Will the Tories abolish the RAF?

Silent Hunter

I really can't see this happening without a massive public outcry if not a full blown revolution.

We have not forgotten "the Few" even if this bloody appalling Labour Government have.

Personally I would prefer to remove Labour from government by force . . . losing an election is just not adequate punishment for them for all the utter crap they have put us through.

flyboy

Doesn't getting rid of the navy make more sense?
More Admirals than boats!

James

If they do this, I will never vote for them again.

Grumpy Old Man

August was over 18 days ago. The single service doctrine has been around since the 1970's and is taken out and aired every time the UK is skint. Unfortunately, the idea is full of moths and covered in mould, so is carefully repacked until the next time.

Gawain

If you look at the way bureaucracies in this country operate the idea is pretty dotty. You will end up with two or three airforces instead of one and considerably higher costs. If you want to cut costs you need fewer civil servants in the MOD, fewer aircraft and fewer pilots, aircrews and groundsaff. Oh, and stopping wars would help !

Ian Walker

Option 1 makes a lot of sense, given that most operations are done under the combined arms doctrine, and have been since WWII. Option 2 is ridiculous.

There might be a small saving, but "slashing" costs seems a bit unlikely; military units would be deployed to operational divisions based on need, but that's the case anyway (there's a surpising lack of need for attack subs in Afghanistan!) You might be able to trim a few of the higher brass, but you'll have to pension them off and won't much of a saving.

I'm not saying don't do it - it makes a lot of sense militarily, but as a cost saving measure it'll be a drop in the ocean.

Forlornehope

If you look at how the services are operating with "Joint Force Harrier" and the "Joint Helicopter Agency" a lot of the practical issues are already being addressed. On the other hand the raison d'etre for the RAF was strategic bombing and that has long gone.

Jez

*News flash here*;

Side-lining the air-arm of any nations defence strategy has been a bit of a negative direction since the BlitzKreig.

But i'm sure these 'Global Citizen' visionaries know best.

TrevorsDen

I see nothing inherently wrong in having one joint defence force but I do not see any significant savings in we continue to make a Horlicks of pour procurement strategies.
Some admiral is pleading that the navy cannot carry out its world role - well that ended years ago.

At the minute all we are getting for our billions are a few battalions of infantry fighting fiercely in Afghanistan. In lieu of equipment they 'crack on'.

Something must be done to equate our role with our available means. Billions is being spent pointlessly - its got to stop.

Whats this single 'marine corps' all about?

Its not so much that the structure of navy and airforce are wrong, its that the equipment they operate is so costly that there is too little of it to be effectively useful.

Battle 2807

My father was in the RAF too, he flew Spitfires in the war and very proud too of the service.
I am glad to say that my father is now dead and has not had to witness what 12 years of New Labour have done to our once proud country. Brown, and new labour have destroyed this country and should hang their heads in shame (if they had the slightest inkling of the concept, which they dont)>

In2minds

Yes the Tories should go for a combined armed service, but a UK service, not one that just happens to conform to the pre-planning of an EU 'army'.

Tradebot

Well, I know I am biased as ex-Army officer but problem with the RAF is that they are not really that much value for money in the current day infantry-focused "irregular" battlefield. Problem with the delivery of air power , even with the current era of smart weapons, is that they tend to cause huge amounts of collateral damage - which makes fighting the insurgency even more difficult. For the combat ops like what we are fighting in Afganistan, expanded Army Air Corps could deliver air support more cost effectively using systems such as the Apache.
However, I wouldn't just go and abolish the RAF - the boys in blue do deliver essential air transport capacity - area always disdained by RAF top brass as secondary to fast jets. Also we do need the RAF to deliver basic air-defense, but not at the cost of buying +200 Eurofighter Typhoons.

david

Why not! it was the Tories that pretty much abolished fighter command in 1957, Duncan Sandys it would be in their tradition.

A. Liebling

Blighty is bust. We can stretch to one tank, one rifle and one biplane. The Navy needs a footpump for the dinghy.

Get over it Brit boys, you bet everything on Finance and lost. Time to pay your debts, and live according to your real status in the world - 2nd/3rd rate.

Nicholas

Give the RAF a ground power capability by incorporating the Army into the RAF Regiment and a naval capability by incorporating the Navy into a re-introduced and expanded RAF fast boat service.

