The Post They Tried to Kill

If you can remember from a few weeks ago and my communications with those fine gentlemen from the Phoenix Think Tank there was a particular post they objected to in which I eviscerated their outrageous claims about the RAF and their over inflated claims about the Fleet Air Arm.

In that post, called Naval Aviation, Blogs and Think Tanks, I took selected quotes from the PTT and offered a rebuttal and exposing their nonsense. Because they objected to me quoting from their posts I agreed to remove the original but I thought an update, without them, would still be useful.

So, here it is, the post they tried to kill icon smile The Post They Tried to Kill

This is not intended to be authoritative and I would strongly urge readers to research the facts and points of view (which aren’t facts) for themselves.

In the build up to the SDSR a number of web sites popped up that had a single theme, the promotion of the Royal Navy and Fleet Air Arm. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that, if you look at the broad aim of Think Defence it is to promote debate on the nature and role of UK defence capabilities, so when it comes down to chit chat, I think more is always the merrier.

As the SDSR timeline progressed and in its aftermath, it became obvious that the content and tone had changed in some of them from advocacy of a maritime strategy to the advocacy of a maritime strategy at the expense of the RAF. Instead of highlighting the unique contribution of naval aviation, where it compliments land based aviation and how it can be integrated into a joint force, articles increasingly turned to denigrating the RAF, its achievements and personnel, and often, calling for its disbandment.

The authors and contributors maintain that criticisms are not directed at individuals in the RAF but at it as a corporate body or its senior leadership, but it is hard to reconcile that with some of the content and its tone which verged in some parts on impugning the memory of service personnel killed on recent operations.

This is inter service rivalry at its worst, it is desperately depressing that in an environment of decreasing funding and increasing costs that clearly bitter relations continue to harm UK defence capability especially when that energy could be devoted to more productive matters.

It is obvious that they are passionate about the defence of the UK and that passion has been directed to the production of numerous articles and opinions which have achieved some traction in the mainstream media.

Perhaps they are right, perhaps not; there are always two sides to any argument and although I do not entirely agree with a maritime centric strategy it is an entirely valid thing to argue for, that doesn’t make me ‘anti Navy’ it just means I have a different opinion.

One of the pillars on which it bases its argument on, is the history of naval aviation, particularly British naval aviation and comparing it unfavourably to land based aviation.

One has to be careful about citing history as some justification for the future composition of UK combat air power because it is very easy to simply learn the wrong lessons, forgetting that yesterday was very different to today, and today will be very different to tomorrow. We also have a tendency to look back with rose coloured spectacles; it is human nature to be loyal to one’s own ‘tribe’

Being objective is very difficult.

Their position seemed to be that naval aviation is far superior and belittled the contribution of the RAF at every stage, citing numerous examples of where the RAF were found wanting and the FAA and/or naval aviation were superior, saving the day.

This view was then extrapolated forward to an assertion that the RAF should be disbanded.

The source of this historical perspective seemed to be an article on the Fleet Air Arm Officers Association website from David Hobbs (a former RN Commander and author of excellent books) in which the case was made for naval aviation at the expense of land based aviation. An additional set of conflicts were also used to highlight how the RAF, lacking strategic mobility, needed the Royal Navy and its carriers to get to the fight, as it were.

This article has since been removed but I thought it was highly selective, presented a completely one sided and narrow perspective on what air power is and only discussed operations where naval airpower was used, not naval and land air power.

The Fleet Air Arm Officers Association website is a brilliant site, with bags of interesting information, so I would urge readers to pop over and have a look;

http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/

So the original article then propogated across multiple sites and was often cited by associated articles, blogs and other published papers.

I am no professional researcher but I wanted to examine the evidence presented by the these websites, surely if the RAF are as bad as they indicate, successive governments, civil servants and chiefs of the defence staff have been hoodwinked for a protracted period by RAF propaganda and it should be exposed!

You might to Google for yourself to see if the article in question, and others that quote it, are still around. I seem to remember extracts from it were used in submissions to the House of Commons defence select committee as well.

So this is a quick run through of post war operations where air power, of any flavour, has been used, and this might allow a spot of comparing and contrasting.

Instead of quoting directly, I have paraphrased or described the claims made.

1944 to 1949, Greek Civil War

In a 5 year operation the RAF deployed approximately 15 squadrons/detachments and Hurricanes, Spitfires, Beaufighters, Wellingtons, Boston’s, Mosquito’s, Dakotas and Walrus.

The FAA deployed a detachment of Sea Otters.

No mention of this in the article.

1945 to 1946, Indochina and Siam

Although it was a relatively small operation from a UK perspective, both the RAF and FAA were involved. 2 squadrons of Spitfires and 811 and 825 NAS with Sea Fury’s and Fireflies from HMS Warrior were deployed.

No mention of this in the article.

1945 to 1946, Netherlands East Indies

The RAF deployed Spitfires, Beaufighters and Mosquito’s in addition to Sunderland’s, Dakota’s and Auster’s from 14 squadrons/flights.

No mention of this in the article.

1948, Palestine

The article claimed that during the withdrawal phase, only naval aircraft from HMS Ocean could be used because the RAF aircraft had already been evacuated.

The first counter to that is the highly selective date, 1948. British forces had been in Palestine for many many years prior to this and in the pre war period the RAF and Army had perfected close air support tactics to such a degree that reaction times for airborne close air support were as low as 15 minutes, an interesting comparison with today.

In 1946 the infamous King David Hotel bombing prompted a reinforcement of Palestine in support of the British Mandate. Wikipedia has a good overview of the history of the conflict but without delving too deep into the wider conflict as one might reasonably imagine there was a sizeable RAF presence throughout, 12 squadrons in fact, No 6, No 13, No 18, No 32, No 37, No 38, No 178, No 208, No 214, No 621, No 651 and No 680.  Between them, they operated Spitfires, Mosquito’s, Lancaster’s, Liberator’s, Tempest’s and Austers of various marks.

The main operation location was RAF Aqir but others were used including Ein Shemer, Qastina, Ramat David and Peta Tiqva.

By the end of 1947 the British announced their intention to withdraw and in the tense operational and political climate that followed all UK forces were gradually drawn down. The announcement came after the UN Resolution on Planned Partition which required the UK to withdraw by May 14, 1948 and the port of Haifa open for immigration by February. However, the British authorities deemed the opening of Haifa to be extremely unwise.

In April 1948 Tempests from 249 Squadron and Spitfires from 208 Squadron made a number of operational attack sorties in support of ground forces and the Lancaster’s of 38 and 37 Squadrons were relocated to Malta. The Union Jack was lowered on 14th of May and the state of Israel was declared the day after although British forces would not leave for some weeks after.

Within hours of the declaration Egyptian Spitfires had attacked Tel Aviv and Sde Nov airfields and on the 22nd of May also attacked Ramat David Airport in two sorties where the RAF were still tasked with covering the withdrawal. A number of RAF Spitfires and one Dakota were destroyed and 4 RAF personnel killed for the loss of 5 Egyptian Spitfires, 4 in the air and one with ground fires from the RAF Regiment. The Egyptians later apologised, they mistakenly thought the RAF had left and the forces on the ground were Israeli. The aircrew at the stations in question were reportedly recovering from a Dining In night in the mess in which they had decided to destroy the mess before handing over to the Israelis, hardly a model of military preparedness.

In 1946 the Royal Navy Palestine Patrol was established to prevent illegal immigration into the area and the Fleet Air Arm was renamed to the Naval Aviation Branch. The patrol continued its work right up until the end of the mandate.

HMS Ocean (the ship that conducted the first ever landing of a jet aircraft on an aircraft carrier and first ever embarkation of female crew) arrived off Haifa on the 7th May 1948 and was later joined by HMS Triumph.

On the 15th of May the High Commissioner left Palestine aboard onboard HMS Euryalas, escorted by the aircraft carrier HMS Ocean, HMS Chevron, HMS Childers, HMS Volage, HMS Pelican and HMS Widemouth Bay.

British forces then withdrew to the Haifa enclave, a simple collapsing perimeter.

Towards the end of June the rear party preparing to leave Haifa after recovering a great deal of heavy equipment, with Royal Marines, Royal Engineers, Coldstream Guards, Grenadier Guards, Dragoon Guards and other units carrying out these final moves. Providing air cover was HMS Triumph with 4 Seafires held at 30 minutes notice. RAF aircraft were also involved with a search for a missing 4/7 Dragoon Guards tank and the Seafires conducted a number of armed reconnaissance patrols, no doubt providing a highly visible coercive deterrent. There is some disagreement on exactly who and when the last British forces left Palestine but the overall picture is largely one of an ordered withdrawal.

On the 30th of June, with most British forces now out of Haifa, HMS Triumph’s Seafires conducted a flypast.

The remaining Royal Marines and Army units gradually shrunk the perimeter until the last of the equipment and personnel were embarked on the LST HMS Striker and the force sailed. A destroyer was left in international waters for a few days, just in case.

For a complete breakdown of UK forces that served in Palestine between 1945 and 1948 the ever brilliant Britain’s Small Wars has a comprehensive breakdown here and for further details of the Royal Navy Palestine Patrol, including the final few days, click here

In the book linked above there is no mention of HMS Ocean in the final days but other sources state she stayed with HMS Triumph.

Some great British Pathe newsreels on the evacuation here, here, here and here

So it would seem that the quote is largely correct in its highly selective construction but it fails to note the 3 years constant service in theatre by the RAF, the fact that RAF bases can’t be evacuated onto LST’s through a collapsing perimeter and would therefore have to have left long before, the actual nature of the protection and the continued operations in the area by the RAF some time after.

I would also question the assertion that only naval aircraft were capable of providing the protection required, Haifa is less than 200 miles from Cyprus and some of the longer range Mosquito’s had a range in excess of 2000 miles, the reason naval aviation was used was simply because it made more sense to do so, the aircraft could conduct limited sorties that suited the nature of the operation but would be available at short notice to cover any contingencies in what was essentially, an amphibious operation in reverse.

After the withdrawal, flying from Kabrit in the Canal Zone RAF PR Mosquito’s made daily sorties over the area and one was shot down by an Israeli Air Force P51 Mustang piloted by an American volunteer on November 20th 1948. Two similar incidents followed but in the very sensitive political environment at the time retaliation against the embryonic IAF would have certainly destroyed them and left the door wide open for Arab air forces to attack.

These incidents in 1949 were a lesson to the RAF about complacency, details in the Flight International archive here.

1945 to 1950, Southern Arabia

The RAF were engaged on a sporadic basis through this period with Mosquito’s, Brigands, Tempests and Lincolns.

No mention of this in the article.

1948 to 1952, Eritrea and Somaliland

RAF Hawker Tempest F6 aircraft of 6 Squadron deployed from Fayid to Mogadishu to fly a series of demonstration sorties. No.6 Squadron’s efforts were subsequently augmented by a detachment of Tempest F6s belonging to 8 Squadron, which operated from Hargeisa during March 1948.

In April, a detachment of Hawker Fury F6 fighter bombers from 39 Squadron was despatched from Khartoum in Sudan to Asmara in Eritrea to help counter guerrilla attacks mounted by Shifta bandits. The primary task of the detachment was to fly armed reconnaissance sorties in support of ground forces but they also conducted rocket attacks against rebel bases.

In August, unrest within Somaliland, triggered by the announcement that the disputed Ogaden territory was to be transferred to Ethiopia, leading to the despatch of No.213 Squadron (Hawker Tempest F6) from Deversoir to Mogadishu in order to ‘fly the flag’ and assist in restoring order. Following the withdrawal of the last British troops from the Odagen region of Somaliland on 23 September, No.213 Squadron left Mogadishu and returned to Deversoir.

Aircraft deployed included Mosquito’s, Tempests, Brigands and Lancasters.

Detachments remained until 1951 and operations from other locations until 1952.

No mention of this in the article.

1948 to 1960, Malaya

Following serious rioting and social unrest in early 1948, Sir Edward Gent, the High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya, declared a state of emergency. The Malayan Communist Party was subsequently banned on 23 July. This marked the beginning of the Malayan Emergency (Operation Firedog). Operation Firedog represented a major commitment for the Royal Air Force (RAF).

A total of fifteen RAF squadrons served in Malaya at some stage of the emergency and many more United Kingdom-based units took part in temporary detachments to Malaya.

