The RAF is in danger of being destroyed on the ground

Mark

Argentina, anyone?

Biggles (ret'd)

"Dispensing with the top structure of the RAF would make substantial savings."

You can say that again! Far too many chiefs for the relatively small number of Indians. Thus was it ever so.

david

The Tories never change, when in opposition they bullshit the armed forces, when in power they shit on 'em.

Still at least they now where they stand with them, in the dole queue.

Nicholas

Godbye Duncan Sandys, Hello Liam Fox. The Tories have previous for screwing the RAF.

What makes this all so unpalatable- and arguably unnecessary - is that billions are still being spent to fund African dictators wives going on Parisian shopping sprees in private jets, for "aid" to countries like China and India, on New Labour's huge legacy quangocracy and on all the "green ishoos".

It's bollocks but I wonder which RAF mandarin(s) upset Thompson in his day? No-one does simmering resentment and vendetta like the senior brass of the Rupertocracy. His use of the word "abolished" rather than "disbanded" speaks volumes about his agenda and his imperative.

Greenslime

The RAF's unions will be furious. They'll have everyone out on strike.

The RAF is without doubt the most expensive bunch of prima donnas in uniform anywhere - with the notable exception of the helicopter force aircrew. The jet jockeys spend more time in their air conditioned luxury than flying. Discipline is generally poor.

There will be huge cheering amongst the other services when they are finally subsumed by the military arms of the MoD - which should have happened years ago.

In2minds

"The service arms have mobilised their writers to prepare a defence".

Fighting amongst themselves, the UK armed services like that. Alas, for them, the public do not so they will loose this battle. Big cuts to come.

Cuffleyburgers

No modern effective armed force can be cheap to run.

I am by nature extremely wary of swingeing changes brought in in such a way as they invariably leave whatever is cut absolutely demolished, still costing the earth, and taking years if not decades to fix, which is the certain result in this case.

I do not want to see my country left with no independent defence, and I fear that that is what is being proposed by fox.

I simply refuse to believe that significant reductions cannot be made without axing regiments, ships and squadrons.

And besides, there is the point that defence is the government's principal area of responsibility, and the forces is the most reliable repository of true british valves - to abrogate that in order to keep paying benefits to labour voters is quite wrong on every level.

Noa

It's saddening to see the critically important strategic debate about the relevence of national security reduced to an internicine bitch-out between senior service officers seeking to preserve their respective, steadily diminishing territories.

As Nicholas identifies, the necessary level of public discussion should commence with the need to address the unlimited waste elsewhere in government expenditure; social security, health, global warming, overseas aid, much of it to potential enemies , the EU and the uncosted quangocratic Nulab overhead of equality,and health and safety.

The requirements for national defence should not be obscured by or confused with the grotesque, rusty clutter of a debunked new age socialism.

dexey

"The Tories never change, when in opposition they bullshit the armed forces, when in power they shit on 'em.

Still at least they now where they stand with them, in the dole queue."

Cobblers. When I was a soldier all my best pay rises came under the Tories but they had often served and thus understood.

Yam Yam

The most important reason for retaining the RAF as a distinct service is not preserving the hides of its top brass (do the army and navy not have expensive 'top structures'? And can all three services not render theirs less expensive?).

Rather it is to preserve over ninety years of proud tradition and the esprit-de-corps that it engenders - none of which can unfortunately be tangibly itemised on a balance sheet by MoD bean counters; yet which has been indispensable to the RAF's success as a fighting force nonetheless. As indispensable, in fact, as Nelson and Trafalgar are to the modern-day ethos of the Royal Navy.

Yes, the Royal Navy needs to maintain its carrier fleets to provide our armed forces with global reach. But not at the expense of trashing the Royal Air Force and consigning it to history.

AndyinBrum

The Typhoon & F35 are likely to be the last manned aircraft for ground attack and air superiority as the introduction of Combat UAV's will replace them in the next 20 years or so. Especially as they can be controlled back in blighty or remote stations.

Strategic Helicopters should be moved to the Army as thats all they support, The Hercs, C17's and other transport / refueling aircraft can go to the army as well. Nimrods can go to the navy

Air Superiority / Supremecy is vital to military operations, as is aerial reccie, but that will soon be able to be carried out by UAV's.

