Your right - it should be 2012

The crabs had pretty much washed their hands of carrier flying by 1921 (Squdrons by that time being on average 85% dark blue) so there is a 3 year gap.

Oh and BTW....

- The Danish tried this "1 country 1 Airforce" Shight not that long ago which guess what? failed dismally - They now have Naval Aircrew flying, and personell looking after, "Air Force" Lynx :ugh:

- The Brazillians got rid of their embarked F/W Air Force when they got the San Paulo - Seemingly their Air force didn't want to go to sea!
:ugh:
-Even the New Zealand Navy, despite having Air force involvement fly ALL THREE of their own Seasprites. :ok:

Is it me or does anyone else see a pattern emerging here that a F*ck-witted CAS can't? :*

Ah, so because other countries try and fail we shouldn't?
Damn, I thought we Brits had quite a good record for doing what others have failed to do. Still, with such mighty examples as the Danish, New Zealanders and Brazilians leading the way and failing perhaps we'd be best to give it a miss.
To be frank though I believe the current division of air power is probably correct (in my humble opinion). Of course if the Army and RN finally laid to rest the sour grapes they've been dragging around since 1918 over the fact they are not perhaps the best people to run the majority of airpower then perhaps those who run the RAF wouldn't feel the need to adopt a 'best form of defence is attack' plan.

What's the matter, Tourist, seems like you lost a tenner and found a penny. Cheer up old chap and allow me to tell you what I could envisage without waving your testicles. My ability to envisage has nothing whatsoever to do with your manhood.

Simple fact of life is that we no longer have the dosh to do defence properly because flash Gordon has allowed the borrowers and lenders to cock the whole economy up and he's giving what's left to the loungers and the scroungers. Nowt left for the good guys who still have to fight wars we should simply not be involved in.

Nothing wrong with the quality of the RM and they do soldiering brilliantly but air is just a different ball game entirely and the technological knowledge and training required bears no resemblance. If you think back to the dilemma the emergence of air caused in WW1 you will realise that their lordships made a very wise decision in forming the third service.

For years we have reaped the benefit of an independent air force despite the fact that it mainly exists to support the needs of the other two services Notable exceptions, of course, are strike, interdiction and air defence of UK although even these roles are associated with the needs of the other services.

As for the RAF not going the extra mile, the recent award to the Chinook guys in Afghanistan does little to give credibility to your argument.

So, in the true spirit of Christmas, bollocks to you too.

With regards to the previous comment: "Of course if the Army and RN finally laid to rest the sour grapes they've been dragging around since 1918 over the fact they are not perhaps the best people to run the majority of airpower then perhaps those who run the RAF wouldn't feel the need to adopt a 'best form of defence is attack' plan."

I can assure you that it has nothing to do with sour grapes. It is simply based on real life personal experiences and perceptions that the other UK (and some other foreign) forces have sadly sometimes witnessed. You may not like hearing that or want to accept this but I am sorry to say that it is true and is purely down to 'some' RAF personnel’s own making. (They not only let themselves down by their actions, but also the RAF.)

The RAF are very good at doing many things (and long may that continue) but so too are the other forces who have a different culture and specialist way of working that suits their particular Forces requirements to get things done in often very difficult circumstances.

With regards to the RAF wanting to take over all things aviation, in the so called name of saving this country money and using their greater aviation knowledge, may I highlight the following points:-

1) The RN/RM/Army is already very lean, efficient and cost effective. For example, I suspect that most Army/RM aircraft are still flown by Corporals/Sergeants who are 'also' proper soldiers by trade. You cannot get much more cost effective and efficient than that for their roles. Is the RAF going to follow the Army lead and reduce their RAF pilot’s ranks, pay and accommodation costs, etc to help reduce defence costs? (I doubt that very much!)

