This a post from one of our regular contributors who makes the case for an end to an independant RAF. It’s definitely worth a serious debate although I tend to think it is often made from a position of ‘look what we could have’ rather than practical effect or realisation of benefits.
For the record, I am of the opinion that we need an independent RAF.
Ixion starts by challenging part of my previous post on the RAF…
‘I think the answer is actually pretty clear, air power can deliver strategic effects independently of the other services and the nature of the tasks and equipment needs a fully focussed organisation to deliver those affects. Air stuff is all the RAF do, with the other services its ‘something else’ they do’.
Think Defence
For the first time You have posted something I actually disagree with at first principle, (and with a simple paragraph waive away a complex argument), rather than, say implementation or equipment.
I expect to get flack for this and maybe even shot down in flames (can you see what I did there), but enjoying creative disputaion, (with the accent on the creative). I would like you and others to get involved in the dog fight(ditto).
‘Air power can deliver strategic effects independent of the other services’
Think Defence
Obviously it can. But I ask my first simple questions.
- What does our current fleet of aircraft offer in the way of strategic (to stick to the strategic element) bombing capability that a slew of current cruise missiles do, many available in containerised form?
- Why could not a division of the Army Air Corps be as focused as the RAF on that job?
Given that
- The strategic use of independent air power is controversial as to it’s actual effectiveness, a VERY long history exists of over-claiming it’s effectiveness, as do protestations that this time the technology is right, and now it realy will work.
- We don’t have enough aircraft for a proper independent strategic campaign
I think your initial premise is flawed.
Protect UK Territories
Virtually any air attack on the UK or it’s territories must come over the sea, therefore a unified command control structure for that must include RN, so why not let them do it?
Strike, Expeditionary Air Defence, Close Air Support
This is all completely tied in with suporting Army requirement, again divisions of Army Air Corps could do this.
ISTAR
Ditto (indeed current deployments seem to suggest from the US point of view this activity should be Army lead.
Building regional security and special forces support
You have already proposed RN Forward basing for this, again why not FAA for this task (Or given it’s expanded capabilities the return of the RNAS.
Why would we want to do this, why get rid of RAF?
Advantages
We have 3 organisations doing ‘Air’ 2 small AAC, and FAA. and one ‘large’ RAF.
Both AAC and FAA, have a reputation for doing more with less, (in particular manpower). If the RAF was abolished 3 become 2.
Of course the technical logistic support would remain; most of the RAF up to wing commander would exchange light blue for Dark, and cammo.
But we would loose a whole tranche of upper echelon PONTi’s and a the opportunities for savings on infrastructure cost would be huge.
Further the 2 forces (I venture to suggest) would be more focused on the realities of the modern world. Costs, and threats. RN Fighter cover is more likely to be around when the RN Needs it. AAC Likewise. Transport aircraft more likely to be available to to transport Army around. Capabilities could actually improve for any given budget.
I Realise this would in effect create 2 competing sepperate forces with capability overlap, but that is not necessarily a bad thing (indded we allready have 3 way capability overlap with helicopters to some degree, and the armu mess about with small boats. The competition is likely to be healthier than at the moment keeping them on their toes and encoraging innovation.
Please note I am not anti airpower, and this post has made little mention of equipment. (which i would like to see expanded in numbers and capability no matter who flies it). I am trying to free up funds for more capability.
Does the sacred cow live to Moo another day.
I do not underestimate the idiots of the treasury treating this as oppourtunity to cut. But lets ignore realpolitic for a moment and consider this from purely strategic review position.
