Still broken? Is the RAF in better or worse shape than ten years ago
Thread Starter
Go back to 1990 about the time 'options for change' revealed the Blue print for the post cold war RAF, we had 30 operational squadrons, variously equipped with Tornado GR1, Tornado F3, F-4M Phantom II, F-4J Phantom II, Jaguar GR1A, Harrier GR3/5 and Buccaneer S2A/B. The TGR1s and Buccaneers were able to carry WE177s and the four Nimrod MR2 squadrons we also had could carry US mk 43 nuclear warheads. Oh how the mighty have fallen!
You could argue that a sensible post Cold War restructuring would have scythed armour, and perhaps even the strategic 'Moscow-capable' deterrent, while leaving agile, deployable air power unscathed to meet the challenges of what would inevitably be a more unstable world. In my dreams, anyway!
But in the event the fast jet force was reduced, and it is the 2004 situation that seemed to represent a sensible post Cold War strength, nearly matching resources to sensible planning assumptions, and configured to meet that considered Post Cold War blueprint.
As you pointed out:
we had at that time; six Tornado F3 squadrons, seven Tornado GR4/4A squadrons, three Jaguar GR3/3A squadrons and three Harrier GR 7/7A squadrons. The orbat you mentioned from 2007 later that year lost the last Jaguar squadron and by end of July 2009 we were down to just a single Tornado F3 unit.
Personally I'd have kept an air launched deterrent - albeit with a 'nuke Storm Shadow' replacing a WE177-type weapon at some point around the Millennium. No. you might not be able to bring Armageddon to Moscow, and yes, you'd be vulnerable to a Russian first strike, but it would be enough to deter and enough to 'deserve' a seat at the top table. And Mr Corbyn and his ilk could have enjoyed the real reduction in nuclear capability, perhaps?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but we could flatten the German trenches, take out all their aircraft on the ground, take out their command headquarters and the Reichstag before 5 pm tea and sarnies. Whilst conducting an info ops campaign on their radio frequencies and deploy a huge field hospital delivering first class critical care.
It's not about numbers.
It's not about numbers.
What chance would our forces realistically have against a credible and determined adversary? Or to put it another way, what countries could we consider our equals in terms of fighting capability on neutral territory?
Look at the German Air force, only got 4 Typhoons it can offer to NATO, not much use.
What was the old reason for originally forming NATO, keep the Russians out and the Americans and the Germans in.
"sigh".
What was the old reason for originally forming NATO, keep the Russians out and the Americans and the Germans in.
"sigh".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't that kind of assume that our German friends are just going to sit around eating sausage and drinking beer while we do all this?
What chance would our forces realistically have against a credible and determined adversary? Or to put it another way, what countries could we consider our equals in terms of fighting capability on neutral territory?
What chance would our forces realistically have against a credible and determined adversary? Or to put it another way, what countries could we consider our equals in terms of fighting capability on neutral territory?
I would say its pretty unlikely. Its worth pointing out the UK is exceptionally niche at what it does very well and those things are appreciated by our allies I suspect.
The OP was reminiscing about having 20,000 sopwith camels or something. Firstly, I dont see how those aircraft could be used in multiple roles. Secondly, the pensions bill for the maintainers and pilots at a 2 to one manning ratio alone would bankrupt the country. Finally, the glue and string wouldnt meet first contact post Haddon-Cave with the MAA. Far too flammable.
What was the old reason for originally forming NATO, keep the Russians out and the Americans and the Germans in.
Oh for gods sake, you watched but didnt LISTEN. If you'd paid any attention you'd have learned that the ship is on her very initial sea trials and they were making sure she works, is fit for purpose and can safely embark an airwing. Thats why no fixed wing were embarked on this very early set of sea trials - identical in scope to every other aircraft carrier built in history.
Its akin to expecting a Typhoon fresh out of build at Warton to immediately fill up with munitions and go bomb somewhere without having had a test flight first.
Its akin to expecting a Typhoon fresh out of build at Warton to immediately fill up with munitions and go bomb somewhere without having had a test flight first.
Yes I did. We will see. At the end of it's sea trials (incidently some time ago) no aircraft were assigned to the ship. They still have not, nor do we have any. Not for a very long time. Read the news my friend. It was madness hastily giving away our Harriers (for twopence) before we had anything to replace them with. That was the Government wanted to make short term gains.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpend
It (HMS QE) is STILL doing Sea Trials as and when, (its still effectively a prototype) and has yet to finish them. Which it will do once its been over the pond to conduct trials with the future aircraft that will fly off it later this year. By the way the first Sqn to operate off it has reformed and will be arriving in Norfolk sometime this summer.
