Melchett01

You are of course joking I assume? Isn't defending the UK homeland what our troops are doing at this very moment in Afghanistan? How many Army and Marine deaths have there been in what the government and military bosses say is a necessary fight to prevent terrorism on UK shores?

If that's not 'defending the UK homeland' then what in your opinion is?

Sitting on QRA?

Nothing else??

Exactly what else apart from supporting troops in theatre in hot sandy places, and sitting on QRA in UK bases are the RAF doing to 'defend the UK homeland' that makes them so much more active than the other two armed services?

I don't think that axing a single service would happen but I do think that there will be the UKDF (United Kingdom Defence Force) under one title, one cap badge, one uniform, one command and one budget:hmm:

Three seperate functions Air,Sea and Land:oh:

Are you for real?
 

Russian nuclear bomber flies undetected to within 20 miles of Hull | Mail Online
Russian aircraft have skirted British airspace 18 times in two years - Telegraph

Faithless

Taking Canada's experience into consideration, I fear that your "location" is probably an equally apt description for your post!:ok:

Jack

Glad Rag

What colour is the sky on your planet?

Are you honestly implying that if the F3/Typhoon had not gone out to meet the marauding Bears, then they would have unleashed nuclear devastation upon the UK?

Or perhaps would bugger all have happened, because they were just exercising their capabilities, just like their Subs do, just like ours do.

Trying to suggest that the only thing between the UK and the Jackboot is a thin line of brave RAF fighter jocks whilst the Army and RN have cocktail parties is just asinine stupidity.

Glad Rag

Yes, I am for real - I asked what apart from QRA and supporting our troops in theatre the RAF were doing that made melchett make such a bold (and crass considering the casualties our troops are receiving on a daily basis) statement as

I don't see 'axing the RAF' as exactly appealing to the core Tory voter, to be frank. Surely much more likely is amalgamation but with three separate uniforms so the general public don't notice?

Come to think of it, where have I heard of that idea before?

Tim

May be one title. Just possibly one command and one budget, but one cap badge and one uniform? Oh do get real.

The Army tried that with its big regiments What happened? The cap badges became battalions in that bg regiment.

One uniform? The RAF supposedly has one uniform but has never managed to place an order for cloth so that all the uniforms are the same colour. Each batch order goes out to tender and what comes back is 'near enough'.

I doubt that Army or the RN would want to take over the RAF's responsibilities, but their is a strong case for some streamlining and managerial cost cutting.

1. The AAC could take over the RAF's rotary winged operations. They do service the army afterall.

2. JFH should operate under Naval Command. As the Tonkas are retired what will be JFL could be expanded still further into a much more flexible and more capable unit for maritime or land deployment.

3. I see a very strong case for selling off as many Typhoons as possible other than those needed for AD. The F35 can do everything else better.

I believe Mountbatten had that in mind when he created the MOD and got rid of the War Office, Admiralty and Air Ministry. Personnally I think he was wrong. A War Office and Our Lords of the Admiralty have far more resonnance with power than pentangles and defence.

No messing there, you play ball with us and we shall refer it to the War Office, none of this defence cr^p. Or the Admiralty, a single person, the office of Lord High Admiral. No committees here, bit like Gorshkov or Richenbacker. They knew who they were and where they were going.

To those too I guess we should add Trenchard. Who would the Army choose as having a single minded determination or what was the right thing to do? Where is our charismatic leadership that will enter the political arena?

I've evaded this thread for a little while but would like to offer my tuppenth-worth.

Navaleye makes good sense in transferring the RAF SH to the AAC - this was done by the Aussies in the mid-80s and seems to work well. Such a move would also reduce any lingering tri-service jobs balance questions at JHC, potentially leading to further savings. In the medium term, there's no reason why AAC operated helicopters wouldn't also be crewed by NCOs - as the existing AAC assets are, with further savings.

Personally, I think that CVF will be cancelled in the next 12 months. With CVF gone, there is much less rationale for keeping the existing CVS fleet in the carrier role - though I can see the point of keeping one on as a spare LPH to alternate with Ocean. If this happens then the future of the Harrier force has to be called into question - as it won't be required on CVS and it has (with credit) finished in Afghanistan.

With CVF deleted, then there is no reason to purchase JSF anytime soon, and it could be realistically left until the end of next the decade - in order to replace Tornado by 2025. Moreover, with cancelled CVF, we can decide against Dave-B and plump for either Dave-A or Dave-C; given the greater range, I'd prefer Dave-C - but there are many better qualified to determine this than me.

All of this is doubtless painful and unpopular; but in my view it is only this approach of eliminating whole elements of capability that will deliver the savings required to balance the budget. It needs to be accompanied by a slimming of the top-heavy brass, certainly - but that's a confidence check-sum as it will in and of itself never deliver enough savings.

It's going to be bloody chaps; and despite their arguments, an Afghan-centric campaign will make this especially hard on the RN.

S41

Jacko,

Your carrier argument................once in my lifetime and that was 27 years ago.
Would you apply that line of argument to our Nuclear Deterrent? The fact it has never been used in anger would surely render it surplus to requirements in your journalistic world? I do hope not.