## Other posts in this series ##
The Future of the RAF 01 – Introduction
The Future of the RAF 02 – Tasks and Trends
The Future of the RAF 03 – A Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 04 – Fast Jets
The Future of the RAF 05 – A Bargain Basement
The Future of the RAF 06 – A Reverse Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 07 – ISTAR #01
The Future of the RAF 08 – ISTAR #02 (DABINETT)
The Future of the RAF 09 – ISTAR #03 (SIGINT)
The Future of the RAF 10 – ISTAR #04 (Watchkeeper and Scavenger)
The Future of the RAF 11 – ISTAR #05 (Manned Airborne ISTAR)
The Future of the RAF 12 – ISTAR #06 (High Altitude Platforms)
The Future of the RAF 13 – ISTAR #07 (Maritime)
The Future of the RAF 14 – Strategic Transport and Refuelling
The Future of the RAF 15 – Tactical Transport
The Future of the RAF 16 – Vertical Lift #01 (Introduction)
The Future of the RAF 17 – Vertical Lift #02 (Basic Requirements)
The Future of the RAF 18 – Vertical Lift #03 (A Sensible Future)
The Future of the RAF 19 – Vertical Lift #04 (A Radical Future)
The Future of the RAF 20 – Building Regional Security
The Future of the RAF 21 – Summary
I couldn’t agree more! When I have talked to RAF personnel and asked why the AAC or FAA (or even RFC or RNAS) couldn’t do their jobs I have never been given a sensible answer. Most answers were scornful of any other service being able to maintain aircraft let alone fly them. Only one answer was ever remotely thought through and that was an RAF Hercules pilot who said that, as an RAF officer, he could tell any army or Navy officer to get stuffed when it came to matters concerning his aircraft. “If I was AAC”, he said, “I could be ordered to attempt things that I knew were dangerous or impossible by a superior officer who has no idea about how aircraft work”
Yep… The RAF do have an arrogance and over-inflated view of themselves. An all officer flying corps is a large part of the problem. For balance I would say that they are a more credible outfit than the RN. The RN (FAA and RM excluded) do not have a clue about military ops, they seem to be nothing more than Glorified ferry operators (anyone see the captain of lusty trying to take his personal rangerover onboard?).
Pete; couldn’t agree more!
It would be a same story with a captain and his ship being told things by Army commaders…he knows what can and cant be done with the kit he has available… same to an Army captain to an RAF officer in the air… etc etc
Each service has its specialist areas, the plan was that these 3 would work close together to produce a well oiled machine to increase the chances of sucess… sadly in the real world peoples own ambitions screw it up or things just turn out more complicated than it seemed… Joint Helicopter and Harrier force showed that it could and can work, Harrier wise even more so…then the powers that be cut it.
I wear light blue, inter-service joking aside I dont have ‘scorn’ over my associates in dark blue and camo, we all have our own dedicated role and get on with the task so the other service who doesnt specialise in it doesnt have to… give the navy and army more air power and the waters get murkier…I can understand the army with the support helicopters – but thats all they (the headshed I mean!) think of – the FAA can use fighters to grand extent, even to a point of ISTAR/AEW (remember the gannets?) but beyond that? Tanking, transport (tacticle/stratiegic), Intel gathering etc etc? I would doubt it’d turn out as well. more so given our budget – if one was to go then a major reshuffle would have to be done; leading to ALL being merged, like the Candians and Dutch. – instead land, naval and air components.
The reason to have an independant air arm is ultimately as the comment Mark made, its more the attitude and motives of those in charge that screws it up!
As with the RAF Reg, I work with them in Honnington; indeed their role is murkey (paras and para RAF Reg = the difference?) but think of it as this, Kandahar air field; force protection: would you rather have raf rock apes performing it, or dedicated army infantry who could be better employed elsewhere in the country?
Anyway, thats my take on it… it just saddens me to see service/ex service talk with scorn about each other :/ I just hope TD doesnt turn into some the service forums or other defence forums you see out there!
Mike, I have worked hard to make TD a welcoming place where sensible and balanced chat can take place. Inter service banter is fine but it rarely translates well to the written form. TD has lots of naval advocates and there is nothing at all wrong with seeing things through a light blue, dark blue or green prism, just don’t expect those view to go unchallenged. Its a fine line between advocacy and service centric ranting so I suppose we just have to see how things go.
I like to think those contributing to TD can see the need for balance but having said that, why should the RAF not have to justify its slice of the defence vote, hence reposting Ixions comment as a post
@Mike
“Kandahar air field; force protection: would you rather have raf rock apes performing it, or dedicated army infantry who could be better employed elsewhere in the country?”
No. I think of the RAF regiment as infantry recruits denied to the army!
Mike – as ex-regular RN and ex-part time Army, I have plenty of scorn for the RAF – BUT not for you, unless your a very, very senior officer !