Then sack the politico-pongo Generals and surrender-monkey Admirals who came up with the stupid idea of abolishing the RAF.

Dean

Their first priority will be to abolish the BBC. They will proceed to attack other long-established national institutions at a later stage, when memories of Cameron's "de-contamination" project are fading.

They'll use consultant-speak and refer to "synergies" and "efficiency savings". They'll probably re-name it the "British Army Air Force" to try to persuade us that they're preserving it intact, but we won't be deceived.

This is what we have learnt to expect from Thatcherite governments that pretend to be conservative.

Paul Round

Since the formation of the RAF in 1918 the other 2 services have been trying to take it over.Canada tried a single service experiment and it was a disaster.The RAF was formed because neither the Navy nor the Army understood airpower.They still don't.Every successful air arm in the world to date has been independent

David Lindsay

The neocons have long wanted to abolish the RAF

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=482

Let no one doubt that they are in firm control of the Conservative Party.

But they have not the guts to publish their real aims in a British newspaper.

pete-s

Having worked very close to the military for a large number of years. The need for an overall view decision making process rather than inter service rivalry has been very apparent. Only when they are well and truly integrated will sensible decisions be made.

Labour and sensible decisions are not a compatible item. So it will have to be the Tories who get the 'Mr Unpopular' badge.

Anthony

Scrapping the RAF has been a staple of debate for a while now and goes round and round and round. Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of the case, however, it isn't going to happen. Not only is it just not going to happen in general terms, the RAF actually looks fairly strong now. They've done a very good job (with the tacit support of some Army officers) of playing the press at the expense of the Royal Navy ("Oh the carriers! The carriers!"). They are also in a strong position in that most of their big procurement tickets are advanced enough to be resistant to cancellation. A more plausible - though still unlikely - real world scenario at this point would be the RAF making a grab for both the Army Air Corps and the Fleet Air Arm, rather than vice versa.

Rob C

Wouldn't scrapping the EU save more?

(More palatable to the voters too ;-)

Anne Wotana Kaye

My initial response was "Will Britain still have an RAF if the Tories take over from the shambles Brown will have left? Then I considered further, Brown is brilliant, he is indeed a great leader. His latest escapade is no less than Machiavellian. He is sending policemen to Libya to train their force. This will not only bring in funds, something which must make Browns' spirits rise, but the really cunning thing is it will render Libya to helpless impotence as far as its police is concerned. The British police are absolutely useless, pen-pushing, politically correct keystone cops. Brown is also sending NHS managers to train the Libyans. Another brilliant stroke. This should destroy more potential mass murderers than any modern weaponry. Carry On Brown!

Reveho

The key problem is that the RAF is run by ex-pilots, who prefer fast jets to - the currently more important - Support Helicopter and Air Transport branches.

The increased capability of latest generation fighter planes compared to the previous generation is staggering, however we still have large deficiencies in fleet size and availability of helicopters suitable for the "hot and high" environment of Afghanistan.

It might be that Typhoon is the last generation of manned fighter jets purchased by HMG.

..at least the proposed carriers are big enough for large helicopters and UCAVs.

Perhaps it's time for "MODair"

Alfred T Mahan

I think reducing three services to two makes sense - less politics among the top brass, less manoeuvring for scarce resources, fewer prestige projects like the Eurofighters or (maybe) aircraft carriers. The only reason to have a separate RAF is if you have a full-on strategic bombing arm, as was the vogue in WWII. Nowadays the RAF mainly do close support, for which command would be easier with a unified service, or act as taxi drivers for the army - for which ditto.

But the outraged reaction from some of the commenters here shows that what an uphill battle it would be politically and I would guess that there are higher priorities for the first term, at least.

Silent Hunter

Battle2807:

I just wanted to come back and say "thank you" to you, for your Father. Thanks to him, my children are safer today - despite this despicable, warmongering Labour Government.

Please never underestimate the gratitude that we feel towards men like your Father - it may not always be vocal, but it is in our national psyche nonetheless.

Best wishes to you and yours.

Occasional Ostrich

@Forlornehope:

the raison d'etre for the RAF was strategic bombing and that has long gone.

Err-hm? Precisely what strategic bombing was being undertaken in 1918 when the RAF was formed.

But I agree that with joint harrier and helicopter forces, the services are already addressing the issue, probably more effectively than any government would.

