The Scottish Air Force
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OutlawPete / TomJoad,
Roger all that - now what's your opinions of a 'potentailly' future Scottish Airforce?
Base or bases? - just Lossie?
HQ organisation and where? - Separate Army, Navy, Air Force HQ's or one Joint?
Any wings or groups or just a HQ and sqns?
How many sqns and how many aircraft and of what type?
How about an opinion on what you would like to see (should independance go ahead) versus what you think we would realistically see?
Look forward to reading your answers.
Roger all that - now what's your opinions of a 'potentailly' future Scottish Airforce?
Base or bases? - just Lossie?
HQ organisation and where? - Separate Army, Navy, Air Force HQ's or one Joint?
Any wings or groups or just a HQ and sqns?
How many sqns and how many aircraft and of what type?
How about an opinion on what you would like to see (should independance go ahead) versus what you think we would realistically see?
Look forward to reading your answers.
Assuming the vote is yes , which I still maintain it will not:
1. I do not believe Scotland would need nor could afford an Air Force much beyond a few helicopters or small fixed wing ac for coastguard/maritime/fisheries protection. Certainly no air defense, transport or ground attack requirement.
2. The answer then to how many bases follows from above. Most sensible option would be to retain Lossie rather than close and reopen another base; its capacity more than adequate for independent Scottish needs. Lossie would also provide capacity for visiting aircraft. The requirement/desire to exercise in low flying areas/access to air weapon ranges available in the North of Scotland would I suspect remain for the rump of the UK Air Force (whatever it is to be called). I suspect that the rump of UK government and Scottish government would be able to form a mutual agreement (HN agreement/memorandum of understanding) to provide continued access on quid pro quo basis. Similar cooperation/access agreements would exist for the rump of UK land and navy assets. Here, the SNP's desire to remove nuclear weapons would not happen overnight - entirely unrealistic to expect rump of UK to find solution to problem overnight - so an agreement to maintain the Faslane/Coulport base would again form part of the settlement negotiations.
3. Bulk of Scottish military capability would I suspect be formed by land component. Their role, most likely assigned to NATO/UN rapid reaction and peacekeeping duties. Given the small size of her force requirement then I suspect a single defence force would be practicable. Single HQ (administrative Edinburgh, operational Lossie) certainly no wings or multiple sqns - no need as no where near the number of assets. Through life support for assets contracted to industry as per ASTOR model.
In sum, Scotland's defence capability/requirement would be concentrated on small land element. Following Denmark's philosophy - small countries cannot field comprehensive military capability across all components of air, land, sea . Scotland would need to be part of a larger alliance (NATO) providing what it can in return for what it cannot - as per current arrangement for small NATO countries. So as far as air is concerned , no AD, no AT, and no mud moving - can't afford it, don't need it. A few rotary aircraft/fixed wing sharing search rescue/fisheries protection.
Cooperation between Scotland and rump of UK would, contrary to some of the muppet comments found on this thread, would exist post independence. If you like a very special special relationship would exist . The rump of the UK would have a vested interest to see that this takes place - how else would it make up the deficit of the current forces drawn from Scottish population/territory. Scots would continue to serve in rump of UK Air, Land and Sea under bilateral agreement - all things are possible but these possible future models will not be spoken nor explored formally by either westminster nor SNP until after independence.
Ok mark it up in red please and let me know when I should expect the the next task - perhaps a DO letter on marquee for mess doo, set of minutes, signal or a formal letter to Wg Cdr Smythe offering an apology for comparing wife to a bloated warthog at the summer ball. Ah the memories of ISS , and summer balls.
Now PartAnimal , looking forward to your thoughts on future independent Scotland's defence needs beyond that which you have posted
Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Mar 2013 at 19:20.
Thread Starter
I'm impressed, TomJoad. A good and relevant answer. Thank you.
In particular, I support your statement:
Basing for QRA and LF training springs to mind. When the UK gets a replacement MPA, there would be a good argument for deploying those assets for mutual benefit. Although it won't be military for much longer, SAR may well be a British Isles task - better than duplicate or non-cooperating ops.
This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month. But you have answered some of my questions about afordability.
In particular, I support your statement:
Cooperation between Scotland and rump of UK would, contrary to some of the muppet comments found on this thread, would exist post independence.
This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month. But you have answered some of my questions about afordability.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm impressed, TomJoad. A good and relevant answer. Thank you.