I also have a lot of friends who are Armourers, airframes maintainers and Photo Interpreters from my time at RAF Cosford, and in fact my TA unit was “joint” and my first OIC was a Rock Ape Wing Commander, and a damn fine individual he was too (far better than the RN sub-driver and Int Corps types who replaced him).
I am also not one who supports the disbandment of the RAF !
But, do I hold your senior leadership in a very negative view, your damn right I do, and that’s the level at which the scorn is applied. I am being told it’s time to go out (taking the boy to see Megamind) so I have to cut this short, but I have the greatest respect for you as an individual, like all my other friends in light blue, but I have very little respect for your over all service ;-(
With TD’s permission I will leave this to sit here for a while, and answer any critics (as best I can) when a few more appear.
PA’s point can be dealt with by a simple chain of command system, i.e. only AAC officers can order AAc assets about. In practice I do no suppose many infantry majors get to tell royal engineer captains how to build bridges.
BTW I have a duty to stick up for my argument, but I am quite prepared to be persuaded I am wrong!
While I would argue that the priorities of the senior officers of the RAF are skewed (though I can see why they think the way the do), I am not convinced shifting assets and funding to the FAA and AAC would result in any better use of the funding. I have heard (not sure if it is true) that the AAC is more interested in extra Apaches that a Puma replacement, and we all know that FAA would take the complete reverse position to the RAF, the former wants all fast jets at sea and would neglect the QRA and the latter wants all fast jets on land and the FAA turned over to them.
As I have said before on another post, I do see scope for splitting the RAF into fast jet and transport/SH elements, as I think this would very much enhance the support roles and reduce the risk that funds needed for bread butter roles like SH, tanking and transport do not get diverted into fast jets.
@ Tubby
Neglect QRA? I don’t know. We are talking supposedly “national air defence” there. I would look at it this way. If “we” had enough proper carriers to have a credible carrier force “we” would have to have enough squadrons too. A squadron could then rotate through work-up, deployment, post-deployment, QRA, work-up, etc. etc. Further if the Army had there own fighters (in fewer numbers) they could rotate personnel through trickle drafting through their front line squadrons (where ever they are but shall we say well outside Europe requiring negotiation of overflying rights etc.) to home QRA squadrons. All we have now is the latter in large numbers with none of the flexibility of a carrier force. Further perhaps though the Russia fleet doesn’t provide a threat perhaps some thought should be given to maritime strike. The RAF claim to be able to protect the fleet, surely this means deploying ASM as much as air defence?
@ X
Any feeling how many carriers and squadrons of carrier based fighters we would need to be able to do as you suggest? Given the RAF seems to be struggling with 5 Typhoon squadrons to field any in Afghanistan, and can only really deploy one Tornado squadron, it would seem to me if you had FAA only solution you would need roughly 10 – 12 squadrons just to be able do current tasking, and if we wanted are carriers full populated with fighters I reckon you need another 4 – 5 squadrons, as it seems to me that having CATOBAR carriers means that you will need more training to carrier deploy the fighters than if you went with STOL carriers.
With regard to naval strike the RAF is rather schizophrenic, they seem intent on defending the UK from hordes of Russian Su-27′s but do not think that their is any threat from Russian surface ships or submarines.
right third attempt at writing this without going off thread and having a rant! as a 22+ army guy you would think that i’d be boo hiss bin the crabs, however i do think we need an independant air arm (ie the RAF).
However they do need to tweak the role equipment wise, and lose the attitude in the upper echelons i’ve spent a lot of time serving with them and respect the guys, i would keep the big stuff ie c17/a400m under RAF control but i would introduce a small aircraft ie eads 212 plus medium lift rotary (choice of nh90 blackhawk or aw149)under army control.
joint NBC regt disbanded raf regt back under raf control and nbc become a ta unit preferably in porton down (if possible) freeing up a camp for a returning bfg unit.
All RAF rotary to be housed in one camp why the chinook simulator is in benson and the chinooks in odiham is beyond me!
lastly drop the insistance of 5* hotels everytime they go away, so used to annoy me watching those guys drive off into the sunset in their hire car to the hotel when away on ex, damn knew i’d get a rant in!!
ps on previous threads i’ve explained the reasons for the army having small transport aircraft.
