Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page

[Not_a_boffin]

RAF AT has been under-invested in for several years as Typhoon/F35 has bled the budget.

As we've only bought 4(?) wonder cabs to date, but in the last ten years or so acquired 8 C17 and have contracted for 22 A400M, plus the FSTA gift that keeps on giving (at £12Bn), that statement is a bit of a stretch.

[Think Defence]

NaB, we may have only bought 4 wonder cabs to date but we have also written a £2 billion (ish) cheque for Tier 1 partner status

[turtle12]

Anti RAF Propaganda.

Odigron

I have had the pleasure of flying RAF, starting with a flight Malta - London in a York in December 1954. The rear passenger door came off in flight and we made an unscheduled stop in I think Hyeres. This was not all bad as we were put up in the French mess and had the benefit of their cuisine for 24 hours and wine with our meals.

My wife and children also flew AT on both duty and space available trips during the 1960s with no problems.

My comments are based on feed back from some of my contemporaries children and even grandchildren who have been recent AT customers.. They do not complain about the aircraft, but about the service level and the attitude of the personnel who give the impression that they are only there to do one a favour.

[Onceapilot]

The only AT strategic casevac/pax aircraft with a true duty of care hostile enviroment capability is about to be scrapped.
I could be wrong. Are the standards of "duty of care for pax" to be reduced?

OAP

[turtle12]

Anti RAF Propaganda.

Evalu8tor

The message that I would like to get across is that their 'Lordships' and 'Airships' would do much for the future of their respective services if they got together with a joint plan to support the national defence strategy. The RN and RAF have overlapping requirements where the 'good enough' should be the rule.

Having said that, I believe that to quote Woody Allen, the motto for both services should be "just because I am paranoid, it does not mean that the bastards are not out to get me!"

[Not_a_boffin]

Indeed TD, but that cheque spread over how many years budget?

Hardly bled the AT budget (for the requirement) dry, which was the premise.

[Lonewolf_50]

Just to stir the pot a bit, from a semi-objecive point of view.

Your total military force is small enough that you may be able to save money by reverting to two, Maritime and Land, each of whom have an air capability, with the strategic air function being bickered between the two of them.

Cut out the fat of a third serivce's overhead, and you may accrue a better tooth to tail ratio, in terms of how much in operational capability and training (which is what keeps your force ready to operate) each pound spent in defence gets you.

Before WW II, our nation had a modestly sized defense institution in size and shape, though for sure the Navy had more when it came to the operating forces due to already being all over the globe. We had a secretary of War (Army) and a Secretary of the Navy (war and other than war, which had to be robust due to being a maritime nation).

When we grew into a global power during and after WW II, the successful argument about span and control in re the Air Force becoming established was a reasonably made argument. We are still pretty big.

Up to the North of us, our Canadian brothers in arms went for the whole "Canadian Forces" model in an attempt to achieve a variety of aims, one of which I believe as better requirements process and leaner structure.
(My Canadian friends had mixed opinions on that, how do you all feel that it worked out?)

Maybe the United Kingdom ought to consider that approach in an effort to get more bang for the buck.

LCDR May could easily be wrong about a lot of stuff, but the points on roles and missions never seem to stop getting argued on this side of the pond either.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

Originally Posted by Think Defence

NaB, we may have only bought 4 wonder cabs to date but we have also written a £2 billion (ish) cheque for Tier 1 partner status.

Indeed TD, but that cheque spread over how many years budget? Hardly bled the AT budget (for the requirement) dry, which was the premise.

And the UK's investment as sole Tier 1 partner means it will reap the benefits of producing around 20% of every F-35 sold worldwide (link).

[Think Defence]

Fair point NaB

Anyway, just to stir the pot the other way

We always seem to hear about the arguments for the RN and Army to absorb the RAF but never the other way around

I get all the arguments about complimentary capabilities and approaches but if you were really thinking about cost saving the only way is to ruthlessly eliminate duplication, the same for the armed forces or Tesco, the principles are the same.

