The RAF finally gets it !
 

I know the impending SDSR + cuts have been done to death before, but it's nice to see CAS finally taking the gloves off and starting to counter the BS coming from the rest of defence.

RAF chief: Don't cut fighter jets - Telegraph

I for one am fed up with both the Army and Navy moaning about how the RAF should take all the pain - as for disbandment :ugh:

I fear it is far too little, far too late :(

Erm, it's far too little far too long ago.... That article is dated 15 Feb 10 :hmm:

You might mean this?

We're out of Afghan soon - I wonder where else then, Richards sees the army deployed in similar escapades? Perhaps the political incentive just isn't there to repeat the 'mistakes' of the past bushfighting decade. And it probably doesn't matter when it was written - it adds weight to the (timeless) theory that too much time is spent re-fighting the last war, and not enough anticipating the next (however different it might be).

"Yer doomed I tell ya.....Yer ALL DOOMED!" :E

How little we have learned. The only thing the RAF is lacking in order to be great, are some Senior Officers who will have the spine to stand up and be counted, but Knighthoods appear more important than the service that has given them so much over the years. The days of the Royal Air Flight draw closer.

"The Army is pressing for the RAF to be given cheaper fighters such as the propeller-powered Super Tucano, which cost only £5 million each."

Well someone is showing an outstanding understanding of requirements. We could also replace the SA80 with a super squirter water pistol.

Despite all the bravado, banter and general idle speculation from the other 2 services, I suspect all three branches are going to have to bend over and take it like a man in October.

It will, of course, be quite a challenge for the RAF having been raped in other recent defence cuts.

Fighting amongst ourselves achieves nothing.

But both Tucano and Squirter might be the appropriate tools for the job at a given time depending on what substance is discharged from either.

The RAF finally gets it !

C130J - Oh dear! Isn't that statement just a teeny-weeny (no pun intended) ambiguous .....?:confused:

Jack

MGD is right - back-stabbing and in-fighting is totally counter-productive. It really saddens me to see all these generals, admirals and airships being so parochial and puerile. Yes, its all about capabilities and, like-it-or not, airpower is a damn-important force-multiplier and here to stay, as WSC said. Airpower is far too important to be left to the dark-blue and brown. After all, us crabs shouldn't dream of lecturing the others on how best to use an MBT or a submarine, so why should the RN and Army pontificate about use of aircraft and space?

Why, oh why, can't our senior types agree on trying to define the threat and planning our Services accordingly - rationally and together? Or at least, they could have a 'best guess' to the threats and the appropriate size/ability of our Armed Forces - and then advise the Gov't what capabilities we will lack as a result (and maybe how long it would take to ramp them back up); then the Gov't takes a carefully measured risk, rather than the MoD looking like a bunch of school kids arguing over a packet of sweets!:ugh::ugh:

Dunno, but I blame the fish heads and the pongoes :8

well air policing by tornado worked so well in the Balkans, Kosovo Afghanistan, Iraq need I go on it needed boots on the gorund with CAS not IDS to actually get control of many of the post cold war conflicts.

You are quite right Nurse - to control a non-compliant local population you need boots on the ground. But would you have wanted to go into these countries without CAS / AI above (and in front) of you?

Of course you could always rely on our NATO partners to provide it.....

The Army should shut up. :ok:

I for one think that the Army being on the constant offensive is all down to the fact that they feel threatened in the longer term. Although Afghanistan is the current focus, with the expected draw down in the next 5 years, what exactly will the bulk of the Army be doing once out of Afghanistan?

By that stage, I really can't see the UK having the political or public appetite, financial resources or military capability to embark on another foreign adventure which will invariably mean lots of time in barracks or on exercise. However, the RAF and the RN will still have an active role to play in the defence of the UK through policing of airspace and sea lines of communication, not to mention the ability to demonstrate and project UK air and sea power through the deployment of relatively small force packages (assuming they ever let the RN host some of the infamous cocktail parties!) where required.

Seems to me that post 2015, it is the Army who will be scrabbling round for an active role outside of marching up and down Horseguards. Might explain the rather vociferous protestations we are seeing at the moment?

Hang in there
 

While I agree with Melchett01's argument regarding the future of the Army post-Afghanistan, the trick for the RAF will be maintaining enough capability and budget-share until that occurs in order for us to have something to (re)build on. The RN played a blinder last week by getting BAe to do its lobbying for it (CVF = British jobs); pity we don't have the same industrial backing.

The RAF does have industrial backing.

The RAF are pushing for F35B (the RN would probably be happier with F35C or even the F18F and traps/cats on the CVFs) and the workshare for British industry is higher in the F35B than the F35C.

If the F136 engine ends up being dropped then the only workshare RR have left in the F35 project would be on the B-model.

Then lets not forget about BAe Systems. They have an interest in the whole lot, B-model, C-model and the big grey boaty things too, they'll want to keep all of them on order.

The reason the RN's industrial backing is so evident at the mo is that the question of "do we really need the CVFs" is the main one being asked right now. If people started questioning whether the country needed the F35B with the same gusto being used over the CVFs I'm sure you'd see BAe and also RR equally defensive over the project.

And therein lies the key and the nub of the problem.

Defining the threat isn't so easy. Difficult to tell what will be happening in 20 years and procurement decisions made today will have that huge effect in 20 yrs.

If we could accurately define the threat the problem would be relativlely easy.

You would have to spend what was needed to neutralise it.

Shades of 30s.

Here are a few threats completely off the top of my head:

Russia - not much capability at the moment except all those nukes but a willingness to use what capability it has pretty aggressively (vide Georgia) where will they be in 30-40 years time?

China - busy securing the World's resources on the open market but will they defend their position by force in due course?

Iran - where is that going?

Collapse of the eurozone following a Sovereign Debt crisis and a return to European nationalism?

Regional conflicts which suck us in?

India/Pakistan

Iran/Israel/Syria - whole Middle East?

Russia/Ukraine/Georgia

Various African conflicts

China/South China Sea/Japan/Koreas/Phillipines/Vietnam

and then

AQ sponsored global insurgency
Irish republicanism - still not gone away.

and finally the Argentinians still want the FI.

Actually come to think of it, there is no better time to make massive cuts in defence.