At the beginning of the operation the RAF presence was limited but during the emergency it escalated significantly. During the operation Fleet Air Arm aircraft would contribute when RN carriers were in the area. The full gamut of RAF and FAA aircraft were employed and a number of innovations progressed, including helicopter operations in a combined wing and psychological warfare. 848 NAS carried out its first airlift in 1953 when three S55’s lifted 12 members of the Worcestershire Regiment into the jungle in search of an insurgent commander and the naval rotary aviation component played a major role until the RAF could catch up and meet the requirements.

It would be fair to say that many of the jungle strike sorties were ineffectual and the most significant contribution to the overall campaign was provided by the fixed and rotary supply aircraft.

No mention of this in the article.

1949, the Berlin Airlift

147 RAF aircraft completed 65,857 sorties, transporting 394,509 tonnes of supplies.

No mention of this in the article.

1950 – 1953, Korea

The articles in question stated that the RAF’s involvement was limited to transport and some flying boat MPA patrols and the RN flew thousands of effective patrols. It also mentioned that the RAF supplied Meteor fighters to the RAAF but these had to be transported to theatre on RN aircraft carriers, the point being made that the RAF needed the RN even for that limited operation.

What happened

Aircraft carriers did indeed provide all the UK’s tactical strike and fighter capability during the Korea War. On their way to, and way back from Korea, Firefly’s from 827, 821 and 825 Squadrons from HMS Triumph HMS Ocean also conducted a number of sorties in Malaya but these were from land bases. Although to me this demonstrates the flexibility of naval aviation they weren’t actually flown from the decks and thus for some reason, left out of the article(s).

At the outbreak of the Korean War HMS Triumph, sailing to Hong Kong from Japan, joined the USN Valley Forge and the first sortie comprising 12 Seafires and 9 fireflies was launched against Haeju Airfield on the 3rd of July 1950.

The articles casually dismissed the role of the Sunderland yet fails to mention that there were there at the request of the Royal Navy, initially providing an anti submarine capability. Hong Kong was a vital staging post and naval base for the carriers, without Hong Kong it is unlikely the carriers would have been able to sustain their deployment and it was given the appropriate degree of protection.  From mid 1949 in Hong Kong, 2 squadrons were maintained as a protective force, first with Spitfires and later with Hornets and Vampires. Photo recce Spitfires were also based in Hong Kong and regularly flew sorties over China. The RAF deployment in Hong Kong lasted from 1948 to 1997 and the FAA were also involved over a sustained period.

HMS Triumph was duly replaced by HMS Theseus in October and in April 1952 by HMS Glory. HMS Glory was replaced in May 1952 by HMS Ocean when she was replaced by HMS Glory in October. HMS Ocean carried out the final shift until the ceasefire was declared in July 1953 and during her deployment carried out a record breaking 123 sorties in one day.

This was a superb display of sustained deployment, a Sea Fury from HMS Ocean was also responsible for the first kill of a jet aircraft from a piston engine aircraft (interesting account here) and the first use of rocket assisted takeoffs from a carrier was also carried out by HMS Ocean in this period.

Video from British Pathe of HMS Glory in action off Korea

The carriers generally spent 18 days on station followed by a 6 day trip to Japan for replenishment where they would be in port for about a week before returning to the ops area.

Despite the superb contribution of naval aviation to operations in Korea it would be wrong to dismiss the contribution of the RAF. RAF Sunderland Flying Boats from 88, 205 and 209 squadrons were tasked throughout, 2 were lost. The Sunderland detachment came under the operational control of the United States Navy’s Fleet Air Wing (FAW) 6 and their duties included anti submarine, maritime patrol, weather reconnaissance and transport. The last detachment concluded operations on 31 July 1953.

Auster’s from 1903 Independent Air Observation Post Flight and 1913 Light Liaison Flight were deployed from 1951 until the ceasefire, 2 were lost to ground fire and over 3,000 sorties were completed. Both these flights were mixed RAF and Army, with the pilots usually being ex Royal Artillery.

RAF pilots also flew with other nations; the Royal Australian Air Force 77 Squadron and 6 pilots were killed or taken prisoner. At the ceasefire, 77 Squadron had flown over 18,000 sorties. RAF pilots also flew with the USAF, 51st Fighter Interceptor Wing at Suwon the 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing at Kimpo.

Given that a number of RAF personnel were killed in action I would say that the article is rather disrespectful to their memory and it is also worth considering why the RAF was largely in the backseat in Korea.

The simple reason is that they were heavily tasked in Malaya and not forgetting the early fifties was a period where air defence of the UK, the strategic deterrent and other locations were core roles.

1951 to 1956, Egypt

After the war the Egyptians naturally wanted to assert their independence and effect a British withdrawal. A number of RAF bases in the Canal Zone protected the canal and provided a buffer against Soviet expansion in the area. There was a simmering and escalating security situation with 40 service personnel killed and the RAF had Vampires, Meteors, Mosquitos, Meteors, Valettas, Dakotas, Proctors, Ansons, Lincolns and Austers in theatre.

No mention of this in the article.

1952 to 1956, Kenya

After the War, the Kenyan African Union was formed and from that came the extremist Kenyan Land Freedom Party, otherwise known as the Mau Mau. In 1952 the murder of a prominent local prompted the declaration of emergency. By the end of the emergency the RAF had dropped nearly 22,00 bombs and deployed Lincolns, Austers, Harvards, Meteors, Lancasters, Dakotas, Ansons, Proctors, Pembrokes and a number of Sycamore helicopters.

No mention of this in the article.

1952 to 1959, Oman

There had been a long series of close links with Oman that continues to this day and in this period British forces provided combat support, the RAF deploying Vampires, Meteors, Valettas, Lancasters, Lincolns, Shackletons, Canberra’s and Ansons.

Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms and Skyraiders from HMS Ocean HMS Bulwark were also deployed for a short period.

No mention of this in the article.

1954 to 1968, Aden and Radfan

The artice described how the withdrawing British forces were covered by an RN task force, this task force providing cover the RAF as it too withdrew from theatre.

What happened

Although British forces had been involved in various smaller operations in the region for many years things got serious in 1954 when the RAF airlifted troops to counter an attack against Fort Rabat. Supporting the troops were a small number of Vampires and air command post. The Vampires also marked targets for Lincoln bombers and operations continued for some time, in this phase up to 1957 when Shackeltons were also deployed. In 1960 Hunters saw service in the area and in 1960 and 1963 Sea Venoms and Sea Vixens from HMS Centaur and HMS Hermes were involved.

In October 1962 there was a revolution in Yemen and the situation escalated, with Egypt being drawn in. British forces then had dissident tribes, incursions from the Yemen and terrorist actions in Aden itself to deal with.

Combined arms operations continued through 1964 including Operation Nutcracker which involved Army, local forces, RAF and Wessex helicopters from HMS Centaur. After Nutcracker another operation was executed that included 45 Commando, a company of 3 Para, other Army units, local forces and a range of RAF aircraft. Hunters provided close air support and in May this forces was reinforced further, including Wessex helicopters from 815 NAS. The operation was ultimately a success and order was maintained after these combat operations using the well tried air control tactics.

A quote from Tim Toyne Sewell in the book ‘The British Retreat from Aden’

Spectator sport was watching the RAF Hunter (successor to the Venom) pilots attacking rebel positions deep in the valleys between the mountains. They flew at the limits, heading down the between the rock walls until it seemed that they must crash into the mountainside, firing into forts or sangars with long bursts of fire, before hauling back the stick and going vertically up over the mountain lip. It was real Biggles stuff and the RAF won plenty of plaudits from the Jocks, who knew that they would be well served if they needed help in an emergency

The Wessex helicopters were essential to the success of the operation and during the May to June period, RAF Hunters flew over 600 sorties, expending over 180,000 cannon rounds and firing 2,500 rockets. During the same period RAF also Belvederes flew over 1,000 sorties.

In 1964 it was announced the area would be granted independence but with a British military bases retained. This didn’t go down well with the locals and fighting continued in and around Aden for some years, in 1966 the intention to retain a base was reversed.

Plans were now made for a full scale evacuation involving the largest airlift since Berlin and many thousands of personnel and huge quantities of stores were airlifted by Hercules, Britannia’s and Belfast’s. In an echo of Palestine the final withdrawal was 42 Commando by Wessex helicopters from 848 NAS and 78 Squadron. These were covered by Buccaneers Sea Vixens from HMS Eagle. Although there were of course contingency plans if things get a bit sporty, in the end, the withdrawal proceeded without incident.

The article was again guilty of being highly selective in its dates.

1955 to 1959, Cyprus

When the Cyprus Emergency was declared in 1955 after the murder of a policeman there was already a significant British force on the island following the withdrawal from Egypt in 1954. The RAF and FAA contribution was relatively small but there was a contribution nevertheless.

No mention of this in the article.

1955, Sudan

The RAF deployed 3 squadrons of Tempests to support the run up to independence and attack dissidents in the south of the country.

No mention of this in the article.

1956, Suez

The article described a combined assault by UK and French carrier borne and land based aircraft, making the point that because of their position, the carriers reacted more quickly to calls for action than RAF aircraft from Cyprus and Malta. Despite, it said, only having a third of the British strike fighters the RN strike fighters flew two thirds of the strike sorties. RAF aircraft were said to carry fewer weapons and could spend little time on task and when on task most time was spent at high level to conserve fuel.

What happened

In October 1955 fighting broke out around the British bases in the Suez Canal Zone and 16 Independent Parachute Brigade was flown from Cyprus aboard the Vickers Vikings of Nos. 70, 78, 114, 204 and 216 Squadrons RAF to support the units stationed in the Canal Zone.

In August 1956 after the nationalisation of the Suez Canal by Egypt on 26 July Canberra bombers were deployed to Cyprus as part of an escalation strategy. In October following the Egyptian Government’s rejection of the ultimatum presented by Britain and France and its closure of the Suez Canal, British and French forces commenced operations against Egypt, called Operation Musketeer.

Twelve Egyptian airfields in the Canal Zone and the Nile Delta were attacked by Canberra and Valiant bombers. In an echo of recent operations this initial phase, called Operation Fairlove, was designed to neutralise the opposing air forces. The bomber force consisted of 17 RAF squadrons supported by 7 squadrons of Venoms, Hunters and Meteors operating from Malta and Cyprus. In addition to the RAF, the Fleet Air Arm fielded 11 squadrons, Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms and Wyverns.

Operations commenced on the 31st of October, with reconnaissance being carried out by RAF Canberra’s closely followed by Canberra and Valiant bombers. The night after both the RAF and FAA were engaged in bombing operations. The destruction of the Egyptian Air Force was swift and other targets were engaged although subsequent research has shown that some of the Egyptian Air Force was relocated South prior to the operation.

Subsequent analysis showed that the high level bombing was not as effective as first thought but as the threat of the Egyptian Air Force was reduced, medium level attacks were much more accurate and rules of engagement meant that civilian casualties were to be avoided at all costs.

Whilst the Canberras carried out many effective strike sorties the Hunters, with most of their drop tanks having been damaged by previous gunnery practice, were indeed limited to only 10 minutes over the target area.

Prior to the amphibious attack phase there was a shortage of viable targets for aircraft so strikes reduced.

Carrier borne aircraft, in addition to strike sorties, also carried out anti submarine and AEW tasks.

On the 5th of November 3 Para were dropped onto the El Gamil airfield by RAF Valettas and Hastings, the drop zone being marked with flares dropped by Canberra’s. The airborne force also included 7 jeeps armed with recoilless rifles, these, incredibly being carried under the wings of the Hastings. Although the WWII vintage jeeps had been out of service for some time they were the only vehicles available that were light enough for air dropping. FAA aircraft flew cab rank style close air support missions and by the end of the day in excess of 400 sorties had been flown. The size of the airdrop was largely dictated by the available space at the Cyprus airfields and capacity of the RAF’s transport fleet. This was an area that had seen rapid decline since the war and with the resource intensive effort to get the V Bomber force operational the air lift capacity was simply too small. In comparison with the French parachute force, British parachute forces were much less well trained and equipped.

On the 6th of November the amphibious assault commenced with 40 and 42 Commando, supported by Centurion tanks from the Royal Tank Regiment. The reserve, 45 Commando, was committed to and in a world first, carried out a ship to shore helicopter assault using Whirlwinds from 845 NAS and HMS Theseus and Whirlwinds and Sycamores from the Joint Helicopter Unit and HMS Ocean.