@ Tubby
Yes I know and there’s the rub. Basically the RAF as is isn’t fit for purpose. “We” would have to look at a USN model. Instead of having the RAF shrug and say “sea” can’t be done easily, we should be building a FAA that sees “sea” (the more challenging flying) as the start and seeing “land” as a secondary. As the home squadrons rotate through QRA duties they can also rotate through simulated carrier landings and use training traps on land.
You are right about questioning the perceived threat. As I said before here the real air threat to the UK isn’t various marks of Soviet-era bomber, but cruise missiles. Where are the RAF’s plans to deal with these? Or do we keep the QRA force just in case the bombers start to drop real iron bombs? Should I get my grandad’s ARP tin hat and stirrup pump out?
I have been wondering whether keep a small fast executive jet in the air for 8 hours or more would be better than keeping £100million pound jet on the ground just in case? Or perhaps we could have several executive jets over the UK?
@X
Not keen on business jets other than as platforms for ISTAR, but you do have to wonder what the cost impact is of making everything multi-role compared to going for a dedicated A2A platform and a dedicated A2G platform.
As for cruise missile defence, I think the TA, manning mobile missile batteries linked to networked radar’s are the best way forward, but of course I might be letting my prejudice show as I think the RAF does a good job but is totally skewed in it’s equipment and tasking and while I can see the need around 7 squadrons of Typhoons for defence of UK and our overseas dependencies, I fail to see the need for F-35, and think that we need more transport, ISTAR and SH, and either MRA4′s in service or a new MPA ordered ASAP. In today’s world defending the UK is more about long endurance ISTAR and getting troops and equipment where you want it than it is about flying fast and firing missiles that cost more than a semi-detached in Kensington at a mythical S-500 in an oil rich country without the USAF turning up with 10 times the number of stealthy platforms than the RAF.
@Paul
Can you explain why you believe that we need an independent air arm (without using the phrase “air-minded” at any point unles you want me to hunt you down and kill you . . .)?
Pete – may I jump in with an answer before Paul gets the chance ?
Corporate culture, training and career progression, logistics and management are all good reasons why we need a separate air arm, let me expand on that.
You join to be an avionics engineer, airframe or engine technician. You can work in the fixed wing world on everything from airliner based ISTAR platforms to fast jets, within the same command structure and career progression structure.
However in the helicopter world, you could have a fulfilling career with a wide variety of options for advancement and interesting work either in the RN (all Merlin variants are supposed to be going to the RN, plus Wildcat) or with the AAC – Wildcat and Apache (which is an argument FOR the AAC getting Puma replacement AND Chinook); either way as helo’s are generally used “closer” to the customer you have to accept that your either going to sea, or working in Camo and learning to camp out and be proficient with a whole series of small arms………
It works the other way round too, why would one expect the RN to take on the air defence of the United Kingdom ? It’s not “core mission” to run the air defence information network, the radar sites or the fighter squadrons.
Similarly while I can totally see the AAC taking on all “green helo” type ops, including Chinooks, I really don’t see the mind set or corporate culture of the Royal Corps of Logistics fitting in with the operation of C17, C130J or A400M – do you ?
Paul G, good point but i have to agree with Jed’s reply. I believe that since the AAC fly helicoptors and the RAF only provide the chinook and puma in suport of the army, then we should turff them over to the AAC. However id letr the RAF keep the transport planes.
Like wise in an ideal world, (like next year hopefully) the government will realise that we need an MPA and purchase 6 cheap and chearful (they only cost $36 million in ’87) P-3′s from the USN. They would then be handed over to the FAA to carry out MPA duties since the FAA deal with all things fly and sea (or should do in my mind) + atleast we could then transfer some FAA harrier pilots to the P-3 instead of makin them redundant.
This is what I find hard to understand:
” since the AAC fly helicoptors and the RAF only provide the chinook and puma in suport of the army, then we should turff them over to the AAC. However id letr the RAF keep the transport planes.”
