, it WAS the driving policy of that CAS and permeated down to 1* level.
Much of the FAA difficulty in generating single seat FJ pilots (the only type the RN has to generate) was due to RAF intransigence and blocking of well worn routes for bringing on potential single seat pilots using the F3/GR4 force. This has continued to the present day and which is why the RN have now established a strong training route through the USN and F18/AV8B ie we now have aircrew flying with USN/USMC to ensure we have sufficient pilots to man JCA despite the efforts of the RAF.
I have huge respect for the RAF Harrier pilots that fly from the sea when ordered - but they did not join the RAF to fly from ships, RN FW pilots did...and they love doing it.
What we really need is for the senior members of the RAF to accept that we need true maritime FW pilots and capability, embrace the concept honestly and get on with it....the record so far does not fill me (or I suspect the First Sea Lord) with much confidence that it will happen anytime soon.
Thank you for your fulsome reply. However, I think you view the world through somewhat rose-tinted glasses. The attempt by the RAF to remove the FAA from FW aviation (via the Harrier Force) was blatant and led from the very top of the shop (CAS and ACAS with strong support from CDS). SDR made a very clear case for CVF and JCA, indeed it was set as one of its key capabilities, yet the RAF set about undermining this capability from the start (and in your time....but I make no assertions against you). No matter what you say about how many times the quote "if it flies it must be RAF" was used, it WAS the driving policy of that CAS and permeated down to 1* level.
Much of the FAA difficulty in generating single seat FJ pilots (the only type the RN has to generate) was due to RAF intransigence and blocking of well worn routes for bringing on potential single seat pilots using the F3/GR4 force. This has continued to the present day and which is why the RN have now established a strong training route through the USN and F18/AV8B ie we now have aircrew flying with USN/USMC to ensure we have sufficient pilots to man JCA despite the efforts of the RAF.
I have huge respect for the RAF Harrier pilots that fly from the sea when ordered - but they did not join the RAF to fly from ships, RN FW pilots did...and they love doing it.
What we really need is for the senior members of the RAF to accept that we need true maritime FW pilots and capability, embrace the concept honestly and get on with it....the record so far does not fill me (or I suspect the First Sea Lord) with much confidence that it will happen anytime soon.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dear WAFU fixed wing brothers and sister. There's a little bit of creep here toward decrying the RAF for your do-ing over vis a vis the Harrier. I do recognise and champion the requirement for carrier based aviation. It is the finest way to project power about the globe and essential to the security of our dependant territories. Allow me, if you will to suggest a solution. All GR9 to the FAA. Take all the equipment, the base, the groundcrew and aircrew: light blue the option to cross over no questions. Then you have your FJ capability, the legacy to take forward to the new ships and airframes. One proviso. You foot the bill. You pay for everything. You will then be independant. But please don't complain about undermanning or your borrowed training pipeline. Because it will be your issue. And please Bismark, why should we give cockpits to your chaps who, out of 19 sqn, don't make the grade? I re-iterate, you need your fixed wing capability. But, in my opinion you need to take it all, including the financial burden. Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark and Something Witty, thank you both for your measured engagement, as that is really why I started the thread - frustration at a lack of balance in the debate.
Quick response to each of your questions-statements and then I think I will retire from the debate happy to have got something off my chest:
I may have made a mistake in focusing on Fixed Wing but I deliberately wanted to avoid making any claims on organic rotary assets.
I referred to “independent air forces” when I probably should have said: “independent air power” – centrally controlled in order to best direct effort (this could include aircraft from any service as now). However, it does become challenging when you have insufficient to meet everyone’s desire to possess organic fixed wing air. This is predominantly based on a lack of trust or faith, fuelled by the fear of a lack of guaranteed delivery – this of course is why the air tasking process can become so fraught but is so key.