As a RAF reserve officer that saddens me, but its the way it goes.

Barry Bilge

The Armed Forces are subject to fads and passing phases just like the rest of Government. If the RAF are to suffer a drop in prestige it is in part due to their gerrymandering and defence industry collusion just as the Army and Royal Navy do. This must stop. We need to have a slimmed down Top Brass and far fewer sacred cows.

We are declining in military might due to the insistence on buying exquisite solutions when 'good enough' will suffice.

An overall approach is needed rather than a tri-service quangocrat's wet dream.(Though, I hasten to add, not a combined service.) Isn't this what the Ministers and Parliament is supposed to bring to the table?

There are many ways in which the Forces can be rationalised without affecting their effectiveness but too many vested interests push against it. The RAF have an opportunity to grab this thing by the balls and suggest sensible and rational ways forward to show the other two forces how it can be done. Things like angling for the less expensive F-35C in preference to the F-35B jump jet - the new carriers could be conventional ones the RAF and Navy could get the F-35C rather than the jump jet version. The new air tankers could be some more Nimrods which could double up as bombers. Rationalise the chopper fleet so there are fewer variants and more can be on front line duties.

If the RAF were to show it is prepared to consider formerly unthinkable options it would put pressure on the other two services to do likewise. Rather than the negative competition between the services, sniping at each other and competing for more and more money, let's have some positive competition for a change where they *prove* they can do more for less.(rather than just saying it)

Richard of York

Looks like we will just have to be nicer to everyone in the world so they wont attack us.
No more big toys for the toffs and less tanks for the Dukes of Sandhurst....oh dear expect them to all go into the city now or worse govt.

HiFli

I fail to see how simply transferring assets to the RN and Army will produce significant savings. All its means is that one command structure will be split into two and in fact will be even less efficient. The current use of central staffs and joint command structures means that any savings that could have been made by splitting the RAF up have already been made. If not then surely one bright spark will realise that if three into two is cheaper then three into one is cheaper still. The RN and Army should be careful what they wish for

Jules Roberts

What a laugh. The Army and RN have been bitter and twisted about the RAF since 1918. No other nation in the world has seen fit to abolish an independant air force. If anything, the conflict in Afghanistan has taught us that no amount of soldiers on the ground will solve the situation. We need to be more radical. Time to cut the Army down to size and rely on the RN and RAF to serve the UKs best interests

TrevorsDen

Do we really need 'global reach'? And if we do are there not better options and cheaper carriers and planes to do it?

We have no Empire and only a few outposts. Our homeland security is through NATO - quite frankly what we really need is a strong coastguard and border service.

But what really matters is not that that the 'RAF' might be grounded, but that we get an efficient and affordable AFFORDABLE projection of balanced airpower.

What is striking but increasingly typical about this post is that whilst commentators everywhere talk about the need for cuts and our dire economic mess, but as soon as some cuts impinge upon some pet prejudice well, all of a sudden all we hear is 'hang on a minute ...!'

strapworld

David may have a point, but nobody can deny the fact that we live in a country that has to come to terms with the shocking state of finances the Labour Government have left us with.

Instead of having a go at the coalition, people should direct their disgust at the Labour Party politicians for the mess they have landed us in.They should be hounded out of politics, yet they act as if they have done nothing wrong. They have the BLOOD of good men and women of our armed services and so many civilians on their hands and we should never let them get away with it.

I have argued before that having three branches of our armed services arguing against each other is the most incompetent situation one can think of! Yet it does assist politicians who can just sit back and let the three services argue amongst themselves!

We should combine the three and create the situation whereby the comprehensive defence review highlights the way forward and then plan accordingly without the three fighting each other. It has not, obviously, helped anyone thus far.

I would far prefer a well trained, professional, armed, well equipped with excellent support in the air, on the seas and on land for all British Armed Service!

We should also get away from the officer class that dominates all three services. Fewer ranks with greater responsibility and respect for the men and women at the sharp end. I could bore people with the stories of unbelievably poor management.

Time to get behind the coalition and start a campaign to rid this country of the labour incompetents!