2) Not only do RN aircrew/maintainers carry out their normal flying and land based airfield related duties, they also have to carry out many other important ‘warship only’ related roles. Particularly the crews who operate helicopters aboard smaller ships (such as frigates and destroyers) where they need to be virtually ‘jack of all trades' because they usually do not have any specialist workshop personnel or any other shift to take over from them each day. Therefore, whilst a bean counter (or anyone else who has not served on a small ships flight) may think it easy to put any land based Air Force helicopter crew on such ships, this is not true. UK Tax payers get a lot of very good value and expertise from such personnel in the FAA. Thankfully the RN knows that, and no doubt, so do the Brazilians, Danish, etc!

If only more of the biased RAF supporters could recognise the fact that they do not actually know 'everything' about all types of aviation and how best to use it in RN/Army applications. :ugh:

Soddim.

The person that started the cockwaving is you. The only difference between my post and yours is that I didn't couch mine in polititians weasel words:-

Soddim says "If one tries to be totally objective there is much logic in the provision of all air power from an independent air force. The Army and the Navy are utterly professional in their own roles and, similiarly, so is the Air Force in theirs. To assume that within any one of the three services one could muster and maintain the level of expertise and experience to perform satisfactorily the role of any of the other two services diminishes the credibility of separate armed services."

Translated:- "From my position as a patronising git it is obvious that whilst the RN and Army are good at their boat and trench things they are really amateurs in the air and should leave it to the grown-ups who are wonderful like me."


Soddim says "The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support."

Translated:- "I won't interefere with your grubby toys, and my toys are far to complex for kids like you to understand. I am far more mature than you and the resource management issues are so tricky it's best if you don't worry your tiny heads about it, so just run along and be glad for what we dish out."

If what Michael Smith (Sunday times) says is true, then the RAF lower downs need to stand up against Torpy. He is doing you irreparable damage that will last many years (remember Harding, Wilson etc). All you have to consider is "What if he fails to disband the FAA and AAC, and the 'One Nation One Airforce' strategy fails?" where does this leave the RAF other than diminished, demeaned and humiliated in the eyes of the British public and their own Service. Those that served in the FAA and AAC will still be able to hold their heads high, whatever the outcome the RAF will not.

So long as the Government says it needs CVF then the RAF/FAA must retain the Harrier to ensure that the necessary deck/ship/aircrew skills are retained for its introduction into service. There are those above who are far more knowledgeable that i who know what it takes to operate FW at sea and it appears to be more that just landing on, bombing up and re-launching - in simple terms these people need to WANT to go to sea.

With regards to the centenary of the FAA, according to the RN blurbin 2009 they are celebrating "100 Years of Naval Aviation" known as Fly Navy 100 .

Your 'translations', Tourist, do not further your argument neither are they accurate. However, to cut and paste my post to give it more visibility is something I thank you for.

I neither patronise nor did I 'cockwave' in the post you rudely offered your testicles to. If you really believe that an individual service could create the core of expertise essential to perform the roles of the other two you are a bigger fool than you sound in your posts.

Reducing the size of our forces is the current occupation of politicians of both major parties and that is not likely to change in the future. If you think that diminishing resources are still best utilised by parcelling them piecemeal to the service that shouts loudest for them, think again or you will be left with Soloman's solution and half a helicopter is no use at all.

As far as resource management is concerned, the allocation of resources is controlled by a joint headquarters and air is allocated where it is most needed.

I doubt anybody is considering that the RAF should operate the individual ship's helicopter - if the Navy budget can stand the cost of one helicopter per ship that's fine but the Army's helicopter force might be a different matter. The rank of the crew, incidentally, is hardly of financial significance compared with the other costs involved.

I would prefer, Tourist, if this exchange is to continue that you refrain from slagging me off. I can do the same thing but I am not prepared to contribute further in such a trivial way.

From Defence News: 22 December 2008

So there you have it chaps. It is all a storm in a teacup without a vestige of truth, so you can now all rest easy and the inter-Service willy-waving can stop. :}

I notice there is no denial of an attempt to bin the Harrier which would have the spin off effect of..........yes you guessed it, killing off FAA fixed wing.

Soddim.
You seem to believe that size and money = improved professionalism and bang per buck.
By that theory the USAF are both more professional and better one for one than the RAF. Do you believe that to be the case?

