Towards the next Defence and Security Review
Originally Posted by high spirits
the JHC could be so much more potent if Sqns were mixed fleet
Originally Posted by high spirits
Carry on letting the politicians divide and conquer if you want, but the fact remains that all the independent services offer something to the overall party. If you cut the RAF out of the helicopter picture, you will have very few assets below FL100, after which you will lose further arguments on why the RAF exists.
By your FL100 logic, the USAF would be under existential threat; it isn't. As I set out earlier, why should an air force consisting of air defence, attack, AT and ISTAR not continue to exist as an independent entity? All of those areas have applicability over maritime and land environments and sit very well in a separate service.
Originally Posted by high spirits
Presently, there is a lot of jealousy internally about the successes of the RAF SH force. Have a look at the names, dates and DFCs on the 18, 27 and 28 Sqn honours boards and the appointment of latest CAS to back this up.
As regards the new CAS, my concern would be that should he seek to defend the position of RAF in SH (which, I'm sure you can tell, I don't believe is the most defensible of our assets), there is a risk that he might trade away items that are more firmly within the 'core' of an independent air force's business. Still waiting for someone to convince me!
Last edited by Easy Street; 28th Apr 2013 at 00:00.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy,
CHF provide a very valuable, but niche capability. They are not big enough to do all SH. So are you suggesting expanding them? If that's the case, you will save on a handful of crab blue uniforms and some HQ posts. The assets, infrastructure, pay, pensions, accommodation etc of a 60 ac chinook base and a Sqn of Puma are still needed. I can't really understand the point. The need to maintain relevance, credibility and parity with the Army and RN on the battlefield is everything. If all they see of the RAF is Brize and the odd FJ the 'hundred year experiment' will become just that.
As for the Sqn model. There are not many enemies that we would need to fight against requiring mass tank busting helicopter regiments. Sqns by their very nature can be too insular. The JHF model has worked very well, I think we should capitalise on it that's all.
CHF provide a very valuable, but niche capability. They are not big enough to do all SH. So are you suggesting expanding them? If that's the case, you will save on a handful of crab blue uniforms and some HQ posts. The assets, infrastructure, pay, pensions, accommodation etc of a 60 ac chinook base and a Sqn of Puma are still needed. I can't really understand the point. The need to maintain relevance, credibility and parity with the Army and RN on the battlefield is everything. If all they see of the RAF is Brize and the odd FJ the 'hundred year experiment' will become just that.
As for the Sqn model. There are not many enemies that we would need to fight against requiring mass tank busting helicopter regiments. Sqns by their very nature can be too insular. The JHF model has worked very well, I think we should capitalise on it that's all.
Last edited by high spirits; 28th Apr 2013 at 06:34.