RAF combat aircraft numbers
 

Just scanning the Telegraph Business section and there is a comparison table showing figures from 1990 versus 2021. According to the information provided the RAF had this in 1990: 170 Harrier, 100 Phantom, 100 Jaguar and 400 Tornado. I find those numbers difficult to believe, but am willing to be educated. Thoughts, please.

The Phantom number of 100 sounds a bit optimistic for 1990...?

They also forgot to mention the Buccaneer, which was still in front line service in 1990.

Harrier they must be adding up all the GR5/7s and the remaining GR3s (and possibly the SHARs too)

Sounds about right.

and the 90,000 members were kept busy with aircraft and wars and stuff - didn’t need to worry about pronouns or whether airman or airwoman was inclusive enough.

Sloppy journalism: looks like they've used this Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlin...f_the_Cold_War

The figures are actually for 1989
Phantom rundown well underway 111 changing to F3, with 1435flt, the OCU, 56 & 74 all being gone by the end 1992 (but they haven't included 74's Js in the total)
Harrier figure is adding the rapidly going out of service GR3/T4s to GR5/GR7 many of the latter still on order - first squadron was declared operational in 1989.
Tornado figures probably include the Italian loan F3s and some double counted by including both UK airframes diverted to other customers and their replacements.:ugh:

ORBAT RAF 1990 FRONTLINE

11 X Sqns Tornado GR1

7 X Sqns Tornado F3

4 X Sqns F-4 Phantom

3 x Sqns Jaguar

2 x Sqns Buccaneer/Hunter

3 X Sqns Harrier

4 X Sqns Nimrod MR2p

4 X Sqns C-130 C1/3

1 X Sqn Shackleton AEW 2

4 X Sqns Hawk T1/1A

1 X Sqn VC-10 C1

1 X Sqn Tristar CK1

1 X Sqn VC-10 K2

2 X Sqns Chinook C1

2 X Sqns Puma HC1

3 X Sqns Wessex C2

1 X Sqn Wessex HAR 2

1 X Sqn Sea King HAR 3

1 X Sqn Victor K2

1 X Sqn Canberra PR9

1 X Sqn Canberra TT18/T4/B2

1 X Sqn Canberra T17

1 X Sqn Andover CC2/ BAE 125

1 X Sqn BAE 146 (Queen's Flight)

1 X Sqn Nimrod R1

Belize 1417 Flt Harrier GR3 and 1563 Flight Puma HC1

Mount Pleasant 1435 Flight Tornado F3



Strike Command and RAFG units only. Also, OCUs and OEUs not included.

FB

PS To give a further perspective on the strength of HM Forces circa 1990, the Army had assigned to BAOR, 3 X Armoured Divisions and an Artillery Division. Also, an Infantry Division, this last Division was located, in peacetime, in the UK, with a forward HQ at Rheindahlen. The Arty Div was equipped with about three regiments of Lance SSM. These were loaned from the USA and carried tactical nuclear warheads. The Tonka GR1 sqns were also, all nuclear armed, with the British made WE177.

FB, very comprehensive list, thanks. Amendment to my opening post: the caption in the paper is "key combat aircraft". Furthermore, their comparison to the RAF's key combat aircraft for 2021 is this: 104 Typhoon, 7 Poseidon, 66 Hawk, 20 A400M and 21 Lightning. I find it an unusual comparison - and if they're going to include, for instance, the A400M in the 2021 figures why no mention of C130s in 1990 (amongst others).

In 1990 we were paying just under 6% of GDP for defence - currently just over 3%

Something has to give to get back to 1990 levels

And if you mention A400 in 2021, why no mention of the C-17 as well?


If you think its a bad comparison with 1990, you don't want to look just 15 years before that at 1974.....
77 x squadrons, 12 x OCU's, 9 x MU's and 47 x airfields......

This is a depressing thread! I wonder what the chances are of a BAOR 2.0 and an RAFG 2.0?