- the heavier helicopters are (at times) perfect substitutes for each other in tactical lift
- why would we have helos and transport planes under different organisations, just because the “technology” is different (but the capability provided the same)?
hi ArmChairCivvy,
Yes in the future then maybe the AAC could take over the tactical and/or stategic lift. However i was thinking in the short term how to improve things without haaving to spend vast sums of money training AAC to fly large transport planes. Unless of course we just take the RAF personel and dump them into the ACC.
Just out of interst here, what do you guys think of the idea of the FAA taking over MPA duties if/when we get a suitable aircraft inservice?
Time to chip in.
I deliberatly did not mention kit (as far as possible). I asume for the emedium term we are where we are kit wise. We aint gona get no more planes of any type other than those already on order.
But can I make a few points. Sorry TD but other posters have brough it corperate culture etc as an issue so I am going to stray into RAf Knocking in reply.
The idea is that in large part the personel equipment etc would be transfered on mass as umits. Therefore (say) though The AAC has no history of strategic transport the RAF personnel and bases have, so whats the problem? C17 / A400 squadrons become the Straegic transport brigade of the AAC. No need to spend a penny retraining anyone.
The Tankers become the Tanker wing of RNAS/ or AAC as seems best.
The RN would take over the typhoon sguadrons (Tornados going to the AAC), for the remenants of the strategic role, and air cover for deploymnet would come from RNAS. Clearly protocols equipment and comunication would have to be kept compatable, for total interopperability.
Jed
I do not see corperate culture of Raf as anything other than as a hinderence – hence trying to reduce 3 to 2.
It is another body hanging on to past glory waiting for the day when the civilian govt wakes up and opens the cheque book so it can buy lots of kit;(in this case lots of fast sexy fighter jets), so it can deal with the queens enemies who will fight fair and come at us in other fast sexy fighter jets. Those who have read my post will know I am no fan of those in the RN with a similar mindset (likewise the army), but the RAF is crawling with them. Just look at the tornado v Harrier, and Nimrod decisions. IF we had not had a RAF they would have stayed.
How is the carear/ life of an avionocs engineer working large scale fixed wing, going to change that much because he wears cammo rather than light blue (appart from 5* hotels perhaps).
RN are already up to neck in Radar etc I see little cultural change in running land based air defence (is Nadge still going)? as apposed to sea based air defence. If we are to have the one trick pony T45, might it be a good idea to integrate them into this? Square peg, square hole.
It is the sepperatist coperate structure, that will die in its own ditch, before it sees say a dedicated coin aircraft fly under uk colours, or if it is true scuppered Blackhawks for the army rather than see them fly under AAC, rather than RAF, That I am seeking to erradicate. Anyone who has spent any time with anyone over rank of Flight LT wil know what I am talking about.
I have seen RN and army criticise each other, but the RAF dripp condesention,and downright abuse about the other forces, (More so army than Navy), Pongo’s anyone.
That attitude is corrosive and we cannot afford it anymore.
It is about time that we put an end to the nearly a hundred year experiment. The FAA should take on fighter squadrons and the likes, the resurrection of the RNAS would be the best way forward. Whilst the AAC should take on transport, the RAF Regiment would also be made to join proper infantry regiments, airfield security would be handed over to the AAC ground crew. The helicopters should be split between both services.
As I retired as a Sqn Ldr, I must be one of these people who upset Ixion (was his mother bitten by a RAF police dog?). I found the Navy very parochial and the Army class ridden. Their attitudes to each other were as Ixion says “dripp condesention,and downright abuse”.
Everyone gaily says lets divide the RAF between the navy and army. But what if the chaps in the airforce don’t want to be in the navy or army? I think quite a few would quit, after all, if they had wanted to spend their lives in a tin box they would have joined the navy in the first place.
I will also make a prediction. An enhanced FAA and AAC will turn out to be cuckoos. They will soon want to be free of their sea-bound and land-bound colleagues. I know – we can join them together and call them – the Air Force!
@Jed – “You join to be an avionics engineer, airframe or engine technician”
Well you still would – just with the AAC or FAA.
“why would one expect the RN to take on the air defence of the United Kingdom ? It’s not “core mission” to run the air defence information network, the radar sites or the fighter squadrons.”