Of course this is why the Harrier debate became so complex. It was set on so many levels: threat to the fixed wing FAA (fair cop, but no different to today’s articles about the RM I suggest), belief in who can best deliver embarked skills (mostly disproved recently I would argue, see below), ownership (well the assets are already “owned” by the RAF) and trust in delivery (another fair cop but since when did a military organization get a choice – perhaps MoD and PJHQ should set up a better process to direct delivery to avoid single services exercising options, we are too small now).
The current situation is fraught because of the small numbers of people involved. As the RAF shrunk (more than a 50% reduction in the number of our combat squadrons in less than ten years), there was little capacity to absorb RN crews as, you might expect. The majority of those RN crews that did secure RAF cockpits (I personally know of two) actually jumped ship and joined the RAF (yes some of ours have gone the other way). It was the RN’s inability to grow crews that forced them to accept the JFH concept in the first place – had that not happened we wouldn’t be arguing about those RN crews now. I know that not many RN believe that RAF squadrons can deliver at sea, but check what the Ark’s embarked squadron was for the last few weeks. Well that is the plan so we will have to see won’t we! Maybe the RN has some accepting to do.
Not sure what you mean by “poor at supporting our SH and AT fleets”. I think it is fair to say that a significant re-balancing has taken place to meet current tasks, albeit with ageing aircraft that are still planned to be replaced. I hear your criticism about attitude in some quarters (I used to complain about it too) but circumstances should be more rare now and the AT and SH guys I know are working their cobs off.
I don’t know of any cases of the RAF denying capabilities on ops, in fact whenever they are offered they are often treated and damned as “light blue entryism”
I can confirm that I believe that the rotary assets currently under RN and AAC control should stay exactly where they are. My argument was one of protecting air power in general (and by inference that which is currently delivered by the RAF).
As for corrosive attitudes, that is exactly why I wrote here. Your engagement has restored my faith in the power of intelligent debate here at least, and I just wish it could have been over a beer rather than a keyboard. Trust is what makes us tick and we need to restore it across defence.
Dan Winterroll said it all for me:
“So I appeal to all members of UK defence (especially the retired “leaders” from all services). Yes defend your corner but remember to say:
THE UK REQUIRES A BALANCED CAPABILITY TO FIGHT ON THE LAND, ON AND UNDER THE SEA AND IN THE AIR”
That was precisely my point and the reason I wasted away this weekend with some gentlemen I would be pleased to call comrades in arms.
Quick response to each of your questions-statements and then I think I will retire from the debate happy to have got something off my chest:
I may have made a mistake in focusing on Fixed Wing but I deliberately wanted to avoid making any claims on organic rotary assets.
I referred to “independent air forces” when I probably should have said: “independent air power” – centrally controlled in order to best direct effort (this could include aircraft from any service as now). However, it does become challenging when you have insufficient to meet everyone’s desire to possess organic fixed wing air. This is predominantly based on a lack of trust or faith, fuelled by the fear of a lack of guaranteed delivery – this of course is why the air tasking process can become so fraught but is so key.
Of course this is why the Harrier debate became so complex. It was set on so many levels: threat to the fixed wing FAA (fair cop, but no different to today’s articles about the RM I suggest), belief in who can best deliver embarked skills (mostly disproved recently I would argue, see below), ownership (well the assets are already “owned” by the RAF) and trust in delivery (another fair cop but since when did a military organization get a choice – perhaps MoD and PJHQ should set up a better process to direct delivery to avoid single services exercising options, we are too small now).
The current situation is fraught because of the small numbers of people involved. As the RAF shrunk (more than a 50% reduction in the number of our combat squadrons in less than ten years), there was little capacity to absorb RN crews as, you might expect. The majority of those RN crews that did secure RAF cockpits (I personally know of two) actually jumped ship and joined the RAF (yes some of ours have gone the other way). It was the RN’s inability to grow crews that forced them to accept the JFH concept in the first place – had that not happened we wouldn’t be arguing about those RN crews now. I know that not many RN believe that RAF squadrons can deliver at sea, but check what the Ark’s embarked squadron was for the last few weeks. Well that is the plan so we will have to see won’t we! Maybe the RN has some accepting to do.