In particular, I support your statement:
Basing for QRA and LF training springs to mind. When the UK gets a replacement MPA, there would be a good argument for deploying those assets for mutual benefit. Although it won't be military for much longer, SAR may well be a British Isles task - better than duplicate or non-cooperating ops.
This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month. But you have answered some of my questions about affordability.
In particular, I support your statement:
Basing for QRA and LF training springs to mind. When the UK gets a replacement MPA, there would be a good argument for deploying those assets for mutual benefit. Although it won't be military for much longer, SAR may well be a British Isles task - better than duplicate or non-cooperating ops.
This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month. But you have answered some of my questions about affordability.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by TomJoad
Don't really see any evidence that the the YES vote will prevail as you suggest.
Honestly I have never suggested that the YES vote would prevail. My entire purpose here was to explore what armed forces Scotland might need IF separation were to happen. Hypothetical.
I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I'm just putting forward a hypothetical case to explore what might be in Scotland's interest, th UK's interest and what might be feasable.
Party Animal (thank you, by the way) put into writing exactly what I've been trying to ask.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 9th Mar 2013 at 19:07.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must be using different languages, Tom. Maybe I express myself badly. I DO NOT THINK IT WILL HAPPEN. I AGREE WITH YOU. That is why I said IF.
Honestly I have never suggested that the YES vote would prevail. My entire purpose here was to explore what armed forces Scotland might need IF separation were to happen. Hypothetical.
I.
Honestly I have never suggested that the YES vote would prevail. My entire purpose here was to explore what armed forces Scotland might need IF separation were to happen. Hypothetical.
I.
"but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month."
Must have been lost in translation.
My apology - let's leave it there.
Last edited by TomJoad; 9th Mar 2013 at 19:53.
Courtney
I think the opposite is happening. As the yes/no campaign drags on the SNP's claims are being put under the microscope more and more. Where once Salmond appeared to be a consummate politician the facade is beginning to crack. He was caught out being economical with the truth about taking legal advice on Scotland not having to apply for EU membership - he hadn't. Recently he has said the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) figures were wrong on oil and he will publish his own soon! The OBR, an independent body, has recently criticised Cameron so will people believe Salmond?
Should Scotland become independent then I think that Lossiemouth will close as it won't be required. The small Scottish Air force (SAF) could quite happily follow other small country templates and share civil airfields. Prestwick is underused now that Ryanair is its only scheduled airline so MPA/Transport could be based there with FJs as well, if the SAF needs them, with any excess requirement being utilised at Glasgow as the North side seems to be available for development. Kinloss still has an active runway and lots of spare hangarage so helicopters could be based there with the Army.
The advantage of co-locating with the civilians is there is then no need to have runway maintenance, ATC or fire services within the military budget.
HF
This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month.
Should Scotland become independent then I think that Lossiemouth will close as it won't be required. The small Scottish Air force (SAF) could quite happily follow other small country templates and share civil airfields. Prestwick is underused now that Ryanair is its only scheduled airline so MPA/Transport could be based there with FJs as well, if the SAF needs them, with any excess requirement being utilised at Glasgow as the North side seems to be available for development. Kinloss still has an active runway and lots of spare hangarage so helicopters could be based there with the Army.
The advantage of co-locating with the civilians is there is then no need to have runway maintenance, ATC or fire services within the military budget.
HF
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with the sentiment of sharing airfields. The local civilian airfield near me houses a National Guard unit, as does one I have been detached to recently. Seems a very efficient way of doing business - and the more you reduce, the more you can reduce. Seemed to work at KAF too - and when you really needed people out of your way, they moved.
I wonder what the manpower tarif for a 6 aircraft Typhoon unit at a RAF base with RAF cooks and RAF guards and RAF ATC, and PSF and...oh you get the picture...would be compared to a 6 aircraft SAF F-16 unit out of Prestwick would be....with adequate engineering support, a chap on the gate and two ops assistants?
I also think that the idea of pooling MPA assets is a good one. The E-3s out of GK or the Franco-German land units seem to work. Not sure which model would be the most appropriate.
I wonder what the manpower tarif for a 6 aircraft Typhoon unit at a RAF base with RAF cooks and RAF guards and RAF ATC, and PSF and...oh you get the picture...would be compared to a 6 aircraft SAF F-16 unit out of Prestwick would be....with adequate engineering support, a chap on the gate and two ops assistants?