Oh and Yes we do have them, 15 at the last count with 17 Sqn at Edwards which is the Test And Evaluation Sqn and the now reformed 617 Sqn do keep up with credible news items.
As for Harriers too late they have gone and ain't coming back. TTTFN
It (HMS QE) is STILL doing Sea Trials as and when, (its still effectively a prototype) and has yet to finish them. Which it will do once its been over the pond to conduct trials with the future aircraft that will fly off it later this year. By the way the first Sqn to operate off it has reformed and will be arriving in Norfolk sometime this summer.
Oh and Yes we do have them, 15 at the last count with 17 Sqn at Edwards which is the Test And Evaluation Sqn and the now reformed 617 Sqn do keep up with credible news items.
As for Harriers too late they have gone and ain't coming back. TTTFN
QEC completed initial sea trials till late laat year to make sure the basics worked. She then did more troals woth about 8 helos embarked to esrablish RW operating limits and make sure she can support helo ops and other things like rough weather trials etc. Now they know this critical informatipn, she is doing a short upkeep period like all ships, then embarking jets in the summer.
its almost like the RN has over 100 years experience in trials needed to ensure a carrier is safe to embark and operate airceaft isnt it?
its almost like the RN has over 100 years experience in trials needed to ensure a carrier is safe to embark and operate airceaft isnt it?
Fortunately Trenchard and Churchill got together to keep the RAF as an independent fighting force...albeit with no money to spend....
Observing that adversaries may also be woefully unable to function reminds me of a Luftwaffe staff officer's diary entry in summer 1944 which, if memory serves, went along the lines of "Our only hope is that the chiefs of staff of the enemy air forces are as scatter-brained as ours"...didn't turn out well for the Germans...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This bit of the telegraph article was interesting....
All but 10 of the fighters are suffering from serious issues with their automated systems. Cooling fluid is leaking from sensors in the wings that are supposed to detect enemy aircraft, making the sensors unreliable.
The problem could be easily repaired, but engineers are unable to source the necessary parts because the manufacturer has gone out of business.
Really ?
All but 10 of the fighters are suffering from serious issues with their automated systems. Cooling fluid is leaking from sensors in the wings that are supposed to detect enemy aircraft, making the sensors unreliable.
The problem could be easily repaired, but engineers are unable to source the necessary parts because the manufacturer has gone out of business.
Really ?
OLD AND BOLD
Having a quick car wash this morning wondering why no Hawks in the sky, and then from the north came 'that unmistakeable sound' of a powerful machine at low level.
Seconds later a Tornado creamed overhead (full stores and tanks) going like a B O O H at about 300ft.
I immediately thought about this thread and what has been said. It was difficult to comprehend how long these machines have been in front line service and yet I got the feeling that here was a fighting machine with a capable crew that could still do the business, and looked the part. Much more impressive than a 100 year fly past.
Seconds later a Tornado creamed overhead (full stores and tanks) going like a B O O H at about 300ft.
I immediately thought about this thread and what has been said. It was difficult to comprehend how long these machines have been in front line service and yet I got the feeling that here was a fighting machine with a capable crew that could still do the business, and looked the part. Much more impressive than a 100 year fly past.
Having a quick car wash this morning wondering why no Hawks in the sky, and then from the north came 'that unmistakeable sound' of a powerful machine at low level.
Seconds later a Tornado creamed overhead (full stores and tanks) going like a B O O H at about 300ft.
I immediately thought about this thread and what has been said. It was difficult to comprehend how long these machines have been in front line service and yet I got the feeling that here was a fighting machine with a capable crew that could still do the business, and looked the part. Much more impressive than a 100 year fly past.
Seconds later a Tornado creamed overhead (full stores and tanks) going like a B O O H at about 300ft.
I immediately thought about this thread and what has been said. It was difficult to comprehend how long these machines have been in front line service and yet I got the feeling that here was a fighting machine with a capable crew that could still do the business, and looked the part. Much more impressive than a 100 year fly past.