Not sure what you mean by “poor at supporting our SH and AT fleets”. I think it is fair to say that a significant re-balancing has taken place to meet current tasks, albeit with ageing aircraft that are still planned to be replaced. I hear your criticism about attitude in some quarters (I used to complain about it too) but circumstances should be more rare now and the AT and SH guys I know are working their cobs off.
I don’t know of any cases of the RAF denying capabilities on ops, in fact whenever they are offered they are often treated and damned as “light blue entryism”
I can confirm that I believe that the rotary assets currently under RN and AAC control should stay exactly where they are. My argument was one of protecting air power in general (and by inference that which is currently delivered by the RAF).
As for corrosive attitudes, that is exactly why I wrote here. Your engagement has restored my faith in the power of intelligent debate here at least, and I just wish it could have been over a beer rather than a keyboard. Trust is what makes us tick and we need to restore it across defence.
Dan Winterroll said it all for me:
“So I appeal to all members of UK defence (especially the retired “leaders” from all services). Yes defend your corner but remember to say:
THE UK REQUIRES A BALANCED CAPABILITY TO FIGHT ON THE LAND, ON AND UNDER THE SEA AND IN THE AIR”
That was precisely my point and the reason I wasted away this weekend with some gentlemen I would be pleased to call comrades in arms.
Let's not get things out of perspective.........
The Army's focus is blowing sh1t up. They like tanks, guns and apache's and don't like the majority of the RAF. They tolerate the SH Force at times through necessity, but dislike the AT fleet who make them turn up very early before going U/S or running out of crew duty because one of their fat stewards has gastroentiritis. They generally dislike the FJ fleet, apart from when they get a good service from CAS. They are indifferent about the Navy, as they don't understand them; they wear flares and talk funny.
The Navy focus is circling the globe in ships. They don't have that many ships anymore, but would like a few new carriers. They are indifferent to the Army as carriers don't work very well on Salisbury Plain, but at a push will take them where they want to go. They would rather take the Marines, as they own them, but will go along with the Army. They dislike the RAF, as the previous RAF boss spent all the budget on FJ that they didn't want, nor did the Army. They are now worried the money for the carriers may have gone. The same man, who wasn't particularly lauded by his own types also screwed them over with regard to their FJ.
The RAF focus should be on supporting the Army (and Navy where applicable), but has drifted around a bit of late. Generally they are indifferent to the Army who they regard as a necessary evil. The SH Force understands the Army, but the RAF doesn't really undertand the SH Force either. The RAF likes fast and noisy jets that drop bombs. They like these very much and will do anything to hang onto them, even if it often makes no sense. Apart from the Helicopters, who dont like the O Boat, the RAF are indifferent to the Navy, as they don't understand them; they wear flares and talk funny.
The Army like jointery, as it works for them; as long as they are in charge. The Navy tolerate jointery, as they do their own thing anything as soon as they've hoisted the anchor. The RAF dislike jointery, as the Army are always in charge, even though occasionally, they dont seem really sure how to use what they have.
It would seem that if the Army was left to blowing things up (which they are world class at), the Navy was left to doing it's own thing, and the RAF stopped navel gazing and rediscovered it's focus, everything might work out alright afterall.
Hell the occasional bit of jointery may still work, if it saves money and everyone sticks to what they know......
The Army's focus is blowing sh1t up. They like tanks, guns and apache's and don't like the majority of the RAF. They tolerate the SH Force at times through necessity, but dislike the AT fleet who make them turn up very early before going U/S or running out of crew duty because one of their fat stewards has gastroentiritis. They generally dislike the FJ fleet, apart from when they get a good service from CAS. They are indifferent about the Navy, as they don't understand them; they wear flares and talk funny.