TrevorsDen

The United States managed to win WW2 with an Army Air Force.

To imply that we do not need soldiers on the ground is risible. The one thing we need in Afghanistan is MORE boots, and more helicopters (better under the control of the Army) to transport them.

There does sadly come a point when the remaining air power hardly justifies a separate command structure, but how much will it save?

Paul Round

I read most of the posts with horror.The same dull partisan arguments that have gone on for 92 years.We remain an island nation, reliant on trade for life.Every day a potential enemy probes the frontiers of our airspace while pirates frequently attempt to board vessels heading for the United Kingdom.A rogue state is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, thus joining 2 others and we as a nation remain under constant threat of attack by terrorists, who have struck us before.Got that?And you all want to dismantle a carefully built up mesh of defence capability.The key lies in the MoD structure itself, not in the forces it is supposed to support

David Lindsay

Liam Fox and his CIA SpAd have a much-trailed scheme to abolish all three Armed Forces in favour of something like the United States Marine Corps, except in no sense an elite force, as part of the single EU defence "capability" under overall America command. It should never be forgotten that an absolute ban on Germany's having an Air Force was written into the Treaty of Versailles. To be deprived of this right by one's vanquishers is one of the great historic indicators that defeat has tipped over into humiliation.

Still, look at the people with whom the far more traditionally Tory David Cameron and William Hague have encircled Fox at the MoD. Apart from the Lib Dem Eurosceptic Nick Harvey, I do not know about Peter Luff, but Gerald Howarth is late of the European Arab Bank, Andrew Robathan has been on his travels courtesy of CMEC (Nicholas Soames, Hugo Swire, Crispin Blunt, Alan Duncan, Commons receptions to celebrate Norouz, you get the idea), and Lord Astor is actually CMEC's Vice-Chairman. No wonder that Fox feels the need for Luke Coffey to keep him company. Cameron has effectively given him a team of warders.

Swire, Blunt and Duncan are also Ministers, and could perfectly easily be bumped up to join Ken Clarke and Andrew Lansley in the Cabinet, as could Howarth, or Robathan, or whoever. Fox is far from irreplaceable, and appears to have been set up for a fall, taking the neocon entryist tendency down with him. We live in hope. Fox has an implacable, and probably pecuniary, opposition to Hague's pursuit of bilateral ties with Russia, with China, with Latin American countries, with the Arab world in general and the UAE in particular, with India, with Indonesia, with Japan, with the major Commonwealth countries of Africa, and through the Commonwealth generally. Never mind withdrawal from Afghanistan.

So, if you really want this Blairite defence policy and the abandonment of an anti-Blairite foreign policy based instead on common sense, decency and the national interest, then hope (if you can, vote) for David Miliband as Leader of the Labour Party and as Prime Minister.

TrevorsDen

Deary me today - the utter turgid toss spouted by Mr Lindsay cannot be allowed to pass unanswered. The notion that we are secretly to be beholden to the US is pure unvarnished and unatributed speculation. Cameron's approach to Obama has clearly been based on the opposite notion.

Ironically Mr Lindsay has touched on a perfectly plausible option - given the size of our capability it does make sense to tailor our defence forces along the lines of the self contained US Marines. The only plausible exception being a strategic component handling our nuclear weapons and any long range bomber and/or 'strike' force.

Mr Strapworld really makes good points. We are bust we are overcommitted with our strategic adventures and we need WE NEED to retrench so that we can do what we can afford and when we do it we do it properly equipped.
In a war of national survival we must expect great sacrifice, but in a chosen war, a foreign adventure, it is disgraceful that we should put our troops in harms way ill equipped as we have in Asghanistan. It should not happen again.

The coalition have clearly decided to get out. Given that we are militarily ill equipped for the mission (and have no money to improve things) it is at least the honest thing to do.

TrevorsDen

PS
Vote David Miliband? With his pro EU opinions and his American wife? Does Lindsay really know what he is blabbing about?

thomas

@Jules

Yes the Army and RN have been bitter and twisted about the RAF since 1918.

But can you really blame them?

They had their aircraft stolen from them. They were told the IAF would only be temporary. The aircraft carriers were left effectively empty, where they were not they were filled with obsolete aircraft that the IAF/RAF didn't want.