The USMC are good troops, and to judge from the exchange guys they send over excellent aviators, better than their Navy guys. I think they have it just about right. Our military could do worse than copying the USMC.

L_L

Do you have a link for this article? - I cant find it on the MOD Website

Thanks

Al:ok:

Tourist, the US military have an enormous size advantage and both their naval and marine air arms leave the RAF in the shade. As for the one-to-one qualities, I have served in the USAF and there is no shortage of either skill or professionalism. However, a big air force will inevitably carry a lot of low average abilities as well as a lot of high average abilities but quantity has a quality all of its' own. They also have better equipment.

Could they benefit from one air force serving all three services - they thought so when they formed the USAF but they could probably place more assets in the air force and less in the marines and navy. Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.

It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF.

There you go again soddim with your politician-speak.


"Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms (USMC and USN) are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.

It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF"

There are two possibilities as to what point you are trying to make.

Translation 1:-

"Despite their disadvantages re size and funding, the FAA and AAC manage through dint of spirit and high calibre personnel, to match the RAF in terms of bang per buck at all levels"

Translation 2:-

"The FAA and AAC are not large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally. Recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets are all attributes that the FAA and AAC Lack."

If 1) is correct, then thank you very much for your adulation.:ok:

If, however, 2) is closer to your true meaning then man up wet pants and just say it.
Don't, however, cry about cockwaving when someone else with less time for mealy-mouthed equivocation answers back disagreeing.:=

Amazing the MOD is spinning itself out of control! Talk to any MoD officer on a train or anyone from Air Command on a Wednesday sports afternoon and you will soon find the above is total spin.

Tourist - you really are a piece of work.

Translate that as you wish to make it read what you want to see.

Spot on Bismark. It is unbelievable what they will actually say without a touch of embarassment. When the original article went up on the internet they actually claimed I had given them no chance to refute this - as if they could. I had actually spoken to three separate press officers on it and been told: Look no-one's going to speak about this. The denial of the "one nation, one air force" slogan is absolutely astonishing given how well established it now is, and if JHC is all there is, why on earth are they creating Defence Helicopter Command? Although I suppose it could be because "joint" now seems to be just about the dirtiest word you can use in some quarters.

There's another interesting thread in PPRuNe about the merits of the RAF Regiment and a few are saying how the Army couldn't do the job because of their basic lack of aviation awareness.

Seems very similar to a point the Navy is making about how the RAF don't have the basic seamanship knowledge to make JCA single service.

This raises two points:

1. How come the same essential argument can be valid for the RAF but not the Navy?

and...

2. How hard do we think the RAF would fight if the Army tried to take over defence of Air Force equipment the way the Air Force is trying to take over Naval Aviation?

See what a blinkered approach, it is the navy that is mortgaging 'everything' on the 2 carriers for naval aviation.

How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.

FnF,

Sadly, without the CVF there will not be much need for a frigate and destroyer force, as once the CVF goes the amphibs will soon follow (nothing to protect them, no need for T45 and just need a Dutch or FGerman size Navy (if that).

CVF is a political tool not just an RN one, the Government understand this. It is designed to send a message in a way that land based force (located in UK at the time the influence is needed) cannot. Why do you think the Italians, Spanish, Indians, Chinese, Russians etc are all aquiring them? I also note the Aussies are moving back towards flat-tops.

No doubt Jacko will retort that we simply cannot afford CVF etc, but sadly this Government (and probably the next one) has decided that it WANTs to afford it even to the detriment of other projects (like FRES, MRA4, Frigates etc). That is their choice despite what the higher ups in MOD may say.

How about a Defence Helicopter Command run by just the RN and Army - they are the main users after all? The RAF could run the trucks and have a Defence Fighter/Bomber Force run by RN/RAF. Any job above 1* across Defence would be rotational/BMFTJ. Another thread perhaps?

I cannot believe that this government will still be in power when the two year delay on CVF expires. By that time the new government will be desperate to make whatever spending cuts they can get away with and CVF may well end up as the RN's TSR2.

One must hope that in the meantime our leader keeps off the world stage and does not commit our forces to any more theatres we are not funded to fight in.