So, is there an argument to fold the AAC and FAA into the RAF?

I have an open mind but it does get tiring hearing the 'abolish the RAF/USAF' arguments without any equally extreme counter

[Vortex_Generator]

Does the same discussion/argument go on in other countries with independent air forces, particularly those with smaller defence budgets than ours? Just wondering.

[Not_a_boffin]

Anyway, just to stir the pot the other way

We always seem to hear about the arguments for the RN and Army to absorb the RAF but never the other way around

I get all the arguments about complimentary capabilities and approaches but if you were really thinking about cost saving the only way is to ruthlessly eliminate duplication, the same for the armed forces or Tesco, the principles are the same.

So, is there an argument to fold the AAC and FAA into the RAF?

I have an open mind but it does get tiring hearing the 'abolish the RAF/USAF' arguments without any equally extreme counter

Without wishing to sustain an "abolish the RAF discussion", (which btw I'm not supporting) there are a number of points that bear examination.

Firstly - the purpose of abolishing a service would be to recognise real economies, primarily by reducing "overheads". Folding FAA or AAC into the RAF would certainly reduce some of that overhead, but you would still be left with three different services, each with their own personnel management, engineering management, logistics management and operational organisations, which need to be sustainable in career terms - what is often called "soft manning" issues.

Going the other way (RAF into FAA and AAC) would at least remove some of that duplication, although probably not as extensively as some would contend. However, it is far from clear where the AT and ISTAR assets would sit. AT could sit with the Pongos, but not particularly comfortably, particularly for "strategic" lift, funnily enough, one reason that the Points live with DTMA and not the Navy/RFA. ISTAR could sit with either, but you could easily see fault lines developing as to priorities between ground surveillance and air surveillance (you can guess which service would be most interested in which).

So, on that basis with current and previous UK force structure, it doesn't necessarily look like a sensible idea to bin the RAF. Having said that, the rationale for a separate "air" service is often couched in terms of "air-mindedness" and "strategic effect", at least one (if not both) of which one might argue the RAF is now ill-equipped to deliver. Not that the Navy or Army are any better equipped to do this btw, just that the RAF contention that only they can prioritise air missions is becoming a little hollow given the lack of platforms / systems with truly strategic reach. The argument is often that the Navy or Army would only care about air cover to meet their own local missions and there is some truth in that, although I suspect perhaps less so now and in the future - certainly on the RN side with Carrier Strike.

However, what if the model was not the current RN/FAA, but an organisation more like US Naval Aviation? They cannot be accused of lacking air-mindedness (at least not by the unbiased) although like the RAF they have seen many of their "strategic" capabilities wither under budgetary pressure. In terms of capability, there is now little to differentiate them from the RAF, other than to note that the USN (understandably) can deploy its tactical jets ashore and afloat. That and the significant difference in budget!

Not a suggestion nor indeed a recommendation, merely a note that the "airmindedness" and "strategic effect" arguments may be less persuasive in future.

[M609]

Does the same discussion/argument go on in other countries with independent air forces, particularly those with smaller defence budgets than ours? Just wondering.

Norway, much smaller budget, and all air roles with the RNoAF: No

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:
In a new piece of legislation drawn up by Ed balls who hopes to replace George osborne in 2015, he has suggested that dog owners should be made to pay £50 a month directly to the labour government.

Or... From 50p in the pound to..... £50, or it's off the pound! ...eh!!

Ok, I'll go back to reading my comic.

FB

[The Helpful Stacker]

Have you asked the many thousands (yes, thousands) of personnel who have been CASEVACd and Then MEDEVACd back to the UK? I'll think you'll find that their 'passenger experience' was pretty good, given the circumstances.

I've never heard a complaint from any of the patients I've brought back, even when they discover that the nurse bringing them back after many months away from civilisation is a hairy arsed bloke rather than one of my pretty female colleagues.