The Navy focus is circling the globe in ships. They don't have that many ships anymore, but would like a few new carriers. They are indifferent to the Army as carriers don't work very well on Salisbury Plain, but at a push will take them where they want to go. They would rather take the Marines, as they own them, but will go along with the Army. They dislike the RAF, as the previous RAF boss spent all the budget on FJ that they didn't want, nor did the Army. They are now worried the money for the carriers may have gone. The same man, who wasn't particularly lauded by his own types also screwed them over with regard to their FJ.
The RAF focus should be on supporting the Army (and Navy where applicable), but has drifted around a bit of late. Generally they are indifferent to the Army who they regard as a necessary evil. The SH Force understands the Army, but the RAF doesn't really undertand the SH Force either. The RAF likes fast and noisy jets that drop bombs. They like these very much and will do anything to hang onto them, even if it often makes no sense. Apart from the Helicopters, who dont like the O Boat, the RAF are indifferent to the Navy, as they don't understand them; they wear flares and talk funny.
The Army like jointery, as it works for them; as long as they are in charge. The Navy tolerate jointery, as they do their own thing anything as soon as they've hoisted the anchor. The RAF dislike jointery, as the Army are always in charge, even though occasionally, they dont seem really sure how to use what they have.
It would seem that if the Army was left to blowing things up (which they are world class at), the Navy was left to doing it's own thing, and the RAF stopped navel gazing and rediscovered it's focus, everything might work out alright afterall.
Hell the occasional bit of jointery may still work, if it saves money and everyone sticks to what they know......
Last edited by minigundiplomat; 25th Jul 2010 at 22:17.
TOTD:
OK, I'll bite as it was my quote,TOTD. Having posted on various Bomber Command Campaign Medal/Memorial threads I am well aware of the default perceived wisdom of today. I just don't share it. What is interesting is that you think it does not concern this thread. I don't know of your "allegiance" but I am quite prepared to believe that it is light blue anyway. A case of having your cake and eat it? The whole point about the "Independent Air Force" concept was that it be independent of Army and Navy to carry airpower into the enemy heartland. That is what it did in WW2. If it had not I suggest that the Army would never have got ashore on D-day, nor the RN survive it, because the Luftwaffe would have been there instead of, by necessity, being elsewhere defending the Reich. That those who are not "airminded" do not see that is understandable, but that those who are do not either is perplexing.
Oh, thread On/Off thingy
Thread OFF
"It was the strategic bombing campaign...that ensured victory"
I can't believe people still come out with this stuff...
Thread ON
"It was the strategic bombing campaign...that ensured victory"
I can't believe people still come out with this stuff...
Thread ON
Oh, thread On/Off thingy
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thebword,
Your contribution has been hugely valuable, however...
....the simple fact is that the said embarked RAF squadron does not want to be at sea, no matter how good it is when it gets there. There is nothing in an RAF serviceman's ethos that says "I want to operate at sea". The same is true for the Army when considering removal of the RMs. In both cases the Naval man knows that he will be going in ships as part of his job and still he approaches the CPO in the recruiting office. The RAF and Army aspirant sees the CPO, and ships, and turns the other direction to the FSgt or Sgt.
Your contribution has been hugely valuable, however...
I know that not many RN believe that RAF squadrons can deliver at sea, but check what the Ark’s embarked squadron was for the last few weeks.
In both cases the Naval man knows that he will be going in ships as part of his job and still he approaches the CPO in the recruiting office. The RAF and Army aspirant sees the CPO, and ships, and turns the other direction to the FSgt or Sgt.
possibly the truest statement I have read on here. I cannot for the life of me understand anyone wanting to join the RN. That is not a slight, it's just the way I'm wired and I agree fully with your statement. Similarly, I am sure there are plenty of Naval types who can't for the life of them understand people wanting to join the RAF.
Horses for causes.