The two year delay isn't on the start of the CVF program, it's on the completion dates, and in fact is just an admission that after the order for the ships was delayed by two years to start with the completion date had to be put back to fall into line with reality. Also the Defence Minister John Hutton stated in an interview that the withdrawal dates for the existing carriers would also be put back to match the completion of their replacements.

Have they got a few hundred aircrew and engineers going spare then?

The RAF element is just about coping, and changing services would speed those planning to stay on their way, recession or no recession.

I fail to see how this helps soldiers/marines in Helmand, and quite frankly they deserve better. Argue as much as you like about the Harrier/Naval Aviation, but as long as troops on the ground are relying on SH, lets not f##k around with it.

At last one pro-RAF supporter now understands what it could be like if the RAF were to lose just one of their aircraft types (Chinook) to the Army and what impact that may have on those depending on such resources at the sharp end! This is despite the fact that it would probably have made good sense to give the Army these aircraft in the first place because they are basically mainly used to carry out Army/RM related work! However, if they were now given to the AAC, and RAF crews were then asked to become AAC personnel (rather than RAF) how do you think the RAF crews would feel?)

As previously mentioned, this nation lost a lot of excellent FAA pilots when the pro-RAF brigade and short sighted MoD effectively killed off the Sea Harrier too early and also moved the FAA fixed-wing pilots away from their FAA base to an RAF base many miles away!

Perhaps some of the blinkered pro-RAF ‘One Air Force’ proposers can now begin to understand the true potential serious side effects of their proposal. Just as RAF personnel would no doubt not want to be made to become part of the AAC, neither do the Army/RN personnel want to become part of an enlarged RAF.

Please put the right aircraft and personnel with the right armed forces that need to operate them in their own specialist environments.

For example, if the RAF does not want Harriers anymore, please transfer some of them to the FAA who would gladly continue to operate them in a USMC type of supporting role for our own RM/Army. However, the blinkered pro-RAF supporters would then no doubt say that the RN would therefore need to lose all of its destroyer fleet to help pay for them! (Their usual rather selfish type of trump card that is continually being used to reduce the size, capability and influence of our once great Navy!) If our 'Nations' needs were put first (before the RAF’s aim to try and dominate everything aviation related) then perhaps the current excessive size of its RAF fighter/strike fleet could be reduced to help cover the cost of something that would make great sense for our 'Nations' benefit. The FAA would then also be able to maintain its excellent fixed-wing flying capability and experience until it gets the proper carriers (at long last) that this country and Europe does need. Having just one French catapult equipped aircraft carrier for the whole of Europe is unbelieveable. The world-wide maritime threats and conflict risks are still going to continue and Europe should not have to continue relying on the US to always provide aircraft carrier support.

Think you'll be waiting a long time for an answer TBH :hmm:

An element of bolleaux about that statement. We have large numbers of RN aircrew who have transferred, large numbers of AAC who have transferred, and more from both services applying to transfer.

Most of those who have, will tell you that life is no easier in the RAF than the AAC/RN.

I cannot think of a single member of the RAF aircrew fraternity who has left to join the RN.

However, I do take offence at your repeated assertion that the RN/AAC could do the job better.

We work our nads off to ensure Percy/Royal gets to go exactly where he wants to go, when he wants to go there. The fact that we don't love rum, bum and baccy makes no difference to the service the RM receives.

In fact, in 2002 when the O Boat was cruising around the N Arabian sea looking for a port (and none would take her) to deploy Royal to a landlocked country, an airbridge from the coast was seriously considered. I know this because myself and a few of my colleagues were dragged in after the Brigadier had asked how this would be completed, and his planning staff went very, very quiet.

In the end, the RAF deployed the Cdo's headshed in an epic tranist from the international limit across Pakistan and Afghanistan to Bagram. The remaining troops had to be floated to Oman and put onto C130.

You may wish to check with Royal before you tell him what he wants!

Merry Xmas to you.

Gullwings,

Your arguments are tired and witless. MiniGun (an experienced SH practitioner) is being uncharacteristically tolerant and kind in referring to an "element of bolleaux" in your posts, as they're way worse than that.