I also think that the idea of pooling MPA assets is a good one. The E-3s out of GK or the Franco-German land units seem to work. Not sure which model would be the most appropriate.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Times today
The Defence Secretary has mocked “insultingly vague” plans for independent Scottish armed forces in the event of devolution and warned that the defence of both nations would suffer.
Philip Hammond told an invited audience in Edinburgh today that Scotland would be the principal loser in any division of the United Kingdom with entitlement to just one and a half destroyers, two Hercules transport aircraft, five Chinook helicopters and “under one Red Arrow” in any division of the armed forces.
“Defence and security should be at the heart of this debate about Scotland’s future and yet, just over a year before the Scottish people go to the polls, the commitments from those proposing independence remain almost insultingly vague, implausibly long on ambition and incredibly short on detail and the means to deliver them,” he said.
“I ask myself why? Might it be that they know that any properly informed and well-reasoned analysis will demonstrate that Scotland is stronger and more secure as an integral part of the UK than it would be alone?”
“The reality is that, as part of the UK, Scotland benefits from every pound invested in our collective security.”
The Scottish National Party has outlined plans for a 15,000 strong defence force in the event of devolution and promised to abandon nuclear weapons. The proposed Scottish defence budget would be around £2.5 billion according to the SNP.
However, Mr Hammond claimed that Scottish politicians had failed to understand the scale of logistical and infrastructure support required, necessitating a significantly larger force of 20,000 for an army alone, without a navy or airforce to cover Scotland’s long coastline.
He claimed that SNP politicians were being “juvenile” to assume that Scottish soldiers serving in the British Army would wish to transfer their skills to a Scottish defence force with a “fraction of the opportunities”.
The Defence Secretary also warned that Scottish industry would lose out heavily from an end to Royal Navy ship building north of the border, such as the two aircraft carriers being built on the Clyde, and an end to basing in the region.
Mr Hammond faced fierce criticism in Scotland last week after news that the return of 20,000 troops from Germany would produce an increase of just 600 troops based north of the border.
The announcement contradicted previous promises of major economic benefit to Scotland from the return of forces from Germany.
Despite this, Mr Hammond said that MoD plans represented a “commitment” to Scotland and warned that ending the union would undermine the network of mutually supportive bases spanning both borders.
“An independent Scotland would have to build its defence credibility and its intelligence reliability from scratch and develop its own bilateral relationships, and the success of these would depend in part on what Scotland can offer in return,” he said.
He questioned SNP plans, outlined by the party’s Westminster head Angus Robertson MP, to seek membership of Nato after independence.
“I note the claim made by Angus Robertson that, on independence, Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations,” he said. “The reality is that it would be the rest of the UK that would inherit Nato membership. An applicant Scotland would need all 28 member nations to decide that it met the requirements to join, taking into account its defence policy, including its intended budget, capabilities, missions and objectives.”
Mr Robertson responded to the speech by attacking what he called “broken promises and U-turns” from the government on Scottish bases as well as recent reports that army training ranges have been firing controversial depleted uranium shells into the Clyde.
“He came to insult Scottish service personnel and demean his office by making jokes about Scottish defence needs,” said Mr Robertson in a statement. “People will make their own judgements about the wisdom of making that kind of speech when the reality is it’s his government that has been part of a massive defence underspend of over £7 billion pounds in Scotland in the last ten years alone.”
Mr Robertson added that a Scottish Defence Force would offer “attractive full-rank career prospects” for servicemen. “Domestic operations, training at home and with neighbours and allies as well as international participation in UN sanctioned peacekeeping missions will guarantee an attractive career path,” he said.
Philip Hammond told an invited audience in Edinburgh today that Scotland would be the principal loser in any division of the United Kingdom with entitlement to just one and a half destroyers, two Hercules transport aircraft, five Chinook helicopters and “under one Red Arrow” in any division of the armed forces.
“Defence and security should be at the heart of this debate about Scotland’s future and yet, just over a year before the Scottish people go to the polls, the commitments from those proposing independence remain almost insultingly vague, implausibly long on ambition and incredibly short on detail and the means to deliver them,” he said.
“I ask myself why? Might it be that they know that any properly informed and well-reasoned analysis will demonstrate that Scotland is stronger and more secure as an integral part of the UK than it would be alone?”
“The reality is that, as part of the UK, Scotland benefits from every pound invested in our collective security.”
The Scottish National Party has outlined plans for a 15,000 strong defence force in the event of devolution and promised to abandon nuclear weapons. The proposed Scottish defence budget would be around £2.5 billion according to the SNP.