After helicopters had demonstrated their potential in Korea, Joint Helicopter Experimental Unit (JHEU) was formed at RAF Middle Wallop on April Fools Day, 1955, with both the RAF and Army in equal numbers. After many landings on an aircraft carrier sized runway at Middle Wallop, helicopters from the JHEU deployed to HMS Theseus in 1955 to develop the concept further.

Just before Suez, JHEU ceased to be an experimental unit and was renamed to the Joint Helicopter Unit, during Operation Musketeer they were extremely busy. JHU was a truly joint unit, Army and RAF pilots ferrying Royal Marines into battle.

RAF and FAA aircraft continued to provide support to the land operation although given their close proximity the FAA aircraft could remain on station longer. Close Air Support to the amphibious landing was provided by the FAA, 8 Sea Hawks armed with rockets and coordinated by an Air Control Team that consisted of 2 pilots (RAF and French Armeé de’l Air), 2 forward air controllers and an Army Ground Liaison Officer.

The FAA was involved with a friendly fire incident when a Wyvern mistakenly attacked the HQ of 45 Commando.

The same day a ceasefire was announced.

Suez, like every single combat operation, was a mixture of success and failure, many lessons were learned but what strikes me is the interconnected nature of the operation, all the services combining for maximum effect in what was a stunning tactical victory, strategy of course, was another matter.

1958, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq

The article described how HMS Eagle provided support for airborne and amphibious forces and that carrier borne fighters were used to protect RAF transport aircraft because RAF fighter bases were to far away for their aircraft to be effective.

What happened

As part of a coordinated US/UK response to growing unrest in the area the UK flew elements of 2 Para to Amman from Cyprus in RAF Hastings. By the 18th, over 2,000 British troops were in Amman. The RAF transports were escorted by fighters from the powerful US Sixth Fleet and on the 20th a detachment of Hunters from Cyprus were stationed there.

1958, British Honduras

In April, Operation Quick Flight commenced, in light of the worsening relationship between the United Kingdom and Guatemala with regard to the status of British Honduras, a Royal Visit was conducted by Princess Margaret to demonstrate the United Kingdom’s commitment to preserve the integrity of the Crown Colony. The Vickers Viscount carrying Princess Margaret was escorted by two armed Canberra interdictors of No.59 Squadron, with two Canberra PR9s of No.58 Squadron acting as navigation leaders.

No mention of this in the article.

1961, Kuwait

The article decsribed how HMS Bulwark and 42 Cdo RM arrived in the area within 24 hours because of timely intelligence and used helicopters to provide rapid deployment. It stated that British troops arriving in RAF transport aircraft had only what they stood up in and had to both requisition vehicles and wait for RN amphibious shipping to bring in more. HMS Victoria arrived some time later but arrived with a complete package of power that subsequently dominated the area. It said that a single RAF Hunter squadron was deployed to Kuwait from Bahrain but lacked the logistics and radar cover to be effective, this being provided by HMS Bulwark. Because no RAF transport aircraft were available, as they were all being used for troop transport, the Hunters left as soon as HMS Victorious arrived.

What happened

In response to Iraq making a claim against Kuwait and moving troops south, British forces in the area were placed on 4 days notice to move. HMS Bulwark and 42 Commando were off Karachi and she joined the three frigates in area, moving into the Gulf. Plan Vantage was a prepared Reinforced Theatre Plan which envisaged supplementing local forces with those flown in from the UK.

On the 29th June HMS Bulwark started her voyage from Karachi and on the 30th the 2 Hunter squadrons moved to Bahrein from their respective regional locations and were operational the same day. A pair of Shackletons also moved to the same location and Canberra’s went to Sharjah (now part of the UAE) HQ 24 Brigade was moved into the Gulf from Kenya using a combination of RAF and civilian transport aircraft.

When the formal request for assistance came on the 29th British forces were poised ready. The first units to enter Kuwait were elements of 42 Commando flown off HMS Bulwark by Whirlwinds of 848NAS. The RAF Hunters arrived the same morning at Kuwait New Airfield and Britannias flew in  45 Commando and the 11th Hussars from Aden. A small contingent of the 3rd Dragoon Guards was put ashore from HMS Striker (the same HMS Striker mentioned above in the Palestine section)

The build up continued with Comets, Britannias and Beverleys bringing in 2 Para, 1st Battalion Royal Inniskillings and 2 company’s of Coldstream Guards complete with their equipment.

On the 4th the planned build up was complete and the composite force took up positions along the Mutla Ridge. The RAF aircrew were rotated onto Bulwark and Bulwark also provided the only air defence radar capability.

On the 9th of July HMS Victoria arrived with Sea Vixen fighters, AEW Gannets and much improved radar which extended coverage out to 150 miles. On the 18th, the RAF also established a second air defence radar site although it was not as capable as that of HMS Victorious. No moves were made on Kuwait and by the 20th plans for a stand down were in place. HMS Centaur relieved HMS Victorious on the 31st of July and by late September all units were at their normal locations.

No invasion came and one might reasonably chalk this one up to the effectiveness of an all arms deployment that rapidly built up ground forces that were supported by a range of airborne capabilities from both land and sea.

1962 to 1966, Borneo

This is where the article seemed to descend into siliness, clutching at straws to to score points, making a point that the RAF had to rely on the RN commando carriers to get into theatre because they lacked the range to self deploy which seems rather obvious. It then described how carriers and their air groups provided a deterrent against Indonesian intervention by a show pf presence in international waters, the RAF being unable to provide anything similar.

What happened

The then president of Borneo encourage a local group to revolt, seeking a unification of Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia and a number of attacks were carried out and a pre prepared plan, Operation Borneo, was commenced. RAF Beverleys and New Zealand and Australian aircraft flew a battalion of Gurkhas into a number of locations to reinforce and restore order. Hunters and Canberras were detached to provide close air support and Beavers and Austers continued to provide localised support. 42 Commando joined the action and HMS Albion was on the scene with Whirlwind and Wessex helicopters a short time later.

As mopping up operations continued HMS Hermes arrived to provide additional air cover

Things de escalated but by 1963 trouble was increasing with sporadic cross border attacks by Indonesian forces although both sides were at pains to keep the political rhetoric low key.

By late September Indonesia has started overflying the area with their B25’s and P51 Mustangs. In response the RAF detached Hunters and Javelins, this was reinforced in early 1963 with more Javelins and an air defence intercept zone was established.

Prior to the state of emergency being declared on the 2nd of September Indonesia paratroopers had conducted and airborne assault in West Malaysia. 14 Hunter sorties saw most of the ground force destroyed and the remnants were cleared by ground forces.

The Malaysian aircraft had penetrated via a radar gap and HMS Kent was subsequently positioned to fill it. Gannet AEW aircraft played a vital role until ground based radar coverage could be improved.  RAF, RNZAF and RAAF aircraft continued to reinforce the air defence arrangements in the area.

In Borneo, ground operations continued and were supported by an increasing number of RAF, AAC and FAA helicopters and transport aircraft.

To provide an overt and visible deterrent to Indonesia detachments of the V Bomber force were routinely deployed to Singapore.

1964, East African Mutinies

Again, the article seemed to make great play of how RAF helicopters had to rely oy on the RN to get into the action.

What happened

A number of former East African British colonies achieved independence in the run up to this period and British forces were involved in minor roles, supporting evacuations for example.

On the 20th of January men from the 1 Battalion Tanganyika Rifles mutinied, detaining British officers, NCO’s and the High Commissioner. HMS Centaur sailed from Aden with 45 Commando, elements of the 16/5th Lancers and RAF helicopters. Although the captives were released the mutiny spread and the president of Tanganyika formally requested assistance. On the 25th 45 Commando conducted a heliborne assault into Colito on the coast supported by Wessex from 815 NAS and Belverderes from 26 Squadron RAF. The Belverderes were used to transport Ferret armoured scout cars of the Lancers. After restoring order the next objective was Tabora, some 400 miles inland.

An RAF Argosy flew in an RAF Regiment force to secure the airbase who were met by elements of 45 Commando flown in by the 2 Belvederes. Sea Vixens were planned to strike that day but the mutineers had surrendered and the attack was cancelled.

A number of other mutinies were effectively dealt with and the RAF, Army, RN, FAA and Royal Marines all playing various roles.

1965 to 1980, Rhodesia and Zambia

The article describes how during the Defence of Zambia (1965-66), the RAF took many months to deploy and in this period was covered by aircraft from HMS Eagle.  Then for the Beira Patrol (1965-66) claimed that only aircraft from aircraft carriers could cover the area before the RAF arrived.

What happened

Following Rhodesia’s declaration of independence sanctions were imposed but these would also impact Zambia so it was decided to mount an air supply operation supplement their oil stocks. In mid November 1965 HMS Eagle arrived off Mozambique to provide air cover in case the air force of Rhodesia decided to attack the transports flying into Zambia. The plan called for the aircraft from HMS Eagle to mount defensive patrols until they were relieved by RAF Javelins. On the 1st of December the Javelins flew direct to Nairobi from Cyprus using long range tanks. Air defence radars were also flown in.

On the 19th of December the oil supply flights commenced and by the end of October 1966 when the airlift ceased, over 3 million gallons had been transported, although it was said much of this was for the Vixens!

HMS Eagle left the area in December and in January was replaced by HMS Ark Royal who took up station off the Mozambique port of Beira. HMS Eagle came back in early March to relieve HMS Ark Royal and commenced the blockade; this was called the Beira Patrol. Until Shackletons took over in August the FAA and RN carried out the task.

The Beira Patrol was a futile exercise, most of the oil was transported overland from South Africa and many saw it as a complete waste of time and resources better deployed elsewhere, Borneo for example.

1972, British Honduras

The article describes how a show of force by Buccaneers from Ark Royal prevented a threatened invasion of British Honduras (Belize) by Guatemala and that the RAF was too far away to do anything.

What happened

In January 1972 a small force of Guatemalan troops were sighted on the border and HMS Ark Royal, who was in the area conducting a training mission with the USS Bachante was detached to the area, Buccaneers from 891 NAS conducted a number of shows of strength on the border.

In February HMS Ark Royal returned to the area with the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards who reinforced the garrison.

The country was renamed Belize in 1973

1975 to 1994, Belize

After negotiations between the UK and Guatemala broke down Guatemalan troops began massing on the border. From the 11th of October RAF Pumas were flown into the area by Belfast transports and the garrison increased to over a thousand personnel. Six RAF Harrier GR1A aircraft were flown to Belize, using in flight refuelling and stops at Goose Bay and Nassau.

By 1976, with things calming down, the Harriers returned to the UK, transported in Belfasts.

The situation escalated yet again and six Harriers were flown out to reinforce the garrison, yet again.

Although the expected invasion did not happen, as could be expected, a force of 4 Harrier GR3 was established and maintained throughout this period. The last Harriers departed in 1993 and the Pumas in 1994.

No mention of this in the article.

1982, Falkland Islands

Given the recentness and how obvious personalities have been vocal on this it should come of no surprise that the article was partiularly strident about the RAF’s contribution to the Falklands conflict.

First it made the point that RAF Harriers and Chinooks had no means of reaching the conflict other than the Atlantic Conveyor, HMS Hermes and HMS Invicible, how they had to rely on RN supplied radar, air defence, weapons and fuel to be effective, neither of which would have been there without the carriers. It then went on to describe how carrier borne strike fighters and helicopters were fundamental to the success of the operation, neither of which would have been there without the carriers. It again made the point, using the word ‘significantly, that the RAF ‘needed’ the carriers and ACO to ‘get them into action’

Not in the main article but claims made around the same time on the same collection of sites included statements that RAF Harriers flew many fewer ground attack missions than did Sea Harriers and on Black Buck it claimed that one bomb hit the edge of the runway, how this did not prevent its use by Hercules or Close Air Support aircraft and 62 bombs were off target, 21 of them not even being armed properly. One mission was reportedly aborted because a pilot left the cabin window open and declared a cockpit pressurisation failure. Comparisons were also made about comparative fuel use, how Sea Harriers delivered many bombs and hit their targets every time, that £10m of fuel was spent on knocking out one small surface to air machine gun and that the RAF placed ships in danger by insisting that the naval task force could not fire at any targets whilst the Vulcans were near the target.

