Crab-Bashing
 

I have just read an article in today's Sunday Times about the RN facing activity cuts because of the 'black hole' in defence funding. The last sentence was:

"All significant projects, including two aircraft carriers, have been delayed indefinitely after a campaign by the RAF to undermine the rationale behind their procurement and that of the Joint Combat Aircraft that will fly off the carriers."

I'm sorry, but that is just the most inaccurate and misleading sentence I can ever remember reading in a national newspaper.

Never mind that the delayed programmes include Army and RAF programmes. Never mind that CAS has stated publically that he is in favour of the carrier procurement, and that our internal briefings ask us to support this line. Never mind that JCA will be operated by both the RAF and the RN, with at least half flown by the RAF. Whoever has briefed this piece of rubbish to a journalist clearly has no concept of how the procurement process works if they think that a single-service staff could realistically delay a procurement by briefing against it.

Why is it that whenever anything goes against the carrier programme (or, for that matter, against things like the Royal Artillery's aspirations for UAVs) that the RAF is blamed?

But most of all, haven't people learned that the services briefing aginst each other to the press does no-one any favours?

Disgusted,

OA

Astonishing from Mick Smith, normally one of the better of the Fleet Street Defence boys.

December 9, 2007

Cash shortage to keep navy in port
Michael Smith

MOST of the Royal Navy will be tied up in dock next year, frozen by a £15 billion “black hole” in the Ministry of Defence budget over the next decade, writes Michael Smith.

As the MoD fights proposals for £12 billion of defence cuts over the same period, only ships supporting operations in the Gulf will leave port. The soaring cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increasing reluctance of the Treasury to fund them is adding to the pressure.

“The navy is looking at what options they have because the amount of funding is just not there,” one source said. “The overheating of the equipment budget is putting pressure on everyone.” The only major exercise expected to go ahead is Orion 08, in which the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, the destroyer Edinburgh and the frigate Westminster will head for the Gulf, defence sources said.

The navy is now resigned to losing five frigates, four Type22s and one Type23, taking it down to a record low of just 20 destroyers and frigates – insufficient to mount a major taskforce without coalition help.

All significant projects are threatened, including the navy’s two new aircraft carriers, which could be delayed after a campaign by the RAF to undermine the rationale behind their procurement and that of the Joint Combat Aircraft that will fly off them.

The RN has been briefing assiduously and effectively, so that while everyone knows exactly how much the Navy has suffered since '87 (thanks to nice little graphics in the Times), no-one knows that the RAF's frontline strength has been slashed by even more over the same period.

RN: 1987-2007
54 to 25 frigates/destroyers, 15 to 9 subs, etc.

RAF: 1990-2008
30 to 13 Fast squadrons, 4 to 2 MR squadrons, etc.

Presumably some brave matelot has been whining to Mick about this terrible treatment, whereas the RAF has failed to put its own case across.

But to simply state the existence of such a campaign, without any supporting evidence, and without caveat, seems amazingly slipshod and careless, however understandable.

I see the utility of the carriers. However, like many others, I have to ask if the UK can afford to buy and operate such expensive pieces of kit. What proven in-service equipment will be retired early or not updated to fund these ships? The government, be it red, blue or any other colour of the rainbow, isn't going to give defence a big increase for decades and we will also continue to be used as the election cash-cow whilst the British public doesn't view us as a voting issue. The only answer is to cut our cloth to fit the table and accept that we're a "conference north" outfit and most definately not Premier League. 4-Stars can't accept it though cause they desperately want to talk the talk with the big boys.

I rather suspect it was the view of "I like them but we honestly can't afford them" is probably what was said - not much of an angle in that though.

Chicago Daily Tribune, November 3, 1948. http://www.deweydefeatstruman.com/DeweyTruman%20009.jpg

You can tell that the RN briefed the journo if the text lays into the light blue. Not playing ball, chaps, our time for revenge will come.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh,

I wasn't born then. But you could try 'Bush wins outright'. In any case, my national newspapers are not the same as your national newspapers!

I am, of course not including the Sunday Sport, with headlines like 'Bus found on the Moon'. I expect a bit more of the Sunday Times though.

You had your revenge back in '66. If an RN source has indeed said this then it will be the 1st time in 40-odd years that someone has stood up for the service publicly.

reporters
 

Gentlemen, and ladies of course, the only thing that amazes me is that you are still suprised when a journalist publishes absolute bollocks with no regard to the truth whatsoever. On any given day of the week you can see obviously made up stories, an example is the latest idea of Christmas madness, apparently it is no longer acceptable for Santa to say Ho Ho Ho in case it offends our afro-carribean cousins. sheer bloody stupidity and a prime example of a made up story in the mainstream tabloids.