Why not? They certainly used to do so – although it is going back 90 odd years since they did. Mind you, 90 years is nothing to The Senior Service!
” I really don’t see the mind set or corporate culture of the Royal Corps of Logistics fitting in with the operation of C17, C130J or A400M – do you ?”
No. But I have no trouble imagining a Royal Flying Corp or British Army Air Force operating them.
@Michael – “But what if the chaps in the airforce don’t want to be in the navy or army?”
Sod ‘em. Can’t take a joke, shouldn’t have joined. The argument here is about what is best for the defence of the UK not about what colour uniform you’d prefer to wear.
Mind you, I shouldn’t let it qworry you – it’ll never happen!
Mike – “Kandahar air field; force protection: would you rather have raf rock apes performing it, or dedicated army infantry who could be better employed elsewhere in the country?”
It is not merely a desire to see infantry units freed up for frontline combat duties, it is a recognition that the RAF regiment has a specialisation in aggressive force-protection not available anywhere else.
I would not see their demise, far from it.
@ Michael (ex-DIS)
Not intending to pick a fight with you, but you comments suggest that in the long term that there has to be changes to the RAF. Even if it is a phased transfer, it sounds like that the RAF needs to shrink and have funds transferred to FAA and AAC who can then recruit pilots who will spend time on a tin can or in the mud, as the FAA still needs to have permanently embarked fast jets (that is a consequence of the less than clever change to CATOBAR), and still needs jungly helicopters for the marines and its ASW helicopters, and the Army still needs embedded attack and SH helicopters which are likely when deployed to be operating from fairly austere conditions with limited facilities. If RAF pilots will quit or be unhappy in those situations and you cannot change the situations then it makes no sense to task RAF pilots to do the job. What we cannot afford is situation where RAF takes over say jungly helicopters and only goes to sea for a couple of weeks every two years.
What can the RAf do that the Army & RN can not reasonably also do? Air-to-air combat, lightly-opposed long range bombing, air-to-air tanking, long-range heavy transport, long-range large aircraft ISTAR & AEW, & aircrew training etc. What can be shared with land &/or sea forces? Most helicopter & UAV work, small turbo-prop light aircraft close air support, light aircraft liaison duties, small aircraft surveillance work, & air-sea rescue etc. So: mainly but not exclusively land-based jet engine & large-sized turbo-prop-powered aircraft work. And what about the RAF regiment – & its rationale as a guarantor that the RAF’s airfields have an adequate ground-based defence force on hand?
Like the issue of sharing UAVs & helicopters with the Army & RN, it all comes down to effective defence management & a widely shared vision of the nation’s defence needs. If, eg, land-based helicopters & UAVs are predominently tasked to the Army, then the duty of the RAF & Army is to co-operate closely with each other over their usage – & especially over requests for more if more are needed. If the co-operation is genuine, it doesn’t really matter who operates the equipment. Eg, there should be no absurd rule that if the chopper is less than 3.5 tonnes in weight it’s the Army’s, & if it’s more than that, it’s the RAF’s – & the RAF then having absolute authority over selection of larger rotary-winged types. If the Army wants it, then either they have it, or the RAF learns how to operate the particular helicopter, & then operates it for the Army’s full benefit. I’m thinking here of the 60 Blackhawks the Army wanted for Afghanistan, but then were vetoed by the RAF (as the potential users because of its over 3.5 tonnes’ weight) for their own particular reasons.
It all comes down to team spirit & loyalty to the higher objective – the defence of the UK. And if that’s lacking, it’s the top brass’ job to insist on it – rather than push for their own force’s needs over those of the nation’s. If they won’t co-operate in this way, they should be replaced by those who will co-operate – for the country’s military good.
The idea is that in large part the personel equipment etc would be transfered on mass as umits. Therefore (say) though The AAC has no history of strategic transport the RAF personnel and bases have, so whats the problem? C17 / A400 squadrons become the Straegic transport brigade of the AAC. No need to spend a penny retraining anyone.
So re-hat everyone. Fine, where’s the saving?
To Tubby. My opinion is that the three services have the same problems.
1. Too many politicians
2. Too many civil servants
3. Too many officers
4. Too many HQs.
Reducing these problems would be possible, although reducing the number of officers would be tricky. But who said it would be easy……..