Please stop for Christmas, this inane nonsense is getting on my tits.

minigun

"I cannot think of a single member of the RAF aircrew fraternity who has left to join the RN."

Gosh what a surprise that the high command don't keep you informed:rolleyes:

For your info, we have taken a lot of RAF harrier boys recently including some A2 QFIs, and have closed the door to other FW boys wishing to transfer from tornado etc because we are full.

Jacko.

"MiniGun (an experienced SH practitioner) "

Don't make me laugh. He is a jumped up 19yr old door gunner.

Ah, if only! Nice thought though Tourist.:ok:

Can't comment on Harrier mates, only Rotary. Perhaps I should of caveated my post.

As for the High Command consulting me, there is no need. Small fleet, news travels quickly. I would have thought you understood that?

Merry Xmas

Minigun

Of course the RAF should be able to take troops/equipment to places that are a ‘very’ long way from the sea!! Nobody is trying to take your large transport aircraft away from you! Please keep up such epic work! You are fantastic!

By the way, I have worked very closely with all of the forces so I do know what they like and dislike. (Including the Royals!)

Also if you and your RAF colleagues do not want to transfer to FAA roles then please tell your bosses ASAP to forget the ‘One Air Force’ super dream and stop progressively reducing the RN/FAA capability and morale. Let those who can (and who are willing) to carry out such specialist and difficult work get on with it without the RAF wanting to try and take them over.

Jackonico

Please do not use this website if you do not like to hear the other side of a discussion. You equally often drive people crazy but most of us try to politely tolerate the rubbish that you sometimes say.

Have a nice relaxing Christmas.

Erm, wasn't CVA-01 the "RN's TSR2"? :hmm:

The one-sided, blinkered, dark blue biased horse manure that you endlessly repeat is hardly 'discussion', Gullwings, old chap.

Jackonico,

Another nice convenient 'cop out' response that offers nothing at all to this thread and shows your true colours!:ugh:

Please do not waste everyones time by continuing to make such silly pointless comments.

Jacko, please go away, i'm no aviaition expert but you're even annoying me, christ knows what the rest of the more aviation-savvy readers are thinking.

And abusing someone then saying 'merry christmas' doesn't work, its not big and its not clever and its ruining christmas for me! And as so many of you have pointed out (for some reason) i'm 'young' so it has a deep effect on me ;)

On that line... this is a great discussion, exceptionally amusing, but lets not let it degenerate into a slagging match? Keep the informed debate alive....granted, that means kicking jacko off the thread but oh well :ok:

juging by tht im no spellin expart eithar

Actually it's Jacko's alternative, devils advocate views which makes the debate interesting. Keep it up.

Seconded. If we just had a unified homogenous opinion then none of us would log on.

Thank you for pointing that out.I am forever indebted to you AIDU!:*

not only that but combining unified and homogeneous is redundant.

HA!

Ok fair point, it all adds to the debate. However, I maintain abuse is not relaly informed discussion is it? You &*^% &&£((" "^^^&($)$*!!!

As it is however.... I have to point out Gullwing, that the RAF doesn't want to get rid of their Harrriers, their just offering them up to try save themselves in the current 'we've lost £2billion and need to find it somewhere.

It's still a stupid place to find the money, when you have units like the RAF regiment (designed to defend airfields against Spetanaz deep-penetration raids in the Cold War) and an oversized F3 fleet, or even the ridiculously top-heavy officer corps of all three services (athough it has to be admitted, especially the RAF)




Hows that for devils advocate ;) Awaiting incoming from minigun and jacko :ok:

I really had intended to avoid serious input on this thread at Christmas, since the more sensitive do get upset by what they see as 'Navy bashing'. And I wouldn't want to give any of those with whom I disagree on a friendly fashion indigestion at this time of year. Taking pot shots at weak minded newbies is just too tempting to avoid, however, which is why I've laughed at GullibleWings.

Yeoman,

Scrapping Harrier is not a "stupid place to find the money."