However, Mr Hammond claimed that Scottish politicians had failed to understand the scale of logistical and infrastructure support required, necessitating a significantly larger force of 20,000 for an army alone, without a navy or airforce to cover Scotland’s long coastline.
He claimed that SNP politicians were being “juvenile” to assume that Scottish soldiers serving in the British Army would wish to transfer their skills to a Scottish defence force with a “fraction of the opportunities”.
The Defence Secretary also warned that Scottish industry would lose out heavily from an end to Royal Navy ship building north of the border, such as the two aircraft carriers being built on the Clyde, and an end to basing in the region.
Mr Hammond faced fierce criticism in Scotland last week after news that the return of 20,000 troops from Germany would produce an increase of just 600 troops based north of the border.
The announcement contradicted previous promises of major economic benefit to Scotland from the return of forces from Germany.
Despite this, Mr Hammond said that MoD plans represented a “commitment” to Scotland and warned that ending the union would undermine the network of mutually supportive bases spanning both borders.
“An independent Scotland would have to build its defence credibility and its intelligence reliability from scratch and develop its own bilateral relationships, and the success of these would depend in part on what Scotland can offer in return,” he said.
He questioned SNP plans, outlined by the party’s Westminster head Angus Robertson MP, to seek membership of Nato after independence.
“I note the claim made by Angus Robertson that, on independence, Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations,” he said. “The reality is that it would be the rest of the UK that would inherit Nato membership. An applicant Scotland would need all 28 member nations to decide that it met the requirements to join, taking into account its defence policy, including its intended budget, capabilities, missions and objectives.”
Mr Robertson responded to the speech by attacking what he called “broken promises and U-turns” from the government on Scottish bases as well as recent reports that army training ranges have been firing controversial depleted uranium shells into the Clyde.
“He came to insult Scottish service personnel and demean his office by making jokes about Scottish defence needs,” said Mr Robertson in a statement. “People will make their own judgements about the wisdom of making that kind of speech when the reality is it’s his government that has been part of a massive defence underspend of over £7 billion pounds in Scotland in the last ten years alone.”
Mr Robertson added that a Scottish Defence Force would offer “attractive full-rank career prospects” for servicemen. “Domestic operations, training at home and with neighbours and allies as well as international participation in UN sanctioned peacekeeping missions will guarantee an attractive career path,” he said.
Philip Hammond told an invited audience in Edinburgh today that Scotland would be the principal loser in any division of the United Kingdom with entitlement to just one and a half destroyers, two Hercules transport aircraft, five Chinook helicopters and “under one Red Arrow"
HF
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The advantage of co-locating with the civilians is there is then no need to have runway maintenance, ATC or fire services within the military budget.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely, The RN pay a fortune to Prestwick for the privelage of basing a couple of Seakings on the North side, if I remember correctly take Gannet out of the equation and PIK would almost cease to function.
Not sure if there are any other Military units co located on a civvy airfield but from my experience its not a cheap option.
Not sure if there are any other Military units co located on a civvy airfield but from my experience its not a cheap option.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There won't be a Scots airforce because they won't be anyone to fly in it. Scots are congenital mercenaries who only fight successfully in other peoples armies. If they created their own they'd be so absorbed with internal bickering that nothing would get done. They only fight successfully if they're fighting a cause other than their own, led by someone other than their own.
Your failure to appreciate this has resulted in a post that insults the memory of every Scot who has laid down his or her life in the course of duty over the past couple of centuries and which, in both tone and content, is little short of racist.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kluseau,
You spotted it well done; then again this thread, and others of its ilke, are replete with such undertones. Good on you for pointing it out so eloquently - no doubt a defence of banter will be offered (last refuge of intellectually bankrupt). We need to make some allowances for such commentators, I fear it points to a "congenital" disposition ".
Last edited by TomJoad; 15th Mar 2013 at 21:56.
Icanseeclearly
Why does the RN pay a fortune - bad management of finances perhaps. They should use the Ryanair model - charge too much and we go elsewhere - it isn't as though Seakings need a long runway!! I am sure that Bond in Inverness don't pay a fortune for their access to the airfield
With the choice of airfields in Scotland I am sure a financially savvy SAF will be able to negotiate a good rate to share an airfield certainly far cheaper than having to train and pay its own in house airfield support team. This will be the benefit of having a small lean Airforce - the people making the financial decisions will be nearer the frontline.