Yeah Mossie you just have to look at the Nimrod fiasco and the amount of complete pish that the press gets hold off, juggles it around and prints crap only to make there papers sell more. :*

Allthenick,

actually, articles like this are surprisingly common - don't recall one about the RAF though...

Having said that, I'm not blaming an RN source - more likely the correspondent talked to someone embittered and not in the know and put his own interpretation on it. By the same token, I don't think it helps to allow decisions taken over 40 years ago to colour one's views of what today's staff officers are doing - whichever opinion you hold. How about we just get on with defence business and stop sniping? If someone has questioned the utility or rationale for carriers, it's probably part of the scrutiny that all programmes go through regularly, not some devious crab plot to... er, reduce the number of aircraft the UK operates??

OA,
Your right off course, It only take one mis quotation and there you go.
However my opions are not coloured just by what happened 40 years ago but also 25 years when the RAF defended the fleet with Sidewinder armed Nimrods (Aye Right as we say in Glasgow) and the RAF's evolving thoughts on jointery...
1- Let an RN 3* have control over JFH, Maritime Assets, and SAR then Re organise commands so that they manoever said RN 3* position out of job.
2- RAF get RN Fixed wing assets and then (coincidently i'm sure - NOT) they get canned.
3- RN plays the RAF game and 801 cant stand up due to lack of QFI's - I dont understand why this has changed?
The Airships may not be able to play the publicity game very well but they sure as hell can play politics. That is not a criticism but something that maybe their Lordships could learn from.

Althenick
Little confused by your post. Are all Dark Blue aviation assets now controlled by AOC 1 Gp or just JFH? If the fixed wing NAS set up is such a wonderful organisation compared to a RAF Sqn why are the wheels falling off for lack of RAF QFIs? With your superb overview of all things Naval can you explain why the cut to the bone RN, who everyone including the Girl Guides has it in for, still needs 3 home ports and 2 RNAS? Apart from that's where all the Andrew have bought houses.

"still needs 3 home ports and 2 RNAS?"

Because to close any one base port in a marginal constituency is deemed to be politically unacceptable by whichever party happens to be in power. The same could be said of the plethora of airfields that are still out there in general - IIRC the MOD's privatisation of airfield support services tender cited the need to provide cover at roughly 120 airfields.

OA,

Below is an extract from Lord Craig's speech in the Lords on 7 Nov.


If the axe is to fall on a major programme and the deterrent is to continue, as I believe it should, what should it be? I fear the future carrier programme must be most at risk. If we are to be largely committed in Afghanistan for decades, and so unlikely—indeed, unable—to be much deeper embroiled elsewhere, there are no tasks for a strike carrier force that cannot be better mounted from bases in or around Afghanistan. We needed our carriers when Argentina invaded the Falklands, but now there is a main base airfield at Mount Pleasant. Even if the Argentinians,

7 Nov 2007 : Column 41

seeing us so stretched elsewhere, were to be tempted to reinvade the Falklands, their task would be infinitely more difficult for them than it was in 1982 even if we no longer had a carrier. Elsewhere in the world, with any possibility of major conflict within carrier reach, we would be in partnership with the United States and our carrier capability might be more desirable but not necessarily essential.
On a more detailed level, I fear that the gap of eight to 10 years between the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers in 2006 and getting the carriers and Joint Strike Fighter into service will face the Fleet Air Arm with an almost impossible problem of recruiting, training and retaining enough fast-jet pilots and engineers and developing their essential leadership and other expertise on time. Already at RAF Cottesmore, where the remaining Sea Harrier naval pilots and ratings are based, there are shortfalls in skills, which are being met by Royal Air Force personnel. The impact on the defence industry, particularly shipbuilding, cannot be overlooked, but one does not need four acres of open deck to operate UAVs, which might provide a more realistic and affordable long-term capability for maritime aviation.

So are the RAF not briefing against the RN???

CK,

So how many RAF airfields would it take to house the 170-ish RN a/c?

It's not quite as simple as just sticking everything in one port... for instance all the handling facilities for the V-boats would need to be moved south... no small task... and the draught of a V-boat is collosal so they arent so easy to get into Devonport, although it is (just) possible. Since we can never be sure of the future, I for one feel distinctly uneasy over the idea of a single port...asymetric warfare is all the rage - mines anyone? Delayed entry into Umm Qasar... be like having just the one runway for the light blue - fine until you cant use it at an inconvenient moment. Bad idea.