Occasional Ostrich

@Paul Round

"Every successful air arm in the world to date has been independent"

Yes, like the USAAF in WWII.

Hysteria

"Will the Tories abolish the RAF?" - who knows?

SHOULD the RAF be abolished? - No. As posted above the actual savings will be small, if any (you still need the kit, training, supply chain, technicicans etc)

We could do with more joined up thinking at a leadership level so we are spending resources correclty - I have been out of the RAF a long time now so not aware of the current arrangements but I understand that joint ops are now the norm.

One of the strengths of the military (especially the Army) is the "esprit" engendered through unit, uniform, tradition etc. We risk throwing that all away.

On a lighter note - as an ex Rock Ape officer I support the general thrust of absorbing the Army into the RAR Regiment, and who needs a navy anyway..?

Fergus Pickerting

No they won't

Tanuki

To be honest, I'd rather see the RAF sidelined than there be no Trident-replacement. The RAF gave up any strategic role a couple of decades back - pretty much all they do in that area is now do-able much more cheaply by way of a range of missiles, UAVs and the like.

The transport-role currently performed by RAF could sensibly be merged into the Army as an extension of the Royal Logistics Corps.

mac

" . . and who needs a navy anyway . .?" I can see why you picked your nom-de-blog, Hysteria.

Equally revealing sentiments from Nicholas - you weren't by any chance one of those Crab staffers who conveniently shifted Gan on the charts to help scupper the 1960s carrier project, were you?!

This idea of disbanding the RAF was a perennial subject for tyro staff officers' papers at Camberley and Greenwich, but it isn't going to happen. (Option 1 however must make Royal Marines smile given the several attempts to disband the Halberdiers since 1945!)

Promise of Avalon

Sorry. All this talk of inter-Service rivalry being the problem with the military is all nonsense. The problem is that the key strategic decision are not being taken by the people who should be taking them: politicians.

It is the job of politicians to determine the strategic purpose of the Armed Forces, therefore it is for politicians to determine whether we need large carriers, nuclear weapons. The problem is that they are near universally inadequate. That is the problem.

Projecting their inadequacies onto the military and expecting Service people to contort themselves yet again is compounding the problem.

bill

A stupid idea despite superficial attractions. The Canadians tries this sort of thing and failed. The reorganisation would as noted cost a fortune and the end product would likely create a worse situation.

Of course the services could save a lot of money other ways but why choose effective solutions when you can choose a radical and ineffective one.

Ray

Hysteria - couldn't agree more. Why throw away ninety years of proud tradition and 'esprit de corp' all for the sake of slotting jobs together on some MoD management flow chart.

However much airborne delivery systems may evolve (and the RAF evolve with them), Britain remains supremely proud of its Royal Air Force. The government that axes it as a separate service will pay a heavy price indeed - both at the ballot box and one day in the skies above some future combat zone.

paul hughes

Whether or not the RAF should be scrapped is a matter for those versed in the practicalities concerned. Opposing the suggestion on grounds of pure sentiment is horribly misguided. I vote for whichever option gives our servicement the best possible air cover at the best cost. Invoking the ghosts of the "few" is a poor argument indeed.

Athesius the Facilitator

Don't scrap the Fleet Air Arm, they have a can do attitude and work ethic that is second only to their amazing sense of humour. What a great bunch of lads. I should know I was in the FAA for 25 years.

On a serious note though. I think the "crabfats" could be gotten rid of and integrated into a maritime air force. Once the FAA ethic is installed in them we may see some more flying hours and a bit less winging.

Nicholas

"Equally revealing sentiments from Nicholas - you weren't by any chance one of those Crab staffers who conveniently shifted Gan on the charts to help scupper the 1960s carrier project, were you?!"

No, I was in a different uniform then. My post was tongue in cheek.

Dirty Euro

We a Air force. How can the Tories do this? It is madness.

Simon Stephenson

Promise of Avalon (8.13pm) has it just about right for me. We're discussing military matters here, but the point PoA makes applies equally well across every other area, too.

It seems to me that the trade-off we've had to make to open up political office to people of all ranges of ability is to blur the lines of accountability to such an extent that no one is sure any longer who is responsible for what.

The professionals withing government departments aren't trained to make political judgments, so maybe the time has come to recognise that however uplifting it may be to egalitarians amongst us, making Secretaries of State out of any Tom, Dick or Harry is a sure way to creating atrocious government.