What happened

Much has been written about the Falkland Islands conflict in 1982 and inevitably there are differences of opinion and perceptions, to research these differences would be a huge task, made even more difficult by the official history differing in some aspects from subsequent publications.

The first and obvious thing to say is that without the Sea Harriers the operation would have simply been extremely unlikely to have been successful. The anti aircraft systems on board the Royal Navy vessels and when ashore, ground based air defence systems, proved less capable than thought and no land based fighter cover was available. Even though British forces demonstrably failed to achieve complete control of the air what control was achieved was enough to provide the land and sea component the ability to retake the islands.

Operation Corporate was predominantly a naval and ground operation, the RAF were to play a series of supporting roles but these were vital to overall success. The final decisive operation was very much a land one but denigrating the RAF’s role is wrong.

Rather than going through the entire operation I am going to look at a few different air aspects of the campaign;

Black Buck – Anti Runway

They were and still are hugely controversial.

The famous Vulcan raids on Port Stanley, like much of Op Corporate, have been endlessly analysed with the obvious divergence of opinion. Some claim that it was nothing but showboating so the RAF could say they were involved and a complete waste of valuable fuel. To understand Black Buck one has to at least try and balance the certainty of post operation research with the degree of uncertainty that would have been experienced at the time.

The fact that several components for the Vulcan’s were recovered from museums and scrap yards makes this extraordinary feat of airmanship even more remarkable but what about its material impact on the operation?

It is obvious that the given our relative disadvantages, attacking well defended islands with a numerically inferior force at the end of an 8,000 mile logistic train the use of Port Stanley for fast jet operations was a major factor in planning. If Argentine forces could operate their Skyhawks and Mirage fighters from Port Stanley instead of at the limit of their range the balance of power in the air war would have massively changed and without some semblance of air control, no land operation could be countenanced. It was therefore imperative that Port Stanley was denied to Argentine forces, especially their Mirage and Skyhawk fighters.

This was a maximum effort operation, as far as practically possible all British defence forces were engaged and it is entirely understandable that all services wanted to get stuck in. There are a number of accounts of service personnel just turning up at the troop ships hoping (and I think there might have been a few successes)  to get a ride south.

There were a number of strategic objectives of Black Buck; the first was to deny the airport to Argentine Mirage and Skyhawks and the second, arguably the most important, was to send a very clear message to the Junta that the UK could reach out and touch them. In both these strategic objectives, they were a success, it was also hoped that such a demonstration would force the diversion of Argentine aircraft to defence of the mainland, opinions on this seem to differ but most accounts confirm that some repositioning took place which would have meant less aircraft available for operations around the islands with obvious results. The degree of this repositioning was arguably not hugely significant but opinions and accounts do differ.

Critics point to the fact that only one bomb hit the runway on the first attack but this was calculated, conventional bombing doctrine against runways dictates that the attack line is at an angle to the runway, the angle being calculated using a number of factors. This is to maximise the possibility of a single or multiple hits, it should also be recognised that in order to maximise damage the bomb needs to land as near as vertical as possible and at high speed which dictated a medium level approach. The bombs penetrated the runway and surrounding areas creating a heave effect that rendered the surface unusable to fast jets with high pressure tyres. It has been noted that the Argentine combat engineers repaired the craters and this allowed Hercules, Pucara’s and even light jets to operate right up until the end of the operation. This is true but it was designed to stop fast Mirage and Skyhawk’s, not transports. The material difference that continual Hercules operations had on the outcome was immaterial, the same could not be said if Argentina had operated their Mirage and Skyhawk aircraft from the islands.

Launched from mainland Argentina, the Skyhawks, Mirages and Daggers were at the edge of their endurance, time over the islands was measured in minutes, they (Mirage and Dagger) were unable to use to maximise their speed advantage over the Harriers and usually concentrated on attacks against the land and sea forces without defensive weaponry. If Stanley could be used, this would change dramatically even if only the Skyhawks could be deployed (runway length issues), sortie rates would be much higher and who knows what the result might have been.

It came as a surprise that the Argentine forces did not make more of an effort to use Port Stanley, they might have thought it was too short, too vulnerable to attack or without the support facilities necessary but it could have been used as a divert location, refuelling stop or other use that fell short of full operations. They could have extended the runway and had the capability and materials to do so not only was the runway a target in the initial mission, the surrounding areas were also targeted.  According to Wikipedia (which backs the claim up with Argentine document links) in early April arrestor gear was installed to enable S2 tracker and A4 Skyhawk landings with a small number deployed until just before the British forces arrived. There are pictures on a number of online forums that would seem to confirm this.

Sea Harriers conducted a follow up attack after the first Black Buck with cluster and conventional bombs but the degree of damage was uncertain. The claim that they could have dropped 1,300 bombs for the fuel of a single Black Buck is fair enough, but the task force didn’t have 1,300 thousand pounders and it would have needed 650 Harrier sorties to deliver them.

It has been claimed that Sea Harriers would have been more effective but with the munitions and delivery mechanisms available, the fact that Vulcan’s were available and the finite supply of Sea Harriers, which in a cold analysis, were too few in numbers, meant that the task force commanders rightly decided to marshal the Sea Harrier and use them for what they excelled at, namely air defence. If Port Stanley was without air defences then a lower level attack by Sea Harriers probably would have been able to completely deny the runway to all aircraft but this was not the case, Port Stanley was protected by a number of extremely effective anti aircraft systems and to prosecute such an attack, to get the necessary runway penetration, would have meant flying directly into the optimal engagement zone of these systems, it was simply too risky. The Vulcan could deliver this strike on one go, using its powerful ECM and large bomb load, whereas to use Sea Harriers would have diverted them from the valuable role of air defence and without ECM would have exposed them to great risk.

I can see the argument for greater use of Sea Harriers in the ground attack role in the early stages but I think the decision taken was the correct one, on balance.

It would also have been in the planners mind that post conflict there would be a need to defend the islands against any retaliatory attacks and denying the runway rather than completely destroying it might have been thought of as a sensible option.

When it became apparent that the Argentine forces were not repairing Stanley it dropped down the things to do list although they continued to try and deceive the task force into thinking otherwise, arranging the MB339’s with angled runway repair planking to simulate a Super Etendard for example. Some have claimed that the runway was repaired the following day but this is also to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of runway repair, what they did was fill the holes so the runway could be used for Hercules and light aircraft, this is not the same as effecting a proper repair and extension that would have been required for the Skyhawks and Mirage’s and their high pressure tyres.

This from the Telegraph in 2007

Immediately after the Argentine surrender, I and a Falkland Islander drove the length and breadth of the Stanley runway looking for signs of damage and repair. There were none and the concrete was in as good condition as when I had been responsible for its security in 1978 and 1979.

My friend and I marvelled, not for the first time, at the inventiveness of the Argentine engineers. Certainly the RAF’s bombing operations against Stanley airport were strategically useful but of little tactical value to us actually in the Falklands.

Lt Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour, Ermington, Devon

In response, I think this from someone qualified in airfield bomb damage repair is relevant.

Sir – Ewen Southby-Tailyour (Letters, May 5) is wrong in his description of the damage to the Stanley runway. As Commander, Royal Engineers, I was responsible for its repair immediately after the surrender. There was one large crater caused by a 1,000lb bomb from the RAF Vulcan raid, and four smaller craters resulting from earlier Harrier attacks. (The Argentines had also created dummy craters to confuse our aerial reconnaissance.) Repairing the large crater and the large area of runway took about two weeks and 1,000 square metres of captured Argentine runway matting. Lt Col Southby-Tailyour is, however, correct in stating that Argentine aircraft were able to continue to use the runway, despite the bombing raids, by temporarily backfilling the craters. This, perhaps, is why his “recce” did not spot the true extent of the damage

Black Buck 7 used proximity fused bombs against facilities and positions and Black Buck 2 bombs failed to go off. It is Black Buck 2 that comes, rightly, in for criticism. Depending on which account you read they were either incorrectly fused or incorrectly armed, such is conflict, mistakes can be made and many were made by all three services.

Back to the overall goal, accepting that we did not know whether Argentine forces were going to use Stanley for fast jets (Mirage, Skyhawk, Dagger etc) or not, the goal was to deny them the ability to do so and by a combination of Sea Harrier, Black Buck and naval gunfire this goal was achieved.

Were the Black Buck raids an unqualified success, no, of course they were not and there is no disputing the cost in tanker capacity and fuel (it might be worth comparing the fuel to that used by the task force as a whole) or the inter service rivalry that would have been in the back of people’s minds but the final word should go to Admiral Woodwood at a seminar held at the RAF Staff College in 2002

My dark blue aviators said “Oh, it’s the air force just trying to get in on the act”, but I said, hang on a minute, there will be two things. If they do hit the runway, that can’t be bad, they can disrupt it… but also it will have exactly that effect of causing them [the junta] to think they could come at us on the mainland. It is showing reach and therefore it is deterrent. And I suspect it made them hold back some of their Mirages, which could have acted as top cover for their A-4 raids. So I signed up for it and told my aviators to shut up.’

Black Buck – Anti Radar

The other Black Buck missions, 3 to 6, were designed to destroy Argentine radar installations in and around Port Stanley, a modern Westinghouse AN/TPS-43F and supporting AN/TPS-44. These posed a significant threat because they could be used to support inbound strike sorties by Argentine aircraft, locating the approximate area of the carriers by plotting the Sea Harriers flight path for example.

The Grupo de Artillería Antiaérea 601 posed a serious threat and was reinforced with a detachment of Grupo 1 de Artillería Antiaérea that manned some of the radar equipment. In addition the radar sets mentioned above the occupying forces also had Roland 2 launchers, Skyguard fire control radar, radar controlled 35mm twin Oerlikon-Contraves cannons, twin 20mm cannons and Super Fledermaus fire control radars.

On paper, a formidable array

After Black Buck 1 and the first Sea Harrier sortie, during which the air defences were ineffective, the second wave of Sea Harriers was met with intense fire, although, again, ineffective. Subsequent operations against Goose Green resulted in the loss of a Sea Harrier to radar directed 35mm weapon and it was reported that after this, subsequent air to ground missions were carried out at an altitude outside of the engagement envelope of the 35mm weapons until low level strikes were resumed by the RAF GR3’s later in the operation, again, not sure if this is true but it would make sense, the Sea Harriers were a precious and finite commodity.

Black Buck 4 was the first mission armed with the AGM-45A Shrike anti radiation missile but was cancelled when one of the tankers had a refuelling equipment failure. Black Buck 5 was flown on the 32st of May and the principal target was the TPS43 radar, it shot and missed, plain and simple, the missile striking about 10 meters from the radar.

Black Buck 5 this time had 4 Shrike’s, a pair each tuned into the TPS43 and Skyguard radars. The TPS43 crews wisely switched off their transmitters but not so the Skyguard crew and a successful strike took place, killing 4 and destroying the equipment. This was the mission that had to divert to Brazil due to low fuel and was unable to jettison the remaining Shrike, this fell into Brazilian hands and was never seen again (I think it might be in a museum in Brazil somewhere)

A small number of Shrikes were parachute dropped into the sea next to HMS Hermes by Hercules transport aircraft, these were recovered and assembled but by the time the weapons were ready the Argentine forces had surrendered.

After the conflict, the remaining 35mm cannons and fire control systems were recovered to the UK and pressed into service.

RAF Crewing

Roughly one in four aircrew on the Sea Harrier force were RAF and they accounted for about a quarter of the kills.

Harrier GR3

After the initial warning order was received modifications of the GR3 to enable naval operations commenced including drilling holes to allow water to escape, fitting lashing points, fitting transponder equipment to allow recovery to the carriers and a very hasty Sidewinder fit. Without radar the GR3 would be much inferior to the Sea Harrier in the AD role but in the absence of anything else, they would have to make do.

The GR3’s and additional Sea Harriers were flown to Ascension Island for embarkation on the Atlantic Conveyor. One Sea Harrier was kept onboard at alert state to counter any Argentine 707’s and in the first few days after leaving the island some tanker support was available should it be needed.