On a semi-related point: We would have lost the falklands war if the Navy had not managed to sneak their 'through-deck cruisers' past the raf.

"If anything, the conflict in Afghanistan has taught us that no amount of soldiers on the ground will solve the situation."

What????? The war in afganistan has shown us that no amount of Harriers without a gun will solve the situation.

"We need to be more radical. Time to cut the Army down to size and rely on the RN and RAF to serve the UKs best interests"

Carpet bombing and naval blockades cannot win a war anymore ,if they ever could.

The army is already tiny, and I don't mean tiny by the big country standards, I mean tiny by any standards. If anything is to suffer cuts in personel, it should be the RAF, which operates roughly the same number of aircraft as the israeli air force, but with double the personel. The RAF need fewer bases, fewer pretend soldiers and more planes.

Why did we buy the eurofighter typhoon when we could have had the much better, f-22 raptor for significantly less money?

The army and the marines are the only parts that need to get bigger (personel wise). There are only 7000 royal marines, compared with 70,000 south korean marines. South korea does not even have a blue water navy and yet they have 10 times the naval infantry.

The navy needs huge cuts to it's personel numbers. A situation where we have more admirals than ships cannot be tolerated. It needs to evolve into a navy with a large number of small ships ala Littoral Combat Ship

Unlike many people, I do not support the abolition of the RAF. But, by the same token, I can atleast accept that if the RAF did not exist today, we would not create it tomorrow. In a world where strategic bombing has become politically unpalatable in weak countries, and suicidal in the protected skies of strong countries it's clear for everyone to see that the RAF's days are definitely numbered. We aren't there yet, but it will happen.

David Lindsay

"The notion that we are secretly to be beholden to the US"

There has never been anything remotely secret about it.

Nor does TrevorsDen appear to know that the EU has been an American-sponsored project since the Forties. In which case, TrevorsDen knows nothing at all.

David Miliband invented "free" schools, the flogging off of our GP services to the American healthcare companies, and the whole Big Society gibberish. He is undoubtedly in favour of "merging" the Armed Forces under American command. Blair wanted these things, but he could not get them past Brown, the last man who could have saved the only Britain that anyone born after the War can possibly remember. So David Miliband could not possibly Lead the Opposition to them.

Instead he could only Lead the Opposition to the good things about this Government: withdrawal from Afghanistan, pursuit of bilateral relations with a range of states, restoration of the link between pensions and earnings, abandonment of identity cards, the prospect of electoral reform, an inquiry into the last lot's complicity in torture (that means you, David Miliband), dismantlement of the surveillance state, a renewed emphasis on a manufacturing-based economy diffused throughout the country, one coalition partner that really did oppose the Iraq War, and another that at least has the decency to pretend that it did so.

DJJ

thomas - sorry, but that's nonsense. The RAF didn't 'steal' the aircraft from the other services, the government of the day decided that it was necessary to form a separate service.

Aircraft carriers were not 'left empty', nor were they equipped with aircraft that the RAF didn't want; the design requirements for carrier aircraft differ from land based aircraft, and in the 1920s and early 1930s, carrier based aircraft were usually heavier and slower because of the extra strength required for operations on board carriers. This compromised performance, and it should be noted that the Admiralty was (under the auspices of dual control) not exactly blameless in this.

Clearly, you know more about soldiering that Lt General Eiknberry (US Army, retired), now the ambassador to Afghanistan who suggested that without air power, an additional 500,000 or 600,000 troops would be required.

Your historical understanding of the Invincible class carriers is also wrong - the RN had to 'sneak' them past the government of the day (notably Heath's) and senior elements of the RN - read Eric Grove's 'Vanguard to Trident' to see how the biggest problem to the CVS was in fact to be found amongst the RN's senior leadership.
Your assertion about the Israelis is plain wrong - taking reservists into account (and remembering that reservists are used differently in Israel compared to here, the IAF is in fact larger than the RAF.

And the idea that the F-22 is cheaper than the Typhoon is utter, utter nonsense as a search of any reputable website dealing with these matters would reveal; if you can find a single source which suggests that the F-22 is cheaper, then... the source is completely wrong.