John

As Sir Humphrey would have said:
"Merge the services? Oh very brave, Prime Minister."

Webfooted Warrior

Debating the pennies to be squeezed from our shrunken defence budget is a useful smokescreen from the real NHS and welfare elephants who have smashed the table into matchwood. The recent political classes (Labour and Tory) have laid this country low; "streamlining" the services won't change that one iota.
While we're at it we may as well break up the union to save a bob or two.

Hysteria

Moraymint - where are you when we need you !!!!

Kevin

The Tories certainly will not disband the RAF nor should they, I also agree 100% with the above comments that the RAF are politically more powerful than the Navy and they have been for majority of post war Britain.

Moraymint

I hear Hysteria calling ... where am I when needed? First: declaring my interest as an ex-RAF type.

Perhaps it wouldn't make much sense to abolish the RAF for the following, fairly simple and, indeed, economic reason. Dare I say an unbiased reason?

Aeroplanes generally are very, very expensive, strategic assets (yes, even helicopters cost a lot of dosh). We don't have enough of them, we never will. As such, therefore, it makes most sense to have a single command(er) who deploys those strategic assets where and when they are most needed for any particular circumstances ... usually in the face of competing operational demands. If those strategic assets (aeroplanes) are dispersed to the Navy and the Army and deployed in penny-packets by each or either of the these 2 services ... guess what ... suddenly air power lacks punch. Certainly, air power becomes dissipated and less effective, efficient and (ahem) economic.

Sure, if we had a huge defence budget, dispersing air assets between the Navy and the Army might work, but our very own "saviour of the world", Gordon Brown, has cleverly steered our once fine and proud nation to the very edge of screaming and shameful bankruptcy. As a man who has always despised the nasty, bourgeois military, Brown will no doubt be revelling in the organisational and financial mess that is now the British armed forces. It's what he and his Marxist pals always wanted.

Another point. Leading and fighting modern air assets is a specialised military skill. It's hard to see how an Admiral (sea power expert) or a General (landfighting expert) could easily become a modern (ie complex, sophisticated) air power expert. Perhaps this was OK in the days when we fought with a few biplanes in the armoury, but visit a modern air base or fly a Chinook or a jet fighter/bomber and you'll appreciate the complexity of understanding and delivering 21st century air power.

So, unless we want a more expensive, less effective armed forces, perhaps we should drop the idea of abolishing the RAF? The trick is to strive always to have the 3 services operating effectively together and to be clear, in any given theatre, who is in charge.

Chances are an Admiral or a General would/should be the supreme commander in any given sea or land theatre. The RAF commander should deploy his precious, strategic assets in support of the Admiral and/or the General ... in a dispassionate, unbiased - albeit rationed - way, and using the hard-won skills, knowledge and experience of a professional air warrior to advise the Admiral/General.

Maybe think of the Admiral/General as the Chief Exec, and the Air Marshal as the Finance Director, deploying the company's precious capital in line with the Chief Exec's priorities, but pointing out that the company's capital is always rationed ... and whilst himself being professionally trained and experienced in the dark arts of finance and accounting. Combining the roles of Chief Exec and FD doesn't make much sense ... and simply wouldn't work in a FTSE 100 outfit.

Just a thought. Smarter military guys than me will have arguments both ways.

Norman Dee

Just getting back to the history of the services, it's all very well to remember the Battle of Britain, and quite right too, the contribution was enormous, but the Navy and the Army had been doing it for 400 years before that, and have done since.

Forlornehope

@Occasional Ostrich

As a simple historical fact, in 1918 RAF long range bombers were attacking targets in Germany. By that stage in the war the Handley Page O/400 could carry 2000 lbs of bombs on long range missions. That's about half what the American B17 Flying Fortress was carrying in WW2 (though it is much less than the Lancaster). It was this development that led to the creation of the RAF.

You can make a very good case that the pulverisation of German cities led directly to the destruction of any last shreds of Prussian militarism in Germany. This may be a nuisance when we want their help in our wars but it's a damn sight better than the alternative. The bombing also forced German air resources back over the Reich giving the allies a relatively clear run in Normandy. All very strategic.

Kevin

What Moraymint is suggesting sounds brilliant on paper, but only if you don't remember the RAF's terrible record and complete lack of interest at providing Naval air.