It nets huge savings (as long as you get rid of the whole lot, and all the support costs) just as binning SHar and Jaguar did. Nor was the sudden OSD extension from 2015 to 2018 ever credible - I had detailed discussions with the IPT years ago, and Harrier rear fuselages will be critical before then.

Jokes about Rocks apart (and I do like those!) the RAF Regiment continues to demonstrate its usefulness, and in an era of deployed operations and expeditionary warfare continue to justify what is a relatively modest price tag.

I'd be all in favour of dumping the "oversized F3 fleet". There are just two squadrons but I'd accept that is two squadrons too many. Unfortunately, though, you need five full-time AD squadrons to provide QRA and AD of the Falklands, so until we have more Typhoon squadrons (and since you want to use Typhoons for multi role and deployed ops, you want more than five squadrons) the poor old F3 is a necessary evil.

When the 'cannon fodder' in the Army are not commissioned, and are (in some areas) relatively unskilled, the pyramid is a full one, and the ratio of privates to Generals will be low. But the "ridiculously top-heavy officer corps" of the RAF exists because the 'cannon fodder' are aircrew - mainly officers, while the bulk of the NCOs in this technocratic service are highly skilled and educated. In such an organisation, you effectively just have the top part of the pyramid, so ratios are different.

Gullwings

There are a number of reasons why the 'One Nation, One Air Force' model makes sense.

The core business of the RAF is air power. Flying and delivering effect by air is the raison d'etre of the air force, and are the key skills/knowledge areas demanded in its leaders. In both the Army and the Navy, air power is peripheral, and aviation experience and expertise is viewed as being less important than cabbage-eating or ship-driving. There is little career progression for dedicated aviators, and though there are plenty of high calibre RN and AAC people who opt to stay aviating (many of them to be found here on PPRuNe), there is inevitably a dilution of experience and expertise as some of the highest calibre blokes leave to go and drive ships or do whatever the cabbage eaters do.

The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi.

The RAF has the support and engineering infrastructure required to get the most out of the most complex platforms, and to train their aircrew.

You suggest that: "If our 'Nations' needs were put first (before the RAF’s aim to try and dominate everything aviation related) then perhaps the current excessive size of its RAF fighter/strike fleet could be reduced to help cover the cost of something that would make great sense for our 'Nations' benefit."

1) I'd suggest that our nation's needs should be put ahead of narrow RN interests, and that the RN should concentrate its efforts on its core activity of delivering effect by sea. The RN made its choice to retain the strategic deterrent. The country cannot afford for it to have carriers as well, and especially not since carriers represent an expensive, inefficient, niche capability - a nice to have rather than a must have.

2) With just 13 fast jet squadrons, I'd suggest to you that the RAF fleet is anything but excessive. It has been cut harder and further since the Cold War than any part of the RN's front line, despite being a more useful, more cost effective and more versatile means of projecting power.

You say: "It would probably have made good sense to give the Army these aircraft in the first place because they are basically mainly used to carry out Army/RM related work!" - and delivering fuel for Harriers in the field, and, and, and ..... Support helicopters are not, and should not be a pure Army asset, and in the UK's case, could not be. The AAC simply does not have the resources, infrastructure, or experience to operate larger support helicopters.

You say: "This nation lost a lot of excellent FAA pilots when the pro-RAF brigade and short sighted MoD effectively killed off the Sea Harrier too early." The RN struggled to man its two tiny frontline SHar squadrons, and, in the post Cold War world, the SHar was an expensive and rarely needed asset. In an ideal world I'd have kept it (and Jag too!) but this was a sensible cut.

You whine about having: "moved the FAA fixed-wing pilots away from their FAA base to an RAF base many miles away!" They joined a service, and presumably accepted that they would be posted wherever the exigencies of the service required. The tragedy of Joint Force Harrier was that the RN (who provided far less than 1/3 of the personnel) demanded and received half of the key posts, and two of the four squadrons, and then failed to deliver.

All this emotive bol.locks about "our once great Navy" tells me all I need to know about you, I'm afraid. Dry your eyes, Princess, and welcome to the 21st Century, where tough choices have to be made.