The army is not 'tiny' by any standards - compare with (for instance) Canada or the Netherlands (whose entire armed forces are smaller than ours), or Norway, or Belgium, or...

The only reason that the RAF's days might be numbered is if people start to believe the sort of ill-informed pap put about by people such as yourself and a variety of former senior officers who ought to know better...

JohnAnt

No hope the vast team of Whitehall Defence honchos could take paycuts? Sort of, like the rest of us?
I suppose if they're not well-fed and watered and pensioned they might go over to...erm, oh well, probably not.
Pay cuts all round then.

thomas

"thomas - sorry, but that's nonsense. The RAF didn't 'steal' the aircraft from the other services, the government of the day decided that it was necessary to form a separate service."

Yes, it was all the government. No lobbying from the would be air marshals at all.

"Clearly, you know more about soldiering that Lt General Eiknberry (US Army, retired), now the ambassador to Afghanistan who suggested that without air power, an additional 500,000 or 600,000 troops would be required."

................... When did I suggest air power wasn't needed? I don't think that I ever said that. I think that I said that a harrier without a gun was not going to win a war. Do you disagree? I have also said that carpet bombing is no longer politically palatable. Do you disagree?

Countries need air power. But close air support is not the same as air superiority.

"Your historical understanding of the Invincible class carriers is also wrong - the RN had to 'sneak' them past the government of the day (notably Heath's)"

Because of RAF lobbying. Remember the maps with that had been comically redrawn?

"Your assertion about the Israelis is plain wrong - taking reservists into account"

This is your rebuttal?

"And the idea that the F-22 is cheaper than the Typhoon is utter, utter nonsense as a search of any reputable website dealing with these matters would reveal; if you can find a single source which suggests that the F-22 is cheaper, then... the source is completely wrong."

$150,000,000 per unit x160 airframes = $24,000,000,000.

$24,000,000,000 = £15,825,716,709.34

Cost of Typhoon program to the united kingdom in 2003, £30,000,000,000.
Do you dispute this?

Also, I'm pretty sure the cost has spiralled since then, considering that the government now refuses to release the figures.

We could therefore have bought twice as many raptors for the price of the eurofighter program. Possibly many times more, as an increased production means decreased cost.

"The army is not 'tiny' by any standards - compare with (for instance) Canada or the Netherlands (whose entire armed forces are smaller than ours), or Norway, or Belgium, or..."

???????????

Your defence is that some tiny and often pacifist countries less than half the size of the UK have smaller armies? The UK is ostensibly a great power, but as that is debatable lets degrade it to 'middle power' are there many middle powers with smaller armies?

It is tiny by any sensible standard.

"The only reason that the RAF's days might be numbered is if people start to believe the sort of ill-informed pap put about by people such as yourself and a variety of former senior officers who ought to know better..."

Maybe you can answer me this:

If the RAF was created for the sole purpose of strategic bombing, how can it continue to be justified in an era when strategic bombing has gone the way of the dinosaurs?

The USMC has proven that it can provide better air support to itself than the USAF can to the US Army. Presumably the British army could provide better air support than the RAF. Similarly the Royal Navy can and should operate its own aircraft. Where does this leave the RAF?

Hysteria

y'all have it wrong...

transfer all the army into the RAF Regiment, and move our depleted Navy into the RAF Marine Branch - viola........

Nicholas

"If the RAF was created for the sole purpose of strategic bombing, how can it continue to be justified in an era when strategic bombing has gone the way of the dinosaurs?"

Was it? Sure you are not confusing the RAF with the Independent Force?

And, even so, the concept of strategic bombing was subject to wide and comprehensive theory and change from 1936 to 1945, then again as a result of nuclear weapons. So to argue in 2010 grounds for disbandment based on the envisaged strategy of 1918 is fatuous and anachronistic.

From 1918 to date the RAF has furnished exceptional flexibility and diversity on the battlefield, over it, behind it and beyond it. To focus on "strategic bombing" as a caché is remarkably narrow and obtuse to the history and the record. But then again agendas are seldom expected to be well-informed or balanced are they?