It was the RAF's lack of interest that left the Royal Navy with excellent carriers but terrible aircraft and not enough of them pre WW2. They were much more interested in spending the cash on strategic bombers.

They've invested considerable time in trying to get the Royal Navy's carriers scrapped at all cost in 1966 and more recently; one might surmise that if the RAF doesn't care for carriers then it doesn't have much interest in deploying aircraft onto them.

Then of course there's been numerous occasions where the RAF have shunned overtures from the FAA to develop joint aircraft that could be utilised by both services like the Buccaneer.

Obi Wan Russell

When referring to the RAF most usually bring the Battle of Britain into the argument, quite rightly too. But it is worth remembering that SINCE WW2, all British Military air to air victories have been achieved by Fleet Air Arm aircraft flying fro aircraft carriers. The RAF hasn't shot anything down since the forties! Also remember the RAF didn't show up until WW1 was nearly over (April Fools Day 1918), and was created by merging the Royal Naval Air Service (which had invented strategic Bombing) with the Royal Flying Corps. The impetus for this merger was the inability of both services to counter the German Zepplin raids, mainly because both services were preoccupied with the western front. So home air defence was the original mission of the RAF, not Strategic Bombing. All the Navy airmen who were behind Strategic bombing were absorbed into the RAF along with those who appreciated the need for shipboard aviation, which is why the Navy was short of 'air minded' officers between the wars.

Putting Naval Aviation in the hands of a land based Air Force with other priorities has been done three times in the last ninety years, always disastrously. The Navy got the Fleet Air Arm back in the late thirties, but the years under the RAF meant Carrier aircraft had lagged behind other nations naval air arms. The Japanese entered WW2 with the excellent Mitsubishi Zero, we had the Swordfish biplane! By the 60s we had the second most powerful Navy in the world with five strike carriers and two commando carriers, then an idiot in a government of idiots cancelled them and said the RAF could do the job cheaper. They couldn't do it at all, so the Invincible class and the Sea Harrier had to be bouht to retain air cover over the fleet.

In the last few years the Navy was forced to give up it's Sea Harriers because the RAF was having budget problems, leading to Joint Force Harrier, supposedly a 50/50 split of RAF/FAA manning. All sqns were supposed to rotate through Land ops and Carrier ops, but noticeably for the last four years our carrier decks have rarely seen any jets (unless they were USMC Harriers, Spanish Harriers or Italian Harriers!) This seems to be changing for the better now since the RAF's Tornado force has been sent out to the 'Stan at long last. In general if pilots and ground crew want to go to sea they join the FAA, those that don't gravitate to the RAF. That's a godd enough reason for the two air arms to exist separately. In the past, RAF aircrew who wanted to serve at sea could volunteer for a tour with the FAA, now they don't get a choice about sea service, they just grin and bear it. This leads to retention problems, and good aircrew are always in short supply. Also at this point, cutting the Carrier program won't save a penny, most of the money has been spent already and the penalty clauses against cancellation will mean it's actually cheaper to just build them! Without the Carriers, there is no Navy, the 1st Sea Lord understands this only too well and has fought tooth and nail to keep them. Cancellation will also mean an end to British Warship Building capability, as there is nothing else that can be ordered in their place to keep the yards open. Putting tens of thouseands of skilled shipyard workers on the dole helps the economy how exactly? It just puts an extra burden on the welfare budget. So cancellation is a major COST not saving.

Someone earlier posted 'Why do we need a Navy'. Let me educate you. Why would an Island nation 90% of whose trade travels by sea (and not just across the channel either) to all points around the globe and is utterly dependent on that trade for it's very survival need a Navy? If you think a 'Coastal Waters' defence policy would be OK then you have already surrendered to anyone, be they nation state or terrorist group who chooses to attack our Sea Lanes Of Communication (SLOC)You don't need U-Boats to do this either, planting bombs on merchant ships and sinking them mid ocean isn't a big challenge. I know from personal experience that UK port security is a sad joke, and the only reason they haven't been attacked is that the terror groups are as 'Sea Blind' as most people in this Island Nation. We have to be able to defend our supply lines first and foremost or we are finished.

So, the basic problem is not 'should we abolish one of the services' but 'we should acknowledge the importance of all the services and fund them accordingly', a message the Treasury is terrified of the British Public recieving!