As for two RNAS, would seem a reasonable number - Yeovs has 848, 845, 846, 847, 815, 702 and 727 NAS plus HQ CHF MAOT, RNFSAIC..... Obviously used to have 899 (?) /800/801 too until SHAR's untimely demise.

How many RAF bases support as many as 7 squadrons? (9 if you count SHAR a few years back... 727 only recently arrived)

Not many I would guess. Dont get me wrong, I don't suggest RAF should cut more bases - there are too few already - but please dont suggest that the RN is 'base heavy' in aviation terms!

EDIT: would also guess that the deep waters around NW Scotland lend themselves better to V-boat ops than the shallower and much busier waters of the western approaches.

althenick/Bismark

These things are discussed else where on PPRuNe, particularly on the Sea Jet and Future Carrier threads.

On a more detailed level, I fear that the gap of eight to 10 years between the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers in 2006 and getting the carriers and Joint Strike Fighter into service will face the Fleet Air Arm with an almost impossible problem of recruiting, training and retaining enough fast-jet pilots and engineers and developing their essential leadership and other expertise on time.

Lord Craig isn't the only one worried! It is already recognised that there is a danger that we will get a generation of RN aviators who are not familiar with operating from HM Ships, or even RFAs. This applies to both fixed wing and rotary.

Bismarck,

Stout chap though he is, Lord Craig is a single private individual, and a private individual who last served 16 years ago, in 1991.

Anything that he says is hardly "the RAF briefing against" anything or anyone.

And everything he says about carriers is bang on the button for me.

A 'nice to have' niche capability, but one that is seldom actually needed, which can be provided by allies on the rare occasions that it is, and one whose sheer cost threatens to distort the entire defence budget and cripple the forces that we do need, every time that we go to war.

JFH seems to be 'non-embarkable' at the moment, due to its other commitments. I wonder how long it will be before the absence of this capability will be militarily significant?

The carrier question will always result in lively light blue/dark blue discussion. My concern is that a carrier needs an escort group of frigates, destroyers etc. or it ends up as being no more than the juciest target on the ocean. There is no commitment to building more escorts and the ships that will be in service when the carriers come on line are fully committed to the Navy's other tasks. It follows that an RN carrier can only realistically operate as part of a foreign - ie USN -battle group. So much for military independence.

For what it's worth, I had the privilege of serving on a joint RN/RAF squadron in the days of my youth. The inter-service sniping was alive and well then, albeit cordial and laced with mutual respect. The real aggro occurred between the 'traditional' navy and the Fleet Air Arm. When it comes to politics, the sailors want ships, not aircraft, so don't blame all the ills of naval aviation on the RAF.:sad:

One of the things that has always impressed me about the RN, is the steadfast way that any member will tell you that the RN does it better.
One of the things that always amuses me about the RN is that the guy telling you all this is normally in an RAF Mess either on exchange, placement or having transferred.
At the moment, we have a great deal of RN/RM exchangees at Odius, for which we have not reciprocated. That helps us out of a manning crisis, but at the expense of creating a RN manning crisis, as few return.
The carriers will bring a huge capability to mount worldwide ops, and the RN should have them and the appropriate aircraft to go with them.
They should however, cease trying to bring down the RAF to keep themselves afloat, and concentrate on doing what they are good at.
The Army will never go for a carve up of the RAF for two reasons.

1. The Army could not sustain the RAF Fleet of SH. They are an extremely capable outfit, but the sheer size and logistics would overwhelm them, particularly as I see all the experienced eng support PVR'ing if such a move was seriously considered. They are doing an outstanding job with the Apache, but they are at full stretch.

2. The Army knows, there is a high likliehood that when overland CAS is needed, the assets may well be miles offshore conducting 'bluewater ops' or pursuing a Naval agenda. I witnessed this on Joint Winter 05, when 845 had to FOB in Northern Norway, so the carrier group (supporting the RM) poked off to do blue water ops leaving the FAA out of range.
This is far from a dig at the FAA, but they do not run the RN. The ship drivers do.
This will be a particularly familiar feeling to any RAF member not in the FJ world, where any decision is made on the premise of FJ sustainability.

Just my humble opinion. Ducking for cover

MGD

Jacko,
I agree with you about Craig but it is the same mantra coming out of Strike Cmd etc.
Re the above quote, it is not CVF that is distorting the Defence Budget but Typhoon where we are seemingly locked in to a contract for 230 -odd un-needed FJs....I think the Typhoon buy is the most expensive defence contract ever and most of the a/c are not needed. Please do not blame CVF.
Bristol,
Not true...the RN has and will have the capability to operate independently with FF, DD and SMs. However, I am not sure the RAF has the ability to operate outside a US dominated coalition who provide the necessary EW/SEAD etc.