After transferring to the Hermes on the 18th of May, the first operational sortie was completed on the 20th

Because in the period between the initial operations and when the reinforcements arrived there had been no Sea Harrier losses so the GR3’s could be used for their primary role, close air support, combat reconnaissance and interdiction using cluster bombs, thousand pounders, rockets and the twin 30mm Aden cannon pods. The GR3’s were also capable of using the newly obtained laser guided bombs but these were not used effectively until the closing stages of the operation due to unfamiliarity. When they were used, they were devastating, destroying a Company HQ and 105mm artillery piece. Although the writing was clearly on the wall for the occupying forces by this time, the precision strikes must have contributed to the desire to surrender. It was a fearsome capability.

Ground based air defences included the automatic weapons and missile systems mentioned above and Blowpipe and SA-7 MANPADS. Two GR3 losses were both attributed to ground based air defences, another to small arms fire and the fourth to an accident.

A little known element of Harrier operations in the Falkland Islands is the port San Carlos Forward Operating Base (FOB)

The Atlantic Conveyor was carrying Harrier spares and a full FOB, the Royal Engineers managed to improvise with the small stocks of matting they had. It wasn’t perfect, the AM2 matting that went down would have been far more suitable but it did provide limited capacity. A pair of GR3’s were usually located there as a quick reaction alert for ground forces and Sea Harriers used it is a refuelling point. It might be an interesting ‘what if’ to ask what impact on subsequent air, land and sea operations if a fully functioning Harrier FOB was established early after the initial landings.

An interesting quote from Major General Julian Thompson as recorded at a Falklands Seminar in 2003.

I was the commander of the 3rd Commando Brigade in the Falklands. In his presentations, CAS* said that his squadron helped to turn the tide at Goose Green. I can tell him that it did turn the tide. 2 PARA were stuck on a forward slope, in daylight, being engaged by 35mm AAA at 2,000 metres range, something to which they had absolutely no answer. Suddenly like cavalry to the rescue out of the sky came three Harriers which promptly took out those guns and turned the tide of the battle. There is a tale behind that too. We had previously been supported by CAS’s squadron on exercise in Norway and we had a very high opinion of what they could do. While we were on our way south, I turned to my primary FAC, who was an RAF Phantom back seater on a ground tour, and I told him that I needed No 1 Squadron. He said that I would never get them. I asked why and he replied they simply couldn’t get there. Thank God you did Peter, because you really did pull the fat out of the fire for us, for which I would like to say thank you, very much indeed.

* Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) at the time of the seminar, Sir Peter Squire

There have been other claims that the guns were knocked out by mortars but it is still an interesting quote, here, on page 155

Bravo November

The single RAF Chinook survivor of the Atlantic Conveyor moved 1,350 troops and 1,600 tonnes of supplies during the short time from when it was operational to the surrender. On one occasion it was used to move 81 fully tooled up paras to Fitzroy. It was supplemented by 4 more when the Contender Bezant arrived, a day after the surrender.

There is no doubt it was decisive, especially in moving the 105mm light guns and ammunition into position. There is an enduring myth that Argentine forces were poorly trained conscripts who gave up after the first shot but this is simply not true, their positions around Stanley were well constructed and fighting was fierce, often close quarters with bayonets and small arms. Without the artillery support provided by the 105mm Light Guns casualties would have been much higher, the limiting factor was ammunition supply and the Chinook was instrumental in providing the ammunition to these guns.

Others

VC10’S and Hercules were engaged in a more or less constant airlift effort between the UK and Ascension Island throughout the conflict and beyond.

Without the huge logistical effort from the RAF the task force would have been unable to transfer all the Harriers south and unable to obtain spares and time critical stores. Hercules also carried out a number of parachute supply drops sorties to the fleet in excess of 24 hours and in total amassed some 14,000 hours.

One might reasonably argue that these incredibly long Hercules sorties that provided vital supplies to the RN were as important as any other.

These continued after the cessation of hostilities.

A little known element of the operation was the contribution of Nimrods, flying from Ascension they carried out various roles throughout, some very close to the Argentine mainland.

RAF Regiment personnel were also deployed.

I am currently researching a more in depth piece on Black Buck but posts on the Atlantic Conveyor and the San Carlos FOB can be found here and here.

1983 Lebanon

In 1983 a small British peacekeeping forces was deployed to Lebanon. In addition to operating Chinook helicopters the RAF also mounted Op Pulsator which detached a flight of 6 Buccaneers to Cyprus. A number of show of force flights were mounted over the British area of responsibility and in one incident, the alert state was raised because a tank round entered the area but was quickly lowered when the Druze Militia Commander immediately apologised to British forces for a stray round.

No mention of this in the article.

1990 to 1991, The Gulf War

Confusing carrier aviation with British carrier aviation the article highlights the role played by USN carriers and states that HMS Ark Royal operated in the Eastern Mediterranean in a ‘containment role’ that was not, in the event, used.

Although not in the original article, associated pieces published at the same time claim that ‘informed sources’ confirm that of the eight RAF aircraft lost, only one was due to enemy action. The others were, it claimed, due to unfamiliarity with the JP233 delivery profile, ‘finger trouble’, whatever that is, and a so called basic lack of air warfare munitions experience. I think it is at this point that things started to get heated and objectivity thrown clearly out of the window.

Hold on, I thought this was about British Combat Airpower not American. So that would be the largest deployment of the land and aviation forces since the colonial operations of the fifties and RN aviation was limited to a containment role that wasn’t used, surely some mistake.

What happened

The Gulf War is another intensively studied conflict.

The RAF flew 5,417 sorties using Buccaneers, Tornado GR1, Tornado F3, C130, Victor, VC10, Jaguar, Nimrod and Tristar aircraft.  1,126 guided bombs were dropped, incidentally, more than the US Navy and US Marine Corps put together.

RAF tankers provided a significant proportion of aerial refuelling support to the USN

JP233 was developed to destroy the runways of relatively compact European airfields and prevent repair. The Iraqi airfields were huge in comparison and given the ability to strike the hardened aircraft shelters with precision weapons and the general lack of Iraqi air force resistance there was some debate whether they should be used at all. The RAF and USAF in theatre did not think they were needed but it was reported that this was over ruled by the MoD. In the event, over 100 JP233 missions were used but only one JP233 mission resulted in a lost aircraft and this was several minutes after release. We also have to put this into some context, the RAF had extensively trained for ultra low level attacks using Tornado, it was thought, possibly correctly, this was the only way to penetrate Warsaw Pact airspace and it was this low level penetration anti runway mission that they were extensively prepared for and were tasked for as part of NATO plans for Europe.

Intelligence failures led to the underestimation of the density of AAA and because there was little scope for realistic training, only trials crews had conducted live firings, the effect of a night time deployment of the weapon, which created a series of flash photography like illuminations, made the aircraft vulnerable.

A change of tactics on was announced January 23rd, medium altitude bombing to move out of the AAA danger zone was now the preferred option. Accuracy suffered but gradually improved and with the introduction of the Buccaneer in the laser designator role the move to guided weapons was commenced.  The initial decision not to deploy Buccaneer was based on logistics, avoiding introducing another type into theatre was desirable but when the low level and JP233 missions were compromised the problem with medium altitude dumb bombing was that the Tornado force was not trained to do so and the aircraft systems were not optimised. The concerns about ramp space and logistics were valid, but they were misplaced. Buccaneer arrived in late January, a rapid deployment and during the operation, despite its age, the Buccaneer had one of the best availability records of all aircraft.

Once the precision issues were resolved by the deployment of Buccaneer and TIALD, the Tornado make an effective contribution and it is telling that for the first time in 30 years the RAF published a new doctrine soon after.

In early February the first Tornado mission with the TIALD pod was launched.

Because of the relatively poor performance of the Tornado F3 it was decided that it would play only a limited role, providing combat air patrols in the rear areas, just in case. The Jaguar contribution, relatively speaking, was also not significant.

A total of 6 Tornado’s were lost on combat operations and one 1 from mechanical failure

17th January 1991; hit by numerous AAA fire and after successful release of JP233 was seen to hit the ground, aircrew killed

17th January 1991; hit by a surface to air missile after releasing weapons and unable to control aircraft, crew ejected. Mission, using 1,000 pound bombs against an Iraqi airfield, aircrew captured

19th January 1991; hit by surface to air missile whilst on a ‘run in’ for a loft attack. Mission, night attack against Iraq airfield using 1000 pound bombs, aircrew captured after navigator initiated ejection.

20th January 1991; suffered a technical failure and was unable to land, aircraft went to a safe area and the aircrew ejected

22nd January 1991; after successfully releasing their 1,000 pound bombs in an attack against an air defence site the aircraft was lost. The likely cause was AAA fire

24th January 1991; subject to explosion during a night time medium altitude attack against an airfield. Investigation concluded the explosion was caused by premature detonation of bombs, aircrew captured.

14th February 1991; subject to attack by two surface to air missiles whilst engaged in a medium altitude daylight mission in conjunction with Buccaneer. Pilot initiated an ejection and was captured but navigator killed.

I haven’t seen the Board of Inquiry documents and the information above is from an RAF website but I would not presume to know any better. Not sure what ‘finger trouble’ is and ‘informed sources’ should publish their revelations so they can be verified.

After ground operations ceased and with the majority of forces withdrawn the RAF continued to contribute, as did the other services, to operations in the north.

The Iraqi no-fly-zones were established in April 1991 (north) and August 1992 (south) as a coalition (US, UK and France) initiative in support of UNSCR 688 demanding an immediate end to Saddam’s brutal repression of Kurds in north and Shias in south. Operation Haven was mounted in support of the US Operation Provide Comfort in the north and this involved the Royal Marines and various RAF aicraft. This was then followed up with Operation Warden and in 1997 Operation Northern Watch commenced. The Southern Watch operation was called Jural.

On 16-19 December 1998, the US and UK took military action against Iraq under Operation Desert Fox on the basis of Iraq’s non-compliance with UNSCOM and the growing concern that Iraq was continuing to develop its chemical and biological weapons capability. In 1999, Tornado GR1’s carried out a number of strike sorties against Iraqi facilities

A good summary of the no fly zones and Desert Fox was published as part of the Iraq Enquiry, here

Suffice it to say, this was a sustained deployment for the RAF.

1992 to 1996, The Balkans

The main article and similar posts made the point that carrier aircraft were able to reposition and thus be effective when RAF aircraft were hampered by poor weather at land bases. A carrier was ordered to be available to cover a possible withdrawal under fire as only carrier based aviation could guarantee cover. They made the claim that Tornado operations, when grounded due to bad weather, were successfully conducted by the Sea Harrier FA2 operating from the carrier and that the Sea Harrier was instrumental in establishing and maintaining the no fly zone.

What happened

Operations in the Balkans took place over a number of separate phases, operations and years.

Bosnia

In 1993 in support of Operation Deny Flight the RAF deployed Tornado F3s, Boeing Sentry AEW1s, SEPECAT Jaguars and Tristar tankers.

During 1993 and 1994 the Sea Harrier was deployed on three separate non contiguous tours in support of Deny Flight and on the 16th of April 1994 a Sea Harrier was shot down by a SA-7 whilst carrying out a close air support mission.

In 1994 8 Harrier GR7’s were deployed to Gioia del Colle in Italy on July 28th to relieve the Jaguar force and undertake ground attack and reconnaissance tasks as part of Operation Deny Flight. These were reinforced with more GR7’s later. In total, the GR7 flew just over 175 sorties and remained deployed until 1999 as part of the NATO Rapid Reaction Force.

Kosovo and Serbia

With the collapse of diplomatic talks to settle the conflict in Kosovo Operation Allied Force commenced. Tornados, Harrier GR7’s and Sea Harrier FA2’s took part, plus the usual array of support aircraft; it was also the first operational outing for Royal Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The operation was from March 24 1999 to June 10, 1999

HMS Invincible arrived from the Gulf on April 17th and flew their first combat air patrol (of 102 flown) soon after. On the 27th of May, HMS Invincible arrived back in the UK on May 27th, 1999.

GR7’s flew 870 sorties and released 894 weapons, ending at 16 aircraft in theatre.

On April 4th Group Captain Travers Smith, an RAF spokesman, commented

This is yet another form of frustration. Now that the weather has cleared they have taken off, but there is nothing for them to hit. This was the first of the daytime operations for the GR7’s that have managed to get airborne (without weather problems). Their prime purpose today would have been to hit mobile targets that would have been identified by other means. During the period that GR7’s were airborne, no such opportunities presented themselves, so the Harriers returned with their bombs

The weather was to play a significant role, of the 78 day campaign, only 25 days had good weather. This coupled with highly restrictive rules of engagement, the lack of all weather precision munitions and an extremely capable and wily opponent meant that considerable challenges were placed in the path of the air forces and as usual, many lessons were identified, particularly the need for all weather precision munitions and improved communications/coordination with NATO allies.