It is difficult to see what can give except higher taxation, given public expenditure as a percentage of GDP is approx. 25% higher than in 1990 despite the endless drive for year on year cuts outside the protected areas such as health and education. Those two with pensions and benefits consumer c. 70% of public money.

I am interested in the source of your defence spending figures, NATO documents state 2.29% of GDP by UK in 2021 v 4.1% in 1990 alternatively SIPRI's database gives 2.2% (in 2020 - latest available year) v 4% - but UK's current spend is inflated by Forces pension costs.

Further East though, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I always wondered why we didn't keep some assets in Germany on a care and maintenance basis.......but then does "care and maintenance" exist anymore? The headlong rush to reap the rewards of the "peace dividend" has surely backfired........big time. :{

We gave back Sennelager in 2020...and then a year later moved back in :rolleyes:

Realistically, do we need British bases abroad, or just APODs/SPODs maintained by Allied nations for forward basing?

We can't even manage care and maintenance on our married quarters now!

and THAT is a scandal!

Don't forget that back in the eighties, basic rate of income tax was, IIRC, some 33%

Il Duce,

You're welcome, you'll notice also, the numbers of transport and rotary have remained virtually unchanged. The evisceration has been applied entirely to the actual high-performance combat strength. They may well say reviews are never financially driven cuts, but of course, that's exactly what they are. To apply cuts essentially exclusively to the raison detre, is reckless and has pushed the RAF toward what Trenchard was determined (in opposition to the Navy and Army) it would not be, a military airline service for the army, particularly.

FB

For the Jaguar, the 'raw number' in 1990 was over 100 but the fleet was in two parts: the short term fleet of unmodified aircraft were stored or in the training schools and the long term fleet of modified (with Fin 1064) aircraft were about 85 single and two seat versions which were 'active'. These aircraft were deployed to 3 sqns and an OCU, undergoing maintenance at Abingdon (and later St A), stored as attrition replacements and doing all sorts of other things. The attack aircraft were either recce capable or not and the OCU had a few single seat aircraft with no refuelling probe, having been returned from India. The dozen or so two seat aircraft had a single gun and no refuelling probe.

Old Duffer

There's an article in today's Times saying that to get back to the 1990's defense spend the UK would have to put 4p on income tax - volunteers one step forward!

"you'll notice also, the numbers of transport and rotary have remained virtually unchanged. The evisceration has been applied entirely to the actual high-performance combat strength"

but at the time that made eminent sense FB - we haven't faced even a second class airforce for 30 years and almost all actions have been deploying the Army to and within ground operations. Since everyone wanted to cut military expenditure for the "peace dividend" cuts have to fall somewhere - look at the number of RN surface vessels for example. The alternative is to fix the Military Budget at say 5% and spend it and let other items (health Service, Pensions, education...) to manage with less. That makes sense to me but I'm not trying to get elected.

The number of 'high-performance' combat strength is worryingly small, but if I was CAS I'd be more worried about the lack of bases - 4 front line fast jet stations (one of which also includes the maritime fleet), one transport and one for the rest (RJ etc). Only the rotary world can 'disappear' into the woods etc. Or maybe there IS a cunning plan - which is why I never made CAS!

They might not find the helicopters in the woods, but they'll find the supporting elements easily enough. Not much is safe from satellites.

I’m having trouble finding 4 front line FJ bases. Lossiemouth, Conningsby, Marham and…?

:D Excellent point.

Sorry - accidentally added Leeming.

Further, Shackman, Asturia 56, trim it out and Timelord, things may change in the months and years ahead.

FB:)

The Jaguar's entry into service, and later the Hawk, saved Abingdon from closure as an RAF Station in the 1970s. The serious cuts then, in the transport fleet, Andover removed from tactical role, Britannia, Comet and Belfast gone, Abingdon was otherwise surplus and would have provided a home to the army earlier.

FB

The Foreign Aid budget has got up from £3.4 bn 20 years ago to £14 bn today. Money that has ALL had to borrowed plus intrest.

