Well ir's not like it's ever been done anywhere else is it...
 

...so long RCAF, and hello to:

Canadian Forces Recruiting - Recrutement Forces Canadiennes

Obi Wan

I'm not sure that you are quite correct about that one, I seem to remember they managed something of the sort over Germany in 1982 . :ok:

Cheers

TeeS

"Being an island nation, that'll be a strong Navy then... and force projection requires flat tops."

Not wishing to get into the willy waving thing but all 3 services are doing a pretty good job of force projection, and have been for quite a few years now, without too much reliance on flat top help :p

Lots of Splashes of a ground attack variety though!

The first thing that I would take issue with above is the statement that the RAF was formed to counter the Zepplin raids in WW1. It is my understanding that the RAF was formed following recomendations in the 1917 "Smutts" report, the thrust of this was projection of strategic air power (bombing).

Some might say that the RAF can't carry out this role since the demise of the V bombers but I think that this can't be used as a reason for scrapping the RAF as time has moved on and requirments changed.

Quote Ryanair do AT better than the RAF

I should think so! after all the RAF AT fleet was a cheap set of near sell by date airliners and has had three tenths of naff all spent on it. Ryanair has a well financed state of the art fleet and the income to support and renew it.

If I was looking to save money I would look at the waste resulting from "box ticking" as a result of elf & safety, applying a bit of common sence by standing up to the lawers who seem to think that H&S rules can be applyed to a war fighting force.

Melchett01 said Spot on M and reading the rest of the thread they are achieving it. You need an Air Force, Navy (and RMs) and Army - period. You need kit to secure the skies as much as kit to defend the SLOCs or undertake FIBUA. You need Typhoon, you need Carriers - you need the kit to do the job (or the kit you thought you needed for a job 20 odd years in the future when you procured it!).

People forget the military is a national insurance policy and its no good reducing your cover to third party only and then having a big fire!!!!!!!!!

When will we stop fighting each other :(

BD

Sorry Jacko that your post doesn't now make a lot of sense since I deleted the troll's post.

This little battle is actually proving to be quite therapeutic as I just LOVE banning people. I hope he doesn't stop or I'll be out of a job!!

:E

Has anyone any idea of the political affiliations of the authors of the items quoted in the OP? It's not the first time this kind of story has raised its head and I suspect (maybe incorrectly) that it's part of the current government's MO to use a "friendly" journo to toss an idea in the air and gauge the reaction.

That said, some of you who were doing a staff tour about the time of the demolition of the Berlin Wall and Maggie reigning supreme, may recall a paper doing the rounds which "suggested" a drastically reduced RAF with certain roles being transferred to either our sister services or contractors, leaving the RAF with only the fast, noisy bits. Such ideas get an outing every now and again - you only have to look at how many times the style of the woolly-pully has been 'reviewed' over the years.

David Cameron's majority is smaller than the number of prospective irate constituents, serving, formerly serving, or related to one of the two previous categories living in his constitunecy catchment area.

So, do we think that he will:

a) Cut the RAF as an example of his courage (they like people saying they have that, do our MPs), helping save the economy at the possible expense of his seat, followed by his ennoblement as Lord Kamikaze of Brize Norton?

Or

b) In an illustration of brave Tory radicialism, oversee the creation of the Royal Defence Force, complete with

i) the cull of the 20 RN 1*s that the RN doesn't actually need (see Dorman & Cornish, International Affairs, July 09) and possibly some of the 60 other 1*s in dark blue,

ii) a substantial reduction of other senior bods in green and light blue, a fairly hefty removal of officers in all three services as all the duplicate command structures are removed, taking an array of SO3/SO2 and SO1 posts with them;

iii) The concentration of officer training at one from Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell with the surviving location being the one which will realise the least when the land is sold off , and;

iv) A very large sum of money saved?

By the by, option 'Save My Seat'* would end much of the banter here, since the air component of the Royal Defence Force would do all the flying, removing the separate chains of command for air which currently exist in the form of the FAA and AAC.

Before anyone points out that this would be to misunderstand the differences between the environments and would be a disaster, and ... oh, just see the countless Pprune threads on this since 2000 - remind me of the date when Her Majesty's Treasury took the view that preserving military capability was more important than saving money, please, since I seem to hasve missed it.