Alex has, of course, hit the nail on the wotsit. Even if the RAF personnel would transfer to the navy/army, how does that save money?
To Pete Arundel, I agree none of this is likely to happen. But then who could have imagined we would build two gigantic aircraft carriers but have no aircraft for them? It would have been more useful to build two battleships. And the Navy would have preferred them!!!!
“Even if the RAF personnel would transfer to the navy/army, how does that save money?”
It doesn’t in the short term. In the long term, however it might since the AAC doesn’t seem to think that to fly you have to be commissioned. As the ex-RAF oficers retire they could be replaced by AAC corporals . . .
With an active duty force of 176,000 personnel within all branches of the services, why would there be a need for an independent Royal Air Force? The active duty numbers of the RAF is only 46,000 and being integrated within the Army the numbers would still add up to only approximately 160,000 personnel-which is smaller then that of the US Marines which incorporates an air arm within it’s command structure and they seem to do well together. Why not-it’s been done and it works, so why not incorporate the RAF into the Army?
Just think of the bloody uniform and JPA costs of a wholesale transfer
There is very little logic and zero cost saving to killing off the RAF and it seems to me most of the suggestions come from jealousy/spite rather than any sound operational, technical or financial perspective.
If anyone thinks for one second that managing a large and complex fleet could just be ‘done’ by the AAC and/or FAA with no impact on operational effectiveness they are quite frankly living in cloud cuckoo land.
Look at the availability rates for Chinook and Apache
Look at the issues with bringing Apache into service
Look at the priority the RN actually gave the Sea Harrier and JFH
There is a strong case for change and improvement but glibly saying lets just flick that fleet over from A to B is not the answer
Len, welcome to Think Defence
The USMC are often used as something to aspire to but if you look at their remit, their operational capabilities and equipment you will see limitations. They rely on the other services for an awful lot so aren’t as self contained as some people think
TD I think your reference to the AAC issues with Apache are tuff, this was the first time they had done such a complex intro. If they were used to operating such types they would do much better. They were just not geared up for it. Given sufficient resources they would be fine. Plus the AAC don’t mind working at weekends:-)
oops perhaps i should’ve gone for the fourth attempt!!! independant air arm was probably a misquote pete (you steely eyed killer!) The RAF have flown me all over the world and brought me back, so let’s keep ‘em doing that!
If they only answer to themselves they can keep up the good work, as mentioned by others after me a bit of adjustment in the shiny shiny 1 seat jet is best attitude and it will all be honky dory (ish)!
If i were to be critical of anything about the light blue drawing on past experience, then it needs to be drummed in from day 1 that shoes and ties are not de-riguer and they are a military force, (had a sgt in the falklands refuse to put cam cream on as it was “below” a senior rank! que a five finger spread of max factors finest).
So to summerise before hiding, keep the RAF but adjust the roles (all explained better by previous commenters) michael dis i appreciate we (pongos) need to change as well!! by the way my boss in the falklands was a wing co and he was a great bloke, still he was a groundie
So, the Army had problems with the Apache because they weren’t used to such types and they needed more resources. Sounds like an argument for the Apache being operated by the RAF.
If the AAC absorbed half the RAF, I wonder how long their pilots would be happy with the rank of cpl?
I think most Apache pilots are SNCO and officers but they have shown that NCO pilots are every bit as effective as an officer
TD said “The USMC are often used as something to aspire to but if you look at their remit, their operational capabilities and equipment you will see limitations. They rely on the other services for an awful lot so aren’t as self contained as some people think”
Didn’t somebody once say that the army is a weapon best fired by the navy?
A land force based force will always have limited or no strategic movement.
TD@12.10
Couldnt agree with you more. If the only argument is the RAF has to many officers flying helicopters then its a non argument get the RAF to employ some NCOs to fly helicopters. If anyone can point to were the heavy lift heli service would operate better in then army or the current arrangement doesnt work them i’m all ears. Also the armys force generation is significant worse than either the air force or navy so its likely a backwards step.
x, just remind me how we strategically moved into Afghanistan
@TD – “If anyone thinks for one second that managing a large and complex fleet could just be ‘done’ by the AAC and/or FAA with no impact on operational effectiveness they are quite frankly living in cloud cuckoo land.”