Unfortunately the decision to withdraw it from March next year is irreversible and we must hope that the Project Centurion Typhoon jets will give the same level of service for many years to come
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Lets face it, we are screwed, we no longer have the capability to fight a sustained or even short war against anyone with an equivalent capability, its ok bombing the crap put of third world sh*tholes, but going up against a country that can shoot back, we wouldn't stand a chance.
Lets face it, we are screwed, we no longer have the capability to fight a sustained or even short war against anyone with an equivalent capability, its ok bombing the crap put of third world sh*tholes, but going up against a country that can shoot back, we wouldn't stand a chance.
Nutloose
I’m sure the guys and girls would thank you for your vote of confidence.
Perhaps its it’s more likely that we have reached a situation of cascading mutually assured destruction.
We we all realise that there’s little point using nukes against people with nukes. It would seem equally futile nowadays to go up against a similarly equipped adversary in the air to air environment and probably in the ground environment as well, since it would always utilise the third dimension. I can’t speak for naval power but I could believe a similar scenario.
Perhaps, due to large multi national alliances the idea of a state vs state war is just far more unlikely than it ever was.
I’m not stupid enough to believe the planet will become a more peaceful place as time goes on (I’d say the exact opposite is true) but name me one country of a similar stature to ourselves that we could realistically see ourselves at war with on a 1 v 1 basis in the next 100 years.
BV
Perhaps its it’s more likely that we have reached a situation of cascading mutually assured destruction.
We we all realise that there’s little point using nukes against people with nukes. It would seem equally futile nowadays to go up against a similarly equipped adversary in the air to air environment and probably in the ground environment as well, since it would always utilise the third dimension. I can’t speak for naval power but I could believe a similar scenario.
Perhaps, due to large multi national alliances the idea of a state vs state war is just far more unlikely than it ever was.
I’m not stupid enough to believe the planet will become a more peaceful place as time goes on (I’d say the exact opposite is true) but name me one country of a similar stature to ourselves that we could realistically see ourselves at war with on a 1 v 1 basis in the next 100 years.
BV
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BV, remember the various war options: wars of necessity and wars of choice. The Falklands was arguably the former though, as a n overseas territory we could have left them to their fate.
Kuwait, like Poland, was a war of moral choice.
Now which first world power might involve us in a war of necessity? Spain is a possibility as are Turkey or Greece over the SBAs. Of choice? A country with whom we have a mutual assistance treat, say one of the former colonies? We can discount Africa as they are not first world class opponents. We can also discount the Middle East which really leaves the Far East. Our commitment is probably the traditional Malaysian one with a threat from the North rather than the south.
In essence, apart from maintaining a policing role against Russia, the balance of our forces is probably adequate for the more likely different role in our areas of interest. What we have to hope is that our bluff isn't called.
Kuwait, like Poland, was a war of moral choice.
Now which first world power might involve us in a war of necessity? Spain is a possibility as are Turkey or Greece over the SBAs. Of choice? A country with whom we have a mutual assistance treat, say one of the former colonies? We can discount Africa as they are not first world class opponents. We can also discount the Middle East which really leaves the Far East. Our commitment is probably the traditional Malaysian one with a threat from the North rather than the south.
In essence, apart from maintaining a policing role against Russia, the balance of our forces is probably adequate for the more likely different role in our areas of interest. What we have to hope is that our bluff isn't called.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
But we are not buying enough to equip two carriers and one well placed torpedo or sea skimming missile and those billions are forming the next reef for the local fish population. I take it you have seen what damage was inflicted upon the USS Cole by a bunch of Suicide bombers with intent to inflict damage on their target..hi tech no and pretty powerless to react to in a rush.
Bob I was just being realistic, how long would you give the UK forces in a modern war where the opposition had a roughly equal capability in assets? we have sold our souls to the devil and destroyed our capability to produce squat to replace losses, we just do not have the facility to ramp up production to replace losses anymore, look at the current RAF and how much is actually home produced.
Now which first world power might involve us in a war of necessity? Spain is a possibility as are Turkey or Greece over the SBAs
Last edited by NutLoose; 3rd May 2018 at 20:27.
Don't forget I42 that there was an early post WWI SDSR which removed approx 90% of the newly formed RAF's aircraft from service.
Yes, I aware of that. My post was slightly tongue-in-cheek. However, if I compare the reduced size of the present day RAF with the RAF I remember from my UAS days in the 60s and if the trends continue, when does the government say “What’s the point?”