The weather over the target played a more significant part in hampering the air operation than the weather over the launch area so no amount of repositioning would have helped.

Despite this the GR7’s, with their integrated GPS/INS were approved to release weapons through the clouds against pre approved targets where the risk of collateral damage was relatively low. Tangential, but relevant to the list, USMC Harrier II’s were also employed from naval vessels but of the 58 sorties planned, many were cancelled, about a third, due to bad weather.

The air campaign was followed by the ground component which saw the use of 8 RAF Chinooks and 6 Pumas.

A good overview of this phase is here

Democratic Republic of Congo, 1997

In Operation Determinant 4 Pumas were deployed to Libreville and Brazzaville in the Congo, with support troops, as a precaution against the possibility that British citizens might need to be evacuated from the Zairian capital, Kinshasa

No mention of this in the article.

2000, Sierra Leone

The article talked up the benefits of having a floating base and national command centre. It also claimed that RAF pilots embarked on the the carrier were so concerned about finding their way back to the ship the Sea Harriers had to do their missions for them

What happened

The engagement in Sierra Leone comes in three parts, Operation Palliser, Basilica and Operation Barras.

Palliser

Civil war started in Sierra Leone in 1991 and before it ended in 2002 over a million people had been displaced and the widespread and indiscriminate violence, sexual violence, mutilation and use of child soldiers was to leave a lasting legacy. Into this complex mix had been thrown private military companies, diamond mining and interventions from neighbouring countries. UN Security Resolution 1270 established the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) that was a 6,000 strong ground force (rising to 11,000), including 15 British personnel as observers.

Operation Palliser was mounted to evacuate non combatants (NGO’s, UK/EU citizens et) from the country when increased fighting threatened the capital, Freetown and 208 Zambian UN soldiers were ambushed and captured by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF)

In early may 2002, the UN requested to support the ineffective UNAMSIL which was rapidly loosing control of the situation. Initially, France, the UK and USA declined, getting involved in an African civil war had little attraction but given the historic ties the UK had with Sierra Leone it was viewed by Robin Cook and Geoff Hoon as our back garden.

On the 5th of May Brigadier David Richards (yes, that one) the Joint Task Force Headquarters (JTFHQ) commander was ordered to deploy.

On the 6th of May, lead elements, the Operational Liaison and Reconnaissance Team (OLRT), arrived at Lunghi Airport in Freetown to prepare for the rest of the force.

On the evening of the 7th of May, RAF Hercules and Chinook, staging out of Senegal, had transported 1 Para and supporting elements to Lunghi Airport.

Also on the 7th of May the Amphibious Ready Group, elements of which were on exercise in the Med were also ordered to deploy. The ARG comprised HMS Ocean, HMS Chatham (type 22) and two RFA vessels. It was to be joined by HMS Illustrious, more RFA vessels and HMS Argyle (Type 23). Also aboard were 42 Commando RM, 4 Sea King, 2 Lynx, 2 Gazelle, 2 Chinook, 7 Sea Harriers and 7 GR7’s.

The troops at Lunghi set up as a consolidation point for evacuees and on the 8th were reinforced and secured Aberdeen Peninsula and the road between the airport and Freetown. Evacuation commenced almost immediately with nearly 300 individuals flown out.

On May 11th the ARG arrived offshore and conducted a number of shows of force using embarked RM and Harriers. 47 GR7 sorties were flown, the first on the 17th and 85 Sea Harrier sorties.

Even without carrying drop tanks the bring back performance, in the temperatures encountered, was one 504 pound bomb, the Mk107 engine was later to improve this enormously but was not fitted to Sea Harrier because of the cost and relatively small fleet.

On the 17th of May the pathfinder platoon was involved in a firefight with the RUF at Lunghi Loi Village.

With the situation stabilising and the evacuation complete 1 Para were relieved by 42 Commando on May 26th

Palliser ended on 15th June but a number of personnel were committed to build on the security gains made during Palliser.

So it seems to me that the RAF effected theatre entry, again, surely this is some mistake!

Basilica

Operation Basilica established a small advisory team and in July a battalion of Royal Irish Regiment set up a jungle training camp just outside Freetown. A little known operation was also mounted during this period, called Operation Kukhri, to assist the UN forces rescue 220 Indian soldiers that had been surrounded by the RUF. C130 and Chinook were involved

It is also worth noting that op Silkman, an amphibious show of force’ conducted in November (after Barras) was hugely effective in supporting the UN forces and ongoing peace process

Barras

On August 25th a small party of RIR travelling in 3 Land Rovers were captured by the West Side Boys, a rebel group. After a series of protracted negotiations a rescue operation was mounted including SBS/SAS, 1 Para, 3 Lynx and 3 Chinook helicopters.

2003 to 2009, Iraq

The article highlights how a lack of range meant that carriers had to ‘take them to the fight’ and how they caused difficulties on HMS Ark Royal because of a lack of blade fold.

What happened

Operation Telic commenced and RAF aircraft provided about 6% of coalition sorties and released over 900 weapons, of which 85% were precision-guided.

The air tanker fleet dispersed 19 million pounds of fuel, over 40% of which is given to United States Navy and Marine Corps aircraft.

Aircraft involved included Tornado, Harrier, Tornado f3, Nimrod MR2, Tristar, VC10, E3 Sentry, Hercules, Nimrod R1, BAe125, Hercules, Canberra, Puma, Merlin and Chinook.

The operation lasted from 19th March 2003 to 30th April 2009.

The initial UK operation was to secure Umm Qasr, especially oil installation on the Al Faw peninsula and this was carried out in conjunction with the USMC and Polish personnel.

The Iraq – Lesson learned document from the MoD provides a good overview of the assault on Al Faw, here

The joint plan was for special forces to secure helicopter landing sites and other key areas then 42 and 40 Commando would clear the remaining area and secure them over the assault phase. The majority of heliborne assaults were launched from Tactical Assembly Area Viking, in Kuwait. A, B and C Co  of 40 Commando lifted from Kuwait and D Co from HMS Ocean. The landings were supported with a variety of land and ship based weapons and aircraft.

More information here and here

Al Faw is often used to highlight the effectiveness of aircraft carriers but in all the pieces I have read from the usual suspects, none of them make any mention whatsoever of the role of TAA Viking or the Army units that took part and it is this kind of selective view of history, deliberately excluding the role of others that really niggles me.

Summary

So there we are; a rambling trip through the last several decades of UK military aviation. I have left off operations in Afghanistan and Libya deliberately and might look at these separately and as I mentioned above, will be looking at Black Buck in some detail soon.

The list above also excludes air defence of the United Kingdom, development and maintenance of the strategic deterrent until Polaris, supporting the Polaris and Trident deterrent submarines, supporting the BAOR, transport, various humanitarian deployments and search and rescue.

If you have got this far then I congratulate you on a feat of unparalleled endurance!

Clearly, both the RAF and FAA have contributed significantly to operations since the end of the war, no one can doubt this.

The historical evidence leads to me the conclusion that land based and naval aviation are entirely complimentary but the campaign by some has over inflated the value of aircraft carriers, made extensive use of selective arguments and in some cases used juvenile language to try and argue that one is somehow ‘much betterer’ than the other, it’s like saying my dad is bigger than yours.

The definition of ‘British Combat Airpower’ is also rather selective for it assumes that combat power is derived purely from strike fighter aircraft, this is complete nonsense of course, logistics and intelligence are equally as important, if not more so.

There is no doubt in my mind of the value of naval fixed wing aviation but instead of putting forward a balanced view those made by some of its over enthisiastic supporters are highly partisan, make a selection of cheap shots and have little or no reflection in the reality of history, without any operational or political context and with language that more or less tries to belittle the contribution of the RAF and its personnel, it is really not the way to make a compelling case.

I think it also actually fails to properly highlight the huge contribution made to British operations and the art of combat flying by the Fleet Air Arm and its predecessors and thus scores a spectacular own goal.

There is some of underlying truth in what the campaign says, naval aviation in the Suez campaign for example was much more responsive, of course it was, it was only a few minutes flying time away from Port Said, but that fundamentally misses the point that Suez was a brilliant all arms operation that made maximum use of the capabilities of all three services.

It is one thing making a case for your service, it is one thing to highlight the significant historical achievements of the Royal Navy and Fleet Air Arm, it is one thing to highlight the undoubted flexibility of naval aviation but it is quite another to denigrate another service with little or no basis in fact, make a collection of childish arguments that say more about them than the service they seem to be spending so much energy on denigrating and see naval aviation in the wider context.

I find it rather amusing that the collection of anti RAF ranters are doing a much better job of promoting the RAF than even the RAF would ever hope to do.

Carry on fellas, your doing a grand job.

I wonder if the articles in question have been removed, you know what, I can’t even be arsed to check.

Sources

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2035A%20-%20Seminar%20-%20the%20RAF%20Harrier%20Story.pdf

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2030%20-%20Seminar%20-%20The%20Falklands%20Campaign.pdf

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/C0054AE0_1143_EC82_2EE9013F84C9F82E.pdf

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/tornado.htm

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/Annotations/gwaps.htm

The Falklands conflict twenty years on: lessons for the future

Osprey – Essential Histories 049 – The Suez Crisis 1956

Suez 1956: Operation Musketeer

Certain Death in Sierra Leone, The SAS and Operation Barras 2000

The Royal Navy in the Falklands Conflict and Gulf War: Culture and Strategy

Air War in the Falklands

Argentine Air Forces in the Falklands Conflict

The Official History of the Falklands Campaign Vol. 2

Britain, NATO and the Lessons of the Balkans Conflicts

Kosovo: Lessons from the Crisis, MoD

The Lessons of Bosnia

European Contributions to Operation Allied Force

Disjointed War

Conflict in the Balkans

Britain’s Air Arms in Action 1945-1990

About Think Defence

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

336 thoughts on “The Post They Tried to Kill

  1. Topman

    @ wf

    ‘You may recall my expressed desire to subsume both the RM and RAF regiment into the Army…’

    Why not the other way around?

  2. ChrisM

    @ Chris B
    I have no allegiance to any service. If anything I prefer shiny flying things to boats or green stuff.
    You keep yelling “facts” without evidence, yet allege that nothing I say has any solidity.
    I still dont understand how you think the RAF should continue to fly everything because they know it all, yet claim that helicopters and planes are completely different things for anyone else to control.

    I work in financial services and have been through a load of mergers. Costs get stripped out in a massive way. If two teams do the same thing then generally one of those teams gets binned, and the other picks up the extra work with a couple of extra junior people. You dont keep two CEOs, or two boards, or two sets of senior management, and middle management gets nearly halved. The property portfolio normally shrinks as well, and HR, and IT and all other support services.
    I also have much experience of outsourcing (which is effectively what the support helicopters are) and it isnt good. The outsourcer concentrates on what they wont do, not what they could do – if you want anything extra you better bend over and grab your ankles. Their staff are interested in succeeding in their structure, not helping yours. And you end up with big middle offices and internal teams doing much of the stuff you thought you had outsourced.

  3. Brian Black

    Just to show that some of these RAF arguments are nothing new. The member for Walthamstow East speaking in 1973, from Hansard. “Although one may argue that at present the Army Air Corps is in no way equipped to cope with such a complex aircraft the logic of having [Harrier] in the Army Air Corps rather than the Royal Air Force seems inescapable. That also applies to the logic of having [Chinook] in the Army Air Corps rather than the RAF, because a medium-lift helicopter would be there for the logistic support not only of Harriers but of troops.”

  4. Chris.B.

    @ ChrisM

    “I still dont understand how you think the RAF should continue to fly everything because they know it all, yet claim that helicopters and planes are completely different things for anyone else to control
    – Try asking yourself this question then; does the AAC operate fast jets, Large transports, tankers, AEW aircraft, and fixed wing ISTAR assets? The answer is no. Now ask yourself this; does the RAF already fly quite a lot of helicopters? The answer is yes.

    Or in other words, the AAC only does a fraction of the flying that the RAF does while the RAF already does all the flying that the AAC does. I’m not trying to argue against the AAC, I have no issue with them, but you seem to fail to understand the underlying fact that the RAF has the knowledge and experience to do all the AAC’s jobs, but the reverse is not true.