It’s not really a case of the AAC as it is today ‘doing’ what the RAF do it’s more a case of an organisation within the Army doing the job within the Army as a whole – and it wouldn’t be an instant change over either. Capabilities would have to be moved over gradually.
JBT said “it is a recognition that the RAF regiment has a specialisation in aggressive force-protection not available anywhere else.”
If push come to shove and Mr Taliban broke the perimeter where would they best be deployed? Defending the Yank PX with its extensive range of electronic goods and nice burgers. Or would the NAAFI win out because of a threat to the tea supplies? These are the tough strategic questions that tax the minds of the air marshals…….
@ Mark
You might consider that the world’s second largest air force specialise in helicopter aviation, google US ARMY.
TD said “x, just remind me how we strategically moved into Afghanistan”
I am going to have come over there and beat you to death with a copy of A J P Taylor’s “War by Timetable: How the First World War Began” ?
Agreed X
But the RAF Chinook fleet generate more flying hours than any other Chinook fleet in the world. I would like to see more helicopters in the army but its up to the army to fund them after all we only have one air assault brigade the US army has 2 divisions which somewhat explains the US armys helicopters capability
I think the joint helicopter budget already comes out of the army’s budget. Remember the army gets twice as much as everybody else. Without wishing to stray into granny sucking eggs territory army’s aren’t as capital intensive as navies or airforces. So that 15billion has to go somewhere.
As for the 82nd and 101st airborne are slightly different. The 82nd are paratroopers in the true sense that they jump out of aeroplanes. And the 101st are the heliborne bunch.
The difference between 101st and our 16AAB is that the former has all its own assets while the latter has to share its heavy lift component.
FYI it takes 18 Chinnooks to lift 1 light infantry battalion. And about 34 Puma lifts to do the same job.
Perhaps I should also declare that I have doubts about air manourve in high end warfare. But that is just me being me.
Dont know whos budget pays for what but I agree with all that you said X problem is even if we do change ownership 16AAB is still going to have share chinooks with the other services. So what does it gain you nothing other than lots of wasted money.
Well 16AAB is a bit of fudge best done away with, but that is a discussion for another time.
Lets just assume that the FAA and AAC magically obtain the ability to absorb the RAF
Why
While I would not expect complete absorption of the RAF to work, as I noted in my earlier post if RAF is going to have difficulty recruiting and retaining pilots to fill certain roles as the people applying are imaging a life of flying fast jets from the UK, then logically giving the funds and equipment to either the FAA or AAC to fill sea based or army-support roles would help the problem. While there is no strong reason to change the split of tasks, no one has shown me a good reason why the FAA could not own and operate (with the appropriate budgets) anything to do with sea based operations including coastal command and SAR, and the AAC could operate all the land based SH, attack helicopters, all the CAS/ISTAR based UAV/UCAV’s, and all the liaison aircraft, while the RAF could continue with providing a central training school for pilots, air defence, deep strike, refuelling, strategic and tactical fixed wing lift. The areas which might get a bit confusing are ISTAR especially manned persistent ISTAR and combat ISTAR which could go either way, though I think they should stay RAF.
With regard to the RAF squadrons, can anyone tell me how protecting an infantry base differs from protecting an airfield, I presume in both instances you want well trained infantry in light protect patrol vehicles backed up with prepared defences (mines, mortars, .50 cal machine guns, grenade machine guns) the only difference I can imagine as a civilian is that the RAF regiment would have to worry less about an attack by tanks and helicopters and more about attacks by strike fighters so would have less of a focus on MANPADS and anti-tank weapons and more on SHORAD.
can anyone tell me how protecting an infantry base differs from protecting an airfield
Tactics, basically; there’s an area of land (the “SAM template”) around the airfield, under the approach and departure routes and covering the slant range of the best MANPAD the other side have out to each side, that has to be kept clear of the enemy if the airfield is to operate. Mobility is therefore more important than static defence.
The RAF Regt exists because the Army doesn’t want to defend airfields!
Of course, like all organisations the RAF Regt has the problems of empire building and mission creep.