I once had the pleasure of showing some Irish Air Corp pilots the joys of night hovering prior to their acquisition of Dauphines. Their procurement team for the Dauphine consisted of 3 people - one from the government, the Squadron boss and the QHI. They wanted a piece of American kit in the helicopter - the French said no - French kit is only suitable - the Irish said OK we'll go somewhere else - the French changed their minds! A quick decision for a lean acquisition team
TomJoad
Do you have a sense of humour as people who put brackets around disparaging comments have usually lost an argument
HF
The RN pay a fortune to Prestwick for the privelage of basing a couple of Seakings on the North side, if I remember correctly take Gannet out of the equation and PIK would almost cease to function.
With the choice of airfields in Scotland I am sure a financially savvy SAF will be able to negotiate a good rate to share an airfield certainly far cheaper than having to train and pay its own in house airfield support team. This will be the benefit of having a small lean Airforce - the people making the financial decisions will be nearer the frontline.
I once had the pleasure of showing some Irish Air Corp pilots the joys of night hovering prior to their acquisition of Dauphines. Their procurement team for the Dauphine consisted of 3 people - one from the government, the Squadron boss and the QHI. They wanted a piece of American kit in the helicopter - the French said no - French kit is only suitable - the Irish said OK we'll go somewhere else - the French changed their minds! A quick decision for a lean acquisition team
TomJoad
no doubt a defence of banter will be offered (last refuge of intellectually bankrupt).
HF
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Navy Unit Prestwick
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated monetary value is of the property comprising Royal Navy Unit Prestwick; how much is planned to be spent on its redevelopment; and if there are plans to sell this facility. [317786]
Mr. Kevan Jones: The MOD has a long-term commercial lease to 2019 with the Prestwick Airport Authorities for the HMS Gannet Air Station. The existing assets on the site are appropriately maintained but, as we do not own the site itself, there are no plans for redevelopment.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that will be lost as the result of the transfer of search and rescue operations from the Royal Navy Unit Prestwick to Glasgow; and what plans there are for the transfer of existing staff. [317787]
Mr. Kevan Jones: It is not anticipated that the decision to move future search and rescue operations from HMS Gannet at Prestwick to Glasgow airport will result in any job losses. Appropriate civilian personnel will be offered the opportunity to work with the successful contractor under the rules of Trade Union Protection of Employment (TUPE).
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated monetary value is of the property comprising Royal Navy Unit Prestwick; how much is planned to be spent on its redevelopment; and if there are plans to sell this facility. [317786]
Mr. Kevan Jones: The MOD has a long-term commercial lease to 2019 with the Prestwick Airport Authorities for the HMS Gannet Air Station. The existing assets on the site are appropriately maintained but, as we do not own the site itself, there are no plans for redevelopment.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that will be lost as the result of the transfer of search and rescue operations from the Royal Navy Unit Prestwick to Glasgow; and what plans there are for the transfer of existing staff. [317787]
Mr. Kevan Jones: It is not anticipated that the decision to move future search and rescue operations from HMS Gannet at Prestwick to Glasgow airport will result in any job losses. Appropriate civilian personnel will be offered the opportunity to work with the successful contractor under the rules of Trade Union Protection of Employment (TUPE).
Interesting discussion on the likely makeup of an independent Scottish defence Force on Radio 4's Question Time last night. SNP's Joan MacAlpine saw an independent Scotland as a member of NATO with similar sized armed forces as Norway, including an air force equipped with modern FJs. Whether comparing the Scottish and Norwegian defence forces is valid depends, I suppose, on how much oil Scotland reckons they can snaffle, as in the end that's the only way they are going to pay for a credible defence force.
You can get it on BBC i - player, or catch it again on Radio 4 at 1310 today.
You can get it on BBC i - player, or catch it again on Radio 4 at 1310 today.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the SNP want their forces to be the same as the Norwegians then they best start spending.
Norway's defence budget £4.6 billion
Scotland's will be £2.5
Quite a difference but never let the truth get in the way of politicians especially the SNP who make it up as they go along.
Also, and I stand to be corrected, Norway still has conscription and the information I can find is they get paid a lot less than their UK counterparts.
Norway's defence budget £4.6 billion
Scotland's will be £2.5
Quite a difference but never let the truth get in the way of politicians especially the SNP who make it up as they go along.
Also, and I stand to be corrected, Norway still has conscription and the information I can find is they get paid a lot less than their UK counterparts.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So credible yes, but credible to address the task not past glories.