Factor in the number of Tory MPs who would be very nervous about the reaction of their light-blue wearing/sympathising constituents, and the political problem doesn't go away

Anyone who studies the impact of what the Canadians did to their armed forces in the 80s (touched on by FlightTester above) would have to be barking mad to suggest something similar here...

The nuclear deterrent mentioned earlier is an important point that has been raised other than in the articles which started this thread. Whilst I used (in my teens) to believe that Polaris and then Trident were a deterrent, I am now not convinced that that is the reason we still have it. I am more and more convinced that there are 2 other reasons for it: the maintenance of Britain's 'special relationship' with our cousins across the pond and our permanent seat on the Security Council.

If all we need is to be a 'nuclear power' do we actually need Trident or a far less complex capability? The latter points towards a land-based delivery system that might be better managed by one of the other Services.

STH

Holding a sensible debate on the future of the Services is no more or no less than anybody else will be doing, especially the voters in the next General Election. Shying away from ideas that threaten the future of the RAF doesn't stop them being used by politicians to win elections. It may well generate "in-fighting" or perpetuate the tri-service willy-waving that goes on in Main Building, but not having the argument is not the same as winning the argument.

Once you get all the usual platitudes out of the way about "not learning from history" and needing an Air Force predicated on AD because the UK is an Island, you are still left with the performance of the RAF in every modern conflict since the Falklands. If you mark that performance (it is 27 years after all) most people would see there is an obvious need for an Air Force, but not solely structured and funded around an AD asset like Typhoon.

Sure buy some Typhoons, but not to the detriment of every other RAF asset. or you can be sure somebody in dark blue or green will make a compelling case for taking those assets that aren't being funded or managed effectively.

PS. Jacko - Your "troll - be- gone" aftershave doesn't seem to be working.

If anyone was looking at procuring really legendary numbers of Typhoons, the the idea that the RAF was "solely structured and funded around an AD asset like Typhoon" might have a bit more credibility. But we're buying enough for a measly five squadrons - enough to replace F3, but not Jag.

And even if we bought more of them, it would hardly prove the point, since then we'd have sufficient aircraft to be able to demonstrate the type's multi role versatility. We might have enough aircraft, even, to be able to deploy a couple of squadrons to Afghanistan.

I'll admit that I think that I view five fighter squadrons for UK AD and QRA as being a bit 'core'. In the post Cold War, force levels sufficient to allow us to repeat a 'Granby' sized op would not seem inappropriate - and we had a -31 squadron FJ force then (eleven air defence squadrons, six offensive support squadrons, eleven strike/attack squadrons and three reconnaissance units).

We now have twelve.

Get it back to a proper level (18 squadrons would be a start, 24 would be ideal), and then you'll have my support for niche capabilities like carriers, aerobatic teams, ceremonial units in London and all the other triv and niff-naff.

Jacko,

You need to have a chat with the guys on the ground in the stan and ask them what they think of the niche capability that is the US Navy carrier, providing CAS on a daily basis. You would have some credibility is you ever spouted anything other than the Typhoon mantra. You call your self a journalist, but you never ever seem to consider anyone else's opinion, preferring to stick with your entrenched cold war viewpoint.

Melchett,

It is extremely unfair to comment The message is still quite clearly not getting through. If you go to the Stan, you will see personnel of all colours of cloth. The RN have supported the ISAF mission extremely well, with not just Marines but, Pilots, Engineers, Ops staff, Air Traffic Controllers, Warfare Officers and of course Medics, one of whom was awarded the MC last week.

I for one do not consider the "disband the RAF" argument valid. The RAF brings may core areas of capability to the battle, that neither of the two other services could provide. Unfortunately, all three services have suffered from particular procurement issues, that have consumed vast areas of their budget. Oh and by the way, it was an accounting error by the light blue some years ago that led very directly to the Dark Blue and the Khaki, taking significant pain to balance the books.

There are many other issues that I will not talk about on this forum. All three services have a lot to bring to the table and all three services are essential Any argument to scrap one or the other comes purely from a position of ignorance.

Widger,

There's NOTHING 'Cold War' about UK AD and QRA.

There's nothing 'Cold War' about a deployable, versatile, swing role tactical fast jet. The Typhoon will soon be the UK's Super Hornet or Strike Eagle - both of which are platforms doing their bit in Afghanistan.

There's nothing 'Cold War' about wanting an adequate number of Fast Jets.