[alfred_the_great]

I would like to say I've had cracking service from RAF AT; I have never had to fly into an area that required a DAS system though, which may change things.

[Onceapilot]

Quote ATG "I would like to say I've had cracking service from RAF AT; I have never had to fly into an area that required a DAS system though, which may change things."
Alfred, it might. Especially after the TriStar is scrapped, and someone is firing at YOU!

OAP

[alfred_the_great]

OAP - I tend to take a ship to war, AT is just for commuting to an office.

[CoffmanStarter]

Good to see a couple of 'pro" responses in yesterdays Times to Lester May's original letter

Originally Posted by The Times Letters Page

Sir, As a former Royal Naval officer
it is hardly surprising that Lester
May favours his old service over the
RAF but his wish to see its assets
split between the other two services
would not result in the “huge cost ’
and manpower savings” to which he
refers. The aircraft would still
require the personnel to operate and
maintain them, the airfields with
their supporting staff would still be
needed to house them, no matter
what colour of uniform they wore.
Administration and headquarters
would still be needed to run the
organisation, unless Mr May
believes that there is excess capacity
currently within the Army and the
Navy to carry out these functions?
While he is correct that for a
maritime nation the Royal Navy is
of critical importance and has been
badly treated in recent defence cuts,
he should not forget that the RAF is
much more than just a few combat
jets. He makes no mention of its air
transport, helicopter support, air-to-
air refuelling, intelligence gathering
assets or remotely piloted aircraft.
Each of the three services
performs an essential role in
safeguarding this country and its
interests. Abolishing the RAF would
neither make us safer nor save the
money that Mr Lester says it would.

PHIL MOBBS
West Hanney, Oxon

Originally Posted by The Times Letters Page

Sir, Lester May is right that the
balance of effort in the UK needs
correction (letter, Jan 23), but wrong
to advocate disbanding the RAF.
Now is not the time to waste angst
and management effort on such
argument, but our US colleagues,’
and others, are right when they
express concern at the shrinkage of
the Royal Navy. Once withdrawal -
from Afghanistan is complete it will
be upon the Royal Navy that the
support for security, diplomacy and
trade will depend; the UK should not
be found wanting. In Future Force
2020, with only one operational
aircraft carrier and 19 escorts, there
will be insufficient resource to fulfil
such roles. It is here where the
Army and RAF are relatively
impotent and must be scaled
accordingly. The Prime Minister is
disingenuous to suggest that all is
well in defence — it blatantly is not.

CHRIS PALMER .
Commodore RN
Havant, Hants

MOD Future Force 2020 Summary

And in the interest of balance ...

Originally Posted by The Times Letters Pages

Sir, As Mr May suggests, there are
questions about the appropriateness
of maintaining independent air
forces on both sides of the Atlantic.
My research on nearly a century’s
experience suggests that independent
air forces create two big problems.
First, they erect bureaucratic walls
between missions, such that soldiers
in need of air support often can’t get
the help they need. To remedy this
the US Army and Marine Corps
created their own air forces.
Second, independent air forces
create lobbying organisations for
parochial approaches to warfighting
and procurement, approaches that
do not necessarily contribute to the
pursuit of national security. The
USAF, for example, has consistently
advocated for air power-centric
escalation of diplomatic disputes,
and has often argued for the
procurement of sophisticated—but-
mission-challenged fighter and
bombers and for the retirement of
much-beloved attack aircraft, such
as the A-10 Warthog. '
‘I believe that it would be
beneficial for the UK and the US
alike to reconsider the organisation
of their military air power.

DR ROBERT M. FARLEY
Patterson School of Diplomacy and
International Commerce,
University of Kentucky

[Archimedes]

You do worry about Dr Farley's research, though: it seems that he thinks that the USMC only got into aviation because the USAF were letting them down...

[The Helpful Stacker]

Dr Farley seems to be predominately a Naval theorist.

Robert M