Which would be okay if we knew it was being well spent. Imagine what the MOD could do with an extra £10 bn........oh, wait a minute......forget that idea.:{

Hi Mopardave,
The UN has asked for $1.7 bn in aid for the Ukraine which is about one month's foreign aid budget., money "well spent".:)
The MOD would probably waste it like the Foreign Aid budget.
Example:- buying the Boxer AFV which cannot be transport whole in an A-400:ugh:

Like I said mate......if it's money well spent? Procurement seems to be a black hole and yet no one is ever accountable?

Cancelling HS2 would put a few bob in the kitty. Unfortunately the £37bn Test and Trace boat has sailed.

That's a very interesting point. I wonder what a 21st century air force would look like with a budget increase like that? I'm guessing we still wouldn't have anything like the 1990 numbers because even relatively speaking, fifth generation aircraft appear to be exponentially more expensive. 4p........that's eye watering.

Never mind the aircraft numbers, where would they get the staff from? When I joined in the mid 80s there was 96000 in the RAF and stiff competition for places due to high unemployment. Today, with low unemployment figures, they struggle to recruit to keep a force of 34000.

No it didn't. I happen to know a little about this as I was "holding staff support" as I awaited my exit from the mob during the work done leading up to the 75 Defence Review. Working with some folk in main building who had previously been involved in the closure of Manby, Oakington and Spitalgate. Abingdon was nothing to do with the Strategic transport fleet at the time of the Mason cuts, and none of the units at Abingdon were slated for closure or even down sizing. The Andovers had departed for Thorney Island years previously, and the units there were all support units; No. 1 PTS, JATE, UKMAMS, RAF Movements School, and London UAS had just moved in with its associated AEF from White Waltham. So the 75 review certainly did not leave Abingdon surplus. The main problem was Brize Norton. With the phasing out of the Britannia fleet, and eventually the Belfasts (they were originally to have stayed and the Hercules fleet been reduced), Brize was left with just what was going to be a much smaller 10 Sqn and the associated VC10 bits of 241 OCU. There was serious consideration to moving 10 Sqn to Lyneham and closing Brize Norton altogether. But the decision (after NATO had complained at the cuts) to retain the Hercules fleet at approx 60, and the VC10 fleet at 13, plus the move of 242 OCU from Thorney island to Lyneham, rendered that proposal unworkable, so the decision was taken instead to move the units from Abingdon into Brize Norton, along with 38 Group TCW from Benson and 115 Sqn from Cottesmore, and move the units from Bicester and Leconfield into the now vacated Abingdon, thus allowing Bicester and Leconfield to close. There was quite a political flurry to enable Labour to announce that they were closing 12 RAF stations, mainly to placate their extreme Left wing who had been promised substantial defence cuts, and to help disguise the fact that there were no actual reductions in front line combat forces.
Thus Bicester, Leconfield and Thorney Island were vacated and were able to be added to the closure list, a silly list really as it included places like Driffield that had been on care and maintenance for decades, Biggin Hill which didn't actually close, West Raynham, which stayed open but the flying units moved out, and Chessington that also didn't actually close for years.
So Abingdon was never under threat of closure, but the mad rush to ensure that Brize Norton stayed open, and to be able to announce a closure list of 12 stations, was the reason for the move of the Abingdon units. I actually staffed a paper that proposed moving the units from Leconfield and Bicester direct to Brize Norton, thus saving quite a bit of relocation expenditure and disruption, but was ignored as I was a Flight Lieutenant fast jet pilot who clearly didn't know what he was talking about...
Sorry about this verbosity, but it was a fascinating and weird time for me, and I was there...

My previous. To get back to Cold War levels of tax, you'd need something like 14p Us old folk had it hard. In my day.....(insert appropriate moan)

Perhaps - but the massive rises in VAT rates since the original 10% rate in 1973 now means that it is the third-largest source of government revenue after income tax and National Insurance....

Regarding the Tornado numbers.
The official figures were - IDS 220 ADV 165 making 385. But production ran until 1995/6 and a number of the F2 ADV were withdrawn early. So not 400 jets.