Whereas insisting on funding a 'Moscow option' SLBM based nuclear deterrent is VERY Cold War, while carriers are a niche capability that can't be afforded without Cold War budgets.

Your Mantra - of jealously protecting the RN's big ticket toys regardless of the cost to the wider interests of the UK's military capabilities isn't just 'entrenched Cold War thinking' - it's far, far worse than that.

Niche?
 

I have refrained from ever being drawn on any of Jacko's dribble before now because I always thought it was just banter.

Now its possible that he actually believes what he is saying, therefore I would very much like to understand what the individual means by the word 'niche'?

The RN are Jack, 'Jack of all trades' and masters of their own. And nowhere will you see more relevant trades in todays world, than on a carrier. My faith in the majority of other PPRuNers means that I'll not need to list them and my advice Jacko is to stop embarrassing himself and more importantly the force he is so desperate to represent.

I dont want to see the RAF go but some members of that force, including ex and mildly amusing supporters of, would do rather well to read some history books, with a heathly portion of geography to go.

T

We've used carriers a few times, but land based air will usually get there quicker, cheaper, and will offer better capability once on scene.

We've needed carriers just once in my lifetime - and that was in 1982 - more than 27 years ago.

Do you need more of a definition of niche than that?

OK: Those capabilities that we need every time we go on ops are core - those that we seldom need are specialised, or niche.

Ummm, cut social programs instead and fund your military properly?












I'll show myself out...

Widger - I agree with you that all 3 services do have a vital part to play in the defence of the country, but I am not sure what you are getting at when you suggest I don't get it, and I have to say I stand by what I said, albeit fascetiously. My background aside - which has been Joint for much of the past 10 years including working with the RN and for several RN bosses in various deserts, so I think I do get what the RN brings -the point I was refering to is that we are sleep walking into Afghanistan becoming the centre of the known universe. Which it isn't.

A credible defence of the UK is not just grounded in Helmand or Kandahar, but in a rounded capability. Unfortunately, many, including senior officers in light blue have singularly failed to accept that fact. So whilst every last penny is poured into Afghan operations, ask yourself what proportion of the collective Armed Forces is involved in Afghanistan. Then look at what other threats are out there, and ask yourself what attention these are being given. I guarantee that these will be the areas of interest to various foreign intelligence services and those looking to strike a blow against the UK.

AD and QRA may not be sexy or the flavour of the month, but defence of the UK homeland is as important as fighting the enemy abroad. If we cannot defend our own borders, we leave ourselves open to any enemy with its own expeditionary capability. And frankly, at the moment, I am not seeing the Army or RN playing much of an active role in defending the UK homeland. Whilst not a priority as far as many Army commanders is concerned, how much of an outrage would there be if we allowed our defensive capability to decline to such an extent that anybody and everybody was allowed to wander into UK airspace whenever they wanted and do whatever they wanted? I don't see the Army or RN stopping that happening.

As an aside, I read with interest the increasing number of articles being pumped out by senior Army officers claiming that the nature of warfare has changed, and ground based COIN ops are the future. Again, a very short sighted and politicized view that fails to take into account the speed with which things can change. I remember being on a course in 2000 when the much vaunted Revolution in Military Affairs was still being discussed. Cyber warfare and high tech combat was seen to be the way ahead. Within 18 months instead of that we were looking for guys hiding in caves armed with rifles and the 20th century version of the slingshot. That should tell you one thing: anybody who thinks they know or can accurately predict where military doctrine and strategy is going is deluded. Things can and do change and they change quickly. To get rid of capability because it is perceived as being surplus to current requirements is the strategic equivalent of putting it on red and hoping.

Then again the Tories have history here as lets remember how much was for sale and on its way elsewhere that gave General Galtieri the idea that there was some land seeking new owners.

Course my view on that has always been RR was pee'd off at Maggie flogging everything when he was pushing his 500 ship navy concept, have real problems believing that US trained Argentinian senior military and their CIA handlers didn't know about it well enough in advance, a short sharp shock was required..............yeah I love conspiracy theories.

Melchett,

:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

Well said.

And that's why five squadrons of Typhoon is a bare minimum, non-negotiable start.

And why we need Nimrod R5, not RJ.

And why we need to maintain E-3D and continue with MRA4 (and more than nine of them....)

Etc.