Whilst I would never suggest disbanding the RAF is the solution, it remains clear that something drastic is required. I remain unconvinced that the scrapping of the Carriers is the solution either.

The earlier posting:
"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."

I like that. You could add the odd journo to that list too.

Regards,
SJ


"

"Would you apply that line of argument to our Nuclear Deterrent?"

no, not if you can understand the meaning of the word deterrent

""Would you apply that line of argument to our Nuclear Deterrent?"

no, not if you can understand the meaning of the word deterrent ""

I understand the meaning of the word 'deterrent', and I still think that we should bin the UK's nuclear capability, as it's essentially impossible to get sensible questions to the following questions:

(a) Who is being deterred?
(b) If WMD is obtained by an asymmetric actor, who are you going to dete?
(c) If the asymmetric actor uses WMD against the UK (God forbid), who are you going to nuke in revenge? What level of intelligence do you need to lob the proverbial bucket of instant sunshine at an alleged State sponsor?
(d) How does building follow-on SSBN/Trident comply with our obligations to work towards nuclear disarmament in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
(e) How can we credibly say to Iran / North Korea that they shouldn't pursue nuclear weapons because they don't need them and that they're not big or clever if we pursue the retention of nuclear weapons until 2040?

And

(f) Who can vote the UK off the Security Council Permanent 5?

Of these, the clearest answer is to (f): any change to the Permanent 5 requires the Permanent 5 to vote for it - in other words, the UK has a veto and would have to vote in favour of removing itself. NO UK Government is going to vote in favour of this.

So if someone can sensibly explain why we are at greater risk if we abandon the UK's nuclear capability, and quantify this, then I'm all ears and if convinced, will change my view. But until then, I think that Trident is a counter-productive - and expensive - frippery that needs binning, now.

S41

Naveleye
 

"I see a very strong case for selling off as many Typhoons as possible other than those needed for AD. The F35 can do everything else better"

Dream on son.

As for the rest who believe that having Russian Blackjacks overflying the United Kingdom is acceptable, well the best place for you would be the Tower via Traitors gate!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:t...ors%20Gate.jpg

Too much personal garbage. Keep it clean or the thread gets close.

(Except for posts by the resident troll when just he gets closed!)

The latter points towards a land-based delivery system that might be better managed by one of the other Services.

Land-based delivery system(s) located where? Put 'em all in Scotland?

If we cannot defend our own borders, we leave ourselves open to any enemy with its own expeditionary capability.


Enemy with its own expeditionary capability -> more immigrants. Diversity is strength.

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.


What about Russian missiles wandering into UK airspace? Isn't the focus on seeing off manned bombers somewhat yesteryear-ish?

Tomorrow's RAF -> missile defense.

Move comes as Obama cancels land-based plans

By Philip Ewing and William H. McMichael - Staff writers

Posted : Sunday Sep 20, 2009 12:39:43 EDT

The Navy will begin to maintain a constant presence of at least two or three ballistic-missile defense cruisers and destroyers in the waters around Europe by 2011, the Pentagon announced Sept. 17, to protect the continent from potential Iranian missile attacks.

The standing patrol would sail the North Sea and the Mediterranean to cover Europe from the north and south, and U.S. commanders could surge additional ships to provide extra assistance when needed, said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

...

EAST COAST BMD EXPANSION

It’s likely that the ships assigned to the Europe-area patrol mission will come from the East Coast. The Navy and the Missile Defense Agency want to make nine East Coast-based Aegis ships BMD-capable by 2014 — three that had already been slated for the upgrade and six requested in this year’s budget. MDA will recommend that all of them be from the Atlantic Fleet.

Today, 18 ships are equipped with Aegis BMD, and all but two are based in the Pacific.

The three ships already set to get upgrades are the cruisers Vella Gulf and Monterey, based at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., and the destroyer The Sullivans, based at Naval Station Mayport, Fla. The six additional ships haven’t been named.

A second phase of the U.S. missile-defense regime will be in place by 2015, Cartwright said, and will include land-based sensors and SM-3s, but it was not clear whether that would mean an end to the standing [sea-based] Aegis BMD presence in Europe.

Worldwide, the system eventually will integrate the [ US Army's ] Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense [mobile ] missile [system ], or THAAD, slated for operational deployment to Europe this year, ( Where in Europe? ) and the [ larger, non-mobile ] Ground-Based Interceptor missile based at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., Cartwright said.

It also would include construction of a directional X-band radar somewhere in Europe, most likely in the Caucasus region, Cartwright said.

Move comes as Obama cancels land-based plans - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

Somewhere in Caucasus?

Is Obama cutting the need for the stations because Iran would not be a threat.......wonder what is going on behind closed doors. Where is Bill Clinton / Dubya these days.

Army thinking
 

Interesting that no one in the media has picked up on the implications of applying the thinking of the new CGS to the other services. He gave a speech last week at Chatham House, which was woefully under-reported, but summarised by Richard North on:

http://defenceoftherealm.***********...balancing.html

He was basically implying that the Army needed to be "rebalanced" to cope with a shift in threat away from inter-state warfare. If the Army is going to move in that direction, it makes the Typhoon fleet look even more of an extravagance.