    As for the mergers thing, I’m sorry but your description of how easy and seamless it is suggests that you’ve probably never been through one, let alone many. Mergers take place for a number of reasons, only one of which is when two similar businesses merge, which is when the most savings are achieved.

    But we’re not talking about two similar businesses are we? We’re talking about merging two or more services that do utterly different things. The FAA has no current fast jet department, to use a civilian phrase. It has no department that handles the acquisition of missiles for fast jets. It has no department for handling the acquisition of bombs for fast jets. It has no department with experience of managing the through life costs of Typhoon, or Tornado, or Voyager, or Globemaster.

    You seem to think that all these tasks are going to magically disappear. They are not. And you’re still not understanding the point about senior officers. The Navy will need its own chief of the air staff if it where to assume a large chunk of RAF assets. The AAC would need the same. Thus you’ve just traded one senior chief for two. Even if those two are down one pay grade from the chief of the air staff, the fact that there are two of them will make them more expensive. Ergo, your proposed savings are a myth. This really isn’t that hard to grasp, or at least I believed so.

    As for the outsourcing thing, what are you talking about? The RAF has been operating helicopters in support of the army for many, many years now, achieving generally high levels of servicability and support. Like I said, the RAF has been fighting the government for several years now 9including the last lot) to try and get more Chinooks to support the army, so how is that considered not trying to do the best by the “customer”? You’re claims that the RAF don’t want to help the army or are not interested in jobs like transport are simply not backed up by the facts. You’re essentially just plucking your argument out of thin air with no support what so ever.

    @ wf,
    You’ve fallen into the same trap with Topman that I laid with those loaded questions. On the one hand you’re arguing that the RAF Regiment and Royal Marines should be taken over by the army because it is the biggest provider of fighting men/infantry. But when Topman suggested the same logic could apply to the RAF taking over helicopters, it was all “but, but, but,” and you can’t give him a reasonable answer.

    You, like many others in this debate, want to have your cake and eat it. You think you’re line of argument works wonderfully until its turned back on you, and then all of a sudden you’re left scrabbling for excuses as to why this is so very different now that the shoe is on the other foot.

    That’s when we hear “uh, uh, ethos! Corporate Knowledge! History!” etc, the same arguments that you poo hooed when they were used against you as being irrelevant. Now that the tide has changed all of a sudden these things become the most relevant and important reasons in the world.

    Now to throw another spanner in the works and chuck another loaded question at you which you can’t possibly hope to answer without backtracking over your previous statements. You said, “My point is still valid, that a capability requirement is best funded by those that use them,” and have argued that the end user/customer/benefactor should be the one who has control over the item.

    Fine, here goes; why not hand over control of funding and operation of the aicraft carriers and their air groups to the army, after all, UK carriers have seen the majority of their operational deployments in support of land operations, supporting the army?

    Is that not the excuse that you and others have used against the RAF? That the RAF is just supporting the army and the army is the prime benefactor, thus the army should have control of RAF assets? Well the Carriers primary role is to support land campaigns, therefore by your line of logic they should be controlled by the army, no?

    As for this; “Actually, most of that is handed by civil servants, not uniformed personnel[sic]“. This just shows how little research you’ve done and how bloody ill informed you are about this particular subject. There was even a post right here on TD breaking down who did what and how many senior officers were involved on the various projects and back office streams for the RAF, RN and army. I know… because I wrote it!

    @ IXION,
    I’m actuall not in favour of the proposals suggested such as shifting amphibious landing and naval transport over to the army, in the same way that I wouldn’t support the above question of putting carriers in the hands of the army.

    These are mere logical traps, designed to catch people out with their own anti-RAF arguments. They’re frankly a little silly and in all likelyhood completely unworkable, but work on the same basic and flawed principles that are put forward by others for ripping off chunks of the RAF without good reason.

    The only thing that comes close to being reasonable is the suggestion that the Royals Marines (sans the Fleet Protection Group) could be passed to the Army, but even that is a very sketchy argument that isn’t really justified given that the Royal Marines have had no problems slotting in with the routine deployments alongside the army.

    Just thought I’d clarify that for you,

    @ Challenger,
    I’d agree to partake in a sound, reasoned debate about disolving the RAF if there was a legitimate cause given and if it wasn’t driven by petty politics. Trouble is there is no sound reasoning that’s been put forward.

    Rather people keep dredging up the same tired old arguments that have more holes in them than a lump of Swiss Cheese, that have been repeatedly exposed as fundamentally flawed and in some cases completely unworkable, but then persist in trying to press them home despite this.

    To me that can only be driven by a service rivalry. Without sound logic behind them, and in many cases being horribly logically flawed, there is no other explanation for suggesting such plans. When such arguments are turned on there head and the Navy is suddenly under the spotlight, it’s interesting to see how the debate shifts and all of a sudden all the reasons swept under the carpet for protecting the RAF are now dusted off and held up as being exceptional reasons why the logical under pinning of the arguments against the RAF do not apply the other way.

    I hope that helps.

  5. IXION

    CHRIS B

    Just for the record constantly beating your chest about how everyone’s arguments are supposidly full of logical holes does not make it so. (They’re not. They might be full of practical difficulties- that does not make them illogical) Likewise constantly banging on about how it’s all driven by interservice rivalry does not make it so.

    Of course I knew your little bit about giving the carriers to the RAF was not serious.

    BTW Attempting to attack peoples arguments for being illogical, by trying to reverse them, and then when people deliberatly spring the trap. Point out that you were not serious as it would not possibly work that way, at all is not a good debating technic if nothing else.

    ‘You, like many others in this debate, want to have your cake and eat it. You think you’re line of argument works wonderfully until its turned back on you, and then all of a sudden you’re left scrabbling for excuses as to why this is so very different now that the shoe is on the other foot’

    You have in effect shot down your own arguement you have advanced in several threads, to prove how I and fellow travelers are wrong on this point…. That you can sucesfully reverse the ‘Anti RAF’ arguemnent and give control of the other forces to the RAF….

    You constantly refused to engage the central point of economies of scale by asserting that it’s just not so. In effect you appear stuck in the rut of …

    ‘The RAF does it this way, so that’s the way it will have to be done by everyone else, so there is no benefit in anyone else do it’

    If we scrap the RAF we lose a big chunk of it’s admin, EVEN IF WE KEEP THE CURRENT FORCE STRUCTURE. Not all of it I grant you, But you will loose a big chunk of it. We will we have 2 pay structures not 3, 2 payroles, not 3. 2 suply networks not 3. etc etc There is no reason why semi autonomous units of the RN and Army should retain the same sceniority heads as before… The oppourtunity could and should be taken to cut out some of the huge over supply of Chiefs over indians in all 3 services, at the same time.

    And that is Without considering alternate ways of doing it. I give you one solitary example. AAC NCO pilots instant savings on all chopper pilots.

    Oh and I have been involved in several mergers good and bad..

  6. wf

    @Chris.B:

    “On the one hand you’re arguing that the RAF Regiment and Royal Marines should be taken over by the army because it is the biggest provider of fighting men/infantry”. Err, no, I didn’t specify my reason.

    “But when Topman suggested the same logic could apply to the RAF taking over helicopters, it was all “but, but, but”. Can’t see that, I suggested that I wasn’t averse to other services swapping functions. I’ll repeat my reasoning for you: SHF are there primarily as capabilities for the land forces. The budget for such should logically therefore sit with the Army, so the Army should probably provide the capability.

    “the Carriers primary role is to support land campaigns, therefore by your line of logic they should be controlled by the army, no?”. If you have followed my posts on carriers, you would know that I see the single most important function of a carrier to be air defence for a task group, not land attack.

    ““Actually, most of that is handed by civil servants, not uniformed personnel[sic]“. This just shows how little research you’ve done and how bloody ill informed you are about this particular subject”. Defence Equipment and Support is three quarters civil servants. My experience is tangential since I spent some time working for what was RARDE, but I can assure you there weren’t many servicemen there either. The bosses may be service, but those that dispose, or not, usually aren’t.

    Commercial takeovers usually look for “synergy”: the combination of different capabilities. Two similar businesses merging isn’t usually regarded as a good investment. Yes, I have seen quite a few of the other type too…

    I think we need to ask @TD for a poster filter, so we can check on your rantings without lots of paging :-)

  7. Chris.B.

    @ wf,

    “SHF are there primarily as capabilities for the land forces. The budget for such should logically therefore sit with the Army, so the Army should probably provide the capability”

    – So let me get this straight. You see helicopters as being primarily an army thing, so you believe they should be transferred to the army. But you think the army should also take on the role of the RAF Regiment, despite the RAF being the prime user of that capability?

    Hypocrisy much?

    “If you have followed my posts on carriers, you would know that I see the single most important function of a carrier to be air defence for a task group, not land attack”

    – Woah, woah, woah. A little while ago you and others were all hands on deck bemoaning that the RAF doesn’t understand its end users etc and that’s why they should have their assets stripped. Now you’re doing precisely the same thing.

    You lot claim the RAF doesn’t provide the needed capabilities, being more focused on itself, and yet here you are trying to turn CVF into some kind of mini fleet carrier.

    In UK service those F-35 will be providing air cover, strike, and close air support for land forces, either amphibiously deployed or by other means. Whether you like it or not, that’s what they’ll be doing, i.e. supporting the army.

    You make the case for me. On the one hand you criticise the RAF and say the army should take away the capabilities because it’s better placed to manage them, and yet you’re planning on mismanaging other capabilities yourself.

    And why? Because you know your position is indefensible. You can’t argue on the one hand that helicopters should go to the army because they’re the prime user, but the RAF regiment should be taken away as well. Just the same as you can’t argue that the main benefactor of a capability should own it, then reject the obvious logical reality that means carriers and carrier strike should (under your conditions) be put into the hands of the army too.

    You backed yourself into that corner long ago pal.

    “but I can assure you there weren’t many servicemen there [DE&S] either”

    – Head of Air ISTAR; Lead by an Air Commodore, supported by a Lieutenant Colonel, 2 Majors, 2 other army ranks, 3 Group Captains, 7 Wing Commanders, 20 Squadron Leaders, 14 Flight Lieutenants and 119 other ranks RAF. Head of Air Transport/Air to Air Refuelling; a Major, 1 other army rank, 2 Group Captains, 8 Wing Commanders, 21 Squadron Leaders, 13 Flight lieutenants, 45 other ranks RAF. Head of Typhoon; an Air Commodore along with 2 Group Captains, 9 Wing Commanders, 20 Squadron Leaders, 12 Flight Lieutenants, 37 other ranks RAF.

    Shall I go on? Total RAF personnel in DE&S some;
    - 2 Air Vice Marshals
    - 14 Air Commodores
    - 33 Group Captains
    - 130 Wing Commanders
    - 241 Squadron Leaders
    - 150 Flight Lieutenants
    - 1009 other ranks

    If you really think you’re just going to cut all these people out and carry on fine then you’re bonkers. The fact that you tried to play down the existence of these people would put into question your claim about being close to DE&S.

    “Commercial takeovers usually look for “synergy”: the combination of different capabilities. Two similar businesses merging isn’t usually regarded as a good investment”

    – If only Santander had your wisdom, then they wouldn’t have wasted time buying Abbey National. Virgin Money wouldn’t have wasted so many millions buying Northern Rock. Commercial takeovers are made for a variety of reasons, everything from consolidating competing businesses, to gaining access to something desirable that other people have (patents, technology, expertise, niche market share, goodwill etc). Two similar businesses merging is one of the most fundamental forms of merger, so your claim about it being not a good investment leave a heck of a lot to be desired.

  8. wf

    @Chris.B

    “You see helicopters as being primarily an army thing, so you believe they should be transferred to the army. But you think the army should also take on the role of the RAF Regiment, despite the RAF being the prime user of that capability?

    Hypocrisy much?”

    It would indeed be so if I was using the same justification. Would you like to hear my reasoning as to why I think the RAF Regt should go to the Army? You still haven’t heard it yet….