Herbert Thornton

On this matter of merging the Armed Forces, which one of the three manages the country's ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads? Or are they really a separate force, independent of the other three?

And what is the gravest threat to Britain? Is it a foreign power, or is it a growing component of the inhabitants of the U.K.?

I suggest that the nation needs to concentrate on protecting itself from what is likely to happen in the future - and to organise the means of protection accordingly, even if it means that the concepts of Army, Navy and Air force are outdated and need to be replaced by something new and possibly entirely different - whether that consist of a single service, or several separate ones.

jez

No one seems to be thinking long term anymore.

RobRoy

Why is all the the talk of getting rid of the RAF, in GW1 GW2 it was all about the RAF and the Army done nothing , only now the Army think all wars will be fought like Afghanistan no it wont , as soon as Boots on ground are pulled out then people will soon realise the Army has no other use. If this happens then I think you will find nobody in the RAF will accept working for any other service and im sure vice versa. The Army can find there own skilled Pilots and Technicians

Jess The Dog

Can't do it. There are military tasks that the Army and Navy would be unable to pick up. Air Defence, Strategic Air Offensive, Air Transport are three of them.

Army care only about the 50 miles of ground in front of them, Navy only care about the 100 nautical miles or so of water that surrounds them, RAF has thousands of miles of sky to look at.

I'm ex-RAF by the way. Suspect the other two services would agree, although they would probably want to snatch the RAF's helicopter capability (perhaps fair enough).

Severus

As usual this is turning into a slagging match between the 3 Services about who is more valuable. The reality is there is not enough money to go round, and it is time to make some drastic changes to the UK military.

Merging the RAF into the other 2 Services will not make vast savings, as it will not reduce the number of aircraft and associated support staff. Instead we need to seriously consider what capabilities UK wishes to bring to the NATO/Coalition battlefield. UK Forces are no longer big or rich enough to have one of every capability, that is best left to our American cousins. We need be able to defend the UK and specialise in delivering capabilities we are strong in, this will allow us to make savings elsewhere in the Defence budget. The days of the UK as a military power able to fight by itself anywhere in the world are long past.

Peter de Wit

The brigadier is quoted as saying that if the RAF isn't to be scrapped, then what is. It's obvious isn't it?
Scrap the Army Air Corps and Fleet Air Arm, and put have all combat aviation operated by the RAF.
This would eliminate unneccesary duplication etc. and make tasking simpler.

James Kallmeier

Perhaps I'm being stupid, but wouldn't sidelining the navy make more sense (can you see a need for Trident in Kabul?!). However on a different note this pointless war seems to be going nowehere with current tactics. Yes strategic bombing costs unnecessary lives, we learnt this 70 years ago, but what we need is to put some bombed up Harriers over Sangin and put a few thousand pound love letters through the Taliban's letterbox. That should put the frighteners on them.

Lester May

Abolition of the RAF makes sense for many reasons:
# Saving of £3.5bn (10% of defence budget)
# Cut around 20,000 uniformed strength
# Two services will be more efficient and more cost-effective than three
# No loss of operational capability of defence capability (both the Army and Navy have their own air arms, of course)

Some say the Navy should go. Apart from this indicating an odd state of mind, how can an island nation, with 92% of its trade going bt sea and with 14 overseas territories in all the major oceans, do without a navy?

The RAF is far less cost-efficent than the Navy's Fleet Air Arm and, by common consent, many soldiers and marines will tell you that they rate naval aviators above those in the RAF.

The country needs to be radical about saving money. Cutting the RAF will avoid cuts in the army and navy when neither make sense.

We must not be too sentimental about the RAF - famous ships go to the scrapyard, famous regiments have been merged with others and famous squadrons disbanded) but we must not forget The Few or the RAF's history. Names and squadron numbers can be retained and many other apsects of the RAF can be maintainted too.

David Williams

Evidently the UK has problems funding their armed forces. Surely having three separate commands is now beyond that which the UK government can afford. Hasn't the time come to accept that the days of 1918, and the notion of the Royal Air Force as a stategic arm are long gone. The British Army needs tactical air power to support their objectives. A modern navy needs an air component to deliver and support those ground forces. Britain was the first country to develop an independent air force, I think it's high time Britain took the lead again, and accepted that in the modern world, having three commands is extravagent and ultimatly unaffordable. Bold, realistic decisions need to be taken.