Per Ardua Ad Astra

thomas

Then perhaps you could explain the point of it? If strategic bombing has become obsolete, what is the point of the RAF?

Close air Support? Strategic airlift? Tactical Airlift?

HiFli

'If the RAF was created for the sole purpose of strategic bombing, how can it continue to be justified in an era when strategic bombing has gone the way of the dinosaur'

Sure- but wasn't the Navy formed to see off the Vikings?

thomas

......................but naval warfare continues to be viable. Strategic bombing doesn't. The RAF doesn't even have any bombers anymore. The last time I checked, the Navy did have ships.

Nicholas

Clearly you haven't read or understood my post.

What was the point of it? Independent, flexible and multi-deployable air strength at strategic and tactical levels, not subordinate to limited Navy or Army aims. The point of it has been demonstrated over 100 years of excellent service.

Your focus on strategic bombing is a red herring.

Thomas

You haven't answered my question. You just keep repeating the same platitudes.

Nobody argues anymore than a war can be won from the air. There are no air wars. There are wars on land and there are wars at sea. Both use air power. Everything the RAF now does, is either to support the Army or the Navy. The justification of an independent air force no longer exists.

Lord Trenchard

I am somewhat disappointed at the lack of understanding of air power in this thread; indeed it was for this very reason that my namesake formed an independent Air Force in 1918 – a vision that delivered victory in the War that followed. If the Army had controlled the Air Force in 1940 we would have lost many of our fighter aircraft in France and the Battle of Britain that followed would have had a very different outcome.

At a time when air power has never been more needed (ask any soldier in Afghanistan who is currently only getting half the support he is asking for), only those who do not understand it call for its abolition or its absorption within the other two Services. Regrettably this is being done to protect their own self interests, rather than to provide this Country with the Defence capability that they need to meet the threats of tomorrow – in my dictionary that equates to betrayal or treason and they should think before they speak.

There are “land wars” and “sea wars” and sometimes they combine, and within them there are competing priorities for air power in support of different phases of a campaign, or in different geographical areas. It is for this reason that unified air power needs to be controlled centrally and apportioned where the priority is greatest (a central tenet of air power that is universally accepted). Not only is this the most efficient use of assets it is also the most effective because weight of effort can be switched quickly in order to unhinge and defeat an enemy (the Taliban know this which is why they are so quick to discredit air power – something that they know is untrue because most civilian casualties are caused by ground based fire and Taliban action).

Only when there is a need for assets to be permanently attributed to organic tasks, like ship defence or firepower for lightly equipped troops (e.g. the USMC), are aircraft directly allocated to those units. A luxury the UK cannot afford as we have insufficient resources to give each of the RN or Army its own private air force. Ultimately, such a decision would cost more money or result in reducing overall effectiveness – with the obvious results. This defence review must reduce costs without impacting unduly on capability, only an independent air force can deliver the efficiency required and every other major military power has learned this lesson. In Afghanistan, RAF aircraft operate across the entire country helping and protecting troops wherever they are needed, this allows relatively small numbers of fast aircraft the ability to cover many tasks simultaneously.

What is needed ultimately is a balanced force, and that would be best achieved through a balanced argument – armchair generals who have retired with the benefit of unparalleled air superiority in every campaign they fought (except perhaps the Falklands and look at the casualties suffered in that Campaign) would do best to study their history and recognise how that superiority was achieved. The terrible casualties suffered by our brave soldiers in Afghanistan through relatively low tech threats today would pale in to insignificance if they ever faced a credible air threat. A quick look at the World’s Air Forces will quickly show that other Nations are not so keen to remove their asymmetric advantage or have them parcelled out to have them defeated piecemeal!

The Mighty V

....................but naval warfare continues to be viable. Strategic bombing doesn't. The RAF doesn't even have any bombers anymore. The last time I checked, the Navy did have ships.

No bombers? What is a Tornado GR4 then?

Brengunner

There seems to be a great deal of stupidity in the comments already logged - our armed forces can only operate safely where we have air superiority. What would happen if the Taliban bought a couple of light aircraft and armed them? The Navy would only have strike aircraft with a range of 100 miles from the carrier and the Army helicopters would be defenseless.