    “then reject the obvious logical reality that means carriers and carrier strike should (under your conditions) be put into the hands of the army too”. I pointed out that I didn’t see carriers primarily as supporters of the Army. Mind you, that justification *does* apply to most portions of the RAF :-)

    “but I can assure you there weren’t many servicemen there [DE&S] either”. Misquote there, RARDE became DRA, then Qinetiq. I didn’t say DE&S. Anyway, the point still stands: DE&S is primarily staffed by civil servants. If I’d declared all the RAF presence in DE&S should disappear overnight, we might well be in trouble. But I didn’t, I merely pointed out that in the long run, having two services involved in aviation rather than three would produce savings.

    Santander bought Abbey because it had something it didn’t, a major UK high street presence. Point proven. Please don’t associate Northern Rock with the word success!

    Please read comments before commenting. It helps no end :-)

  9. Chris.B.

    @ wf

    1) It doesn’t matter what your reason may or may not be for wanting the RAF shifted, your argument about helicopters is that because you consider the army as the prime user they should be handed over to the army. Ergo, following that line of reasoning, the RAF Reg would have to stay with the RAF because they are the prime user. There is no way for you to back track out of that argument,

    2) It doesn’t what your opinion of carrier aviation is. The carriers will primarily be used on operations to support deployed land forces, thus again by your line of reasoning that would make the army the natural choice to own and operate them. Just because you’re trying to dodge that argument because you’ve realised you’ve put yourself in a logical bind, doesn’t make the argument any less valid.

    3) You’re argument about DE&S (“Actually, most of that is handed by civil servants, not uniformed personnel”) is provably false. The majority of those tasks such as handling the Typhoon program are managed by service personnel and contain large numbers of service personnel. Now other than helicopters you don’t have three services heavily involved in aviation. If you tried to merge the RAF with the other two you could not delete any of the current streams or cut the manpower, because if they’re needed then they would be needed in the future. The likely hood is that you would also create additional streams, needing more personnel not less. If you truly did work for Qinetiq, or are representative of the kind of people they employ, then your failure to understand this basic principle goes a long way to explaining procurement costs and mismanagement in defence.

    4) You’re right about Santander which is why I brought it up because it makes this statement; “Two similar businesses merging isn’t usually regarded as a good investment” seem silly. They both do similar business and merged (or rather Santander took over) because it gave Santander something new. Now as for Northern Rock, I didn’t call it a success, but for Virign Money it is a good investment. Again, similar businesses, broadly speaking, merging to create a good investment, in contradiction to your aloof but ill informed statement.

    “Please read comments before commenting. It helps no end” — In your case it doesn’t, because all you do is dance around the fact that you’ve been caught with pants down, from an debating perspective.

    @ IXION,

    “(They’re not. They might be full of practical difficulties- that does not make them illogical)”
    – Actually they are. If I argue that my business should take all the vans from your business because I use those vans the most, I can’t then cry wolf when someone else says points out that they should take all my motorbikes, because they use the motorbikes more than me. Crying wolf because someone has used the same logic to take my stuff as I used to take your stuff is… illogical.

    “Likewise constantly banging on about how it’s all driven by interservice rivalry does not make it so.”
    – If it’s not driven by practical, operational or financial reality, then that doesn’t leave a lot of reasons left in the tank.

    “BTW Attempting to attack peoples arguments for being illogical, by trying to reverse them, and then when people deliberatly spring the trap. Point out that you were not serious as it would not possibly work that way, at all is not a good debating technic if nothing else.”
    – Actually it is. It’s called turning peoples stupid arguments against them. Just because they are miffed at being caught red handed with their fingers in the bullshit jar does not mean it is an ineffective technique.

    “You have in effect shot down your own arguement you have advanced in several threads, to prove how I and fellow travelers are wrong on this point…. That you can sucesfully reverse the ‘Anti RAF’ arguemnent and give control of the other forces to the RAF….”
    – That didn’t make a lot of sense, but I presume you’re talking about the threads where people have said ‘we’ll take all the technicians and just change the shirt colours’. To which I and others have responded that if it was that simple, why not do it in reverse? To which you and others then usually respond “but, but, but, but….”

    “You constantly refused to engage the central point of economies of scale by asserting that it’s just not so.”
    – Because anyone with a basic grasp of maths and organisational management could tell you that your “economies of scale” do not exist. They are a fantasy created through a lack of understanding of how large organisations work. A good example being below.

    “If we scrap the RAF we lose a big chunk of it’s admin, EVEN IF WE KEEP THE CURRENT FORCE STRUCTURE. Not all of it I grant you, But you will loose a big chunk of it. We will we have 2 pay structures not 3, 2 payroles, not 3. 2 suply networks not 3. etc etc”
    – You may only have 2 structures, but you still have the same number of people that need to be paid, and thus the same amount of paperwork to be completed. You may only have 2 supply networks, but they still have to provide the same volume and variety of goods as the three networks did. Just because you’ve changed the name on the header of the form does not mean you’ve gotten rid of the form or the goods listed on it.

    A 5 year old could grasp this FFS.

    “There is no reason why semi autonomous units of the RN and Army should retain the same sceniority heads as before… The oppourtunity could and should be taken to cut out some of the huge over supply of Chiefs over indians in all 3 services, at the same time.”
    – Well it’s lucky that both the other services are currently so efficient with their manpower, for example not assigning Admirals or Generals to lead various important projects…. oh wait. They do.

    You’re argument is based on hope and fairy dust. That is not a sound basis to go about making large organisational upheavels.

  10. ChrisM

    @Chris B – so your main argument against my thoughts is that they must be service centric? Seeing as I have no loyalty to any particular service I guess that means I must actually be right….
    Who do all those Heads of report to? Higher ups in the RAF. They would all go, and the Heads of would now report into other services structures. Of course the Heads of might not need to be so ranking if they are joining similar areas. The Army already has people in charge of the RLC who can oversee Air Transport, and presumably has its own head of ISTAR and head of helicopters. The Navy will be needing a Head of FJs soon, the RAF one could transfer over and look after all FJs. etc etc

    The RAF/FAA/AAC are very similar businesses. They operate military aircraft. Specialist knowledge would come over with the people who operate the individual types. Some high command would merge into the new structure. Its all good, and cheaper.

    Sure the RAF want more Chinooks, they are in their empire – leading to service rivalry issues in procurement. But it should be up to the army to decide what type of helicopters they want, and how they want to operate them. They are tactical airlift, they should be in the tactical command structure.

    PS I would keep the “RAF regiment”. But it would become an army specialist regiment. Is the RAF really the sole user, as places like Bastion are bases that also fly planes, not just airfields?

    PPS How does the RAF justify that rank structure under Head of ISTAR!! How many planes are all those officers operating??!!

  11. ChrisM

    @Chris B

    You clearly dont understand administration and support activities.
    If you merge three payroles into two you do indeed have the same number of “customers”. However you need fewer people to run them, as all the automated systems and reporting absorb most of the size gain. You dont need two people to report the MI and instruct the payments. You dont need two people to review the sickness MI, there will be one report not two. etc etc.

  12. topman

    @ chris m there’s only so much one person can do. The head of the rlc wouldn’t have enough hours in the day to have to look after 2 group as well. They aren’t really that similar either.

  13. wf

    @Chris.B

    “It doesn’t matter what your reason may or may not be for wanting the RAF shifted…There is no way for you to back track out of that argument”. You don’t want to hear my argument, but you want to rubbish one I haven’t made? It’s the Twilight Zone here…

    “It doesn’t what your opinion of carrier aviation is{sic]. The carriers will primarily be used on operations to support deployed land forces, thus again by your line of reasoning that would make the army the natural choice to own and operate them. Just because you’re trying to dodge that argument because you’ve realised you’ve put yourself in a logical bind, doesn’t make the argument any less valid.” It’s entirely likely carriers will often be used to support land forces on operations. But they aren’t going to be doing this the majority of the time, unless you regard sea control and convoy escort as Army support because STUFT and amphibs will be in the latter. Please drink less Red Bull :-)

    “You’re argument about DE&S (“Actually, most of that is handed by civil servants, not uniformed personnel”) is provably false” But three quarters of the personnel are civilian: how?

    “The majority of those tasks such as handling the Typhoon program are managed by service personnel and contain large numbers of service personnel”. Agreed. But technical management will not be, because most servicemen or women won’t have the experience.

    “Now other than helicopters you don’t have three services heavily involved in aviation”. The majority of UK military aircraft *are* helicopters.

    “If you tried to merge the RAF with the other two you could not delete any of the current streams or cut the manpower, because if they’re needed then they would be needed in the future”. Correct, but as others have pointed out the program management won’t change because the teams change uniforms. The RAF staff will.

    “The likely hood is that you would also create additional streams, needing more personnel not less”. Why, are we going to buy more aircraft types?

    “If you truly did work for Qinetiq, or are representative of the kind of people they employ, then your failure to understand this basic principle goes a long way to explaining procurement costs and mismanagement in defence”. Read my comment, I worked for RARDE, and have mentioned it before. Qinetiq was far in the future when I was there. Try not to insult large numbers of people whom you’ve never met…oh forget it, what am I thinking?

  14. Brian Black

    It seems quite reasonable to me that the RAF should give up its helicopters. The AAC exists to provide Close Support to the Army; arguably, the role of the RAF’s helicopters has long since shifted from being GS logistics vehicles to becoming CS battlefield assets. The development of heli-borne manoevre and air-assault has brought about that change. The RN of course has its own uniquely naval helicopter requirements.

    The joint helicopter force just looks like a fudge to avoid addressing the issue – recognizing the need to combine the battlefield support helicopters in a single force for increased efficiency, while wanting to avoid upsetting folks.

    Either there is a requirement for the Army’s close support aviation to be operated by the Army -in which case they should get the RAF’s choppers- or there isn’t -in which case, disband the AAC.

  15. Alex

    The problem with “Scrap the RAF” or “Give the Army all the land based helos” or “Give the Army the RM” or “Give the RAF Regiment the Army” etc. is that mergers are very often shit, in general. When Company X buys Company Y, it is notorious that the people who benefit are the bankers and lawyers who arrange the deal and the execs in charge, and the combined company is very often worth less than the sum of its parts. Further, the integration process usually sacks a lot of people and then discovers that there were reasons for a lot of the organisational functions they closed existing, and has to recreate them, but worse.

  16. IXION

    Chris B

    Your ‘cunning argument’- at least As I understand it, is:-

    ‘That If Army and RN can take over RAF then the RAF can Take over the Army and the RN, so why not have just the one’

    You use this argument to attack any one suggesting the disbandment of the RAF, as an RN or Army stooge. So when I for the sake of argument say OK then lets look at that, you cry out (in Terms):-

    ‘HA! Caught you of course it’s bollocks I never for one moment thought the RAf could take over the carriers. It just show how stupid you are..’

    In effect to use your own analogy, when business A has taken your vans, you suggest Business B takes the motorbikes and when the manager of Business A says ‘OK lets look at that’..

    The manager of business B shouts

    ‘Ha never wanted your smelly motorbikes anyway and that proves why you should not have taken my vans…..’

    Sorry don’t get how that advances you arguments one little bit….?

    AS for the rest:-

    You accuse me of ignorance of organisational economics.

    Sorry but with modern largely paperless systems, you can run a 50,000 people pay role pretty much with the same number as 25,000 pay role.

    Likewise the 2 rather than 3 argument. It is of course not just changing the name on the form. If you think that is all that’s involved with in a merger then you are truly ignorant of management practice.

    Centralised supply / ordering the world over is done precisely because does lead to reductions in manpower, and often a more efficient service.

    What you are in effect saying is that all the worlds major enterprises are wrong about how to do business, and economies of scale.. Ok if you want to believe that… that’s fine.

    OH and I did say the other services need to reorganise as well…

  17. wf

    @Alex: yes, it often turns out that way. My experience is that merging two companies that do complementary things can work, often when both have something they can take the lead in. But if they both do much the same stuff in the same places, and it’s all about increasing market share….oh dear :-(

  18. The Other Chris

    Engineering has a term for what’s causing this argument: Impedance Mismatch.

    It’s a common problem pattern and can be applied to issues in electronics, software, mechanics and biological systems as the prominent disciplines amongst others.

    The root cause of your arguments is attempting to divide roles between three defined services: It gives rise to solution thinking based solely on which service is the best fit to provide a given role.

    The more appropriate solution methodology to the problem pattern is to remove the Impedance, in this case the concept of separate Services, and focus on the provision of the roles themselves.

    Some examples of Roles:

    - Air defence
    - Reconnaissance
    - Air Transportation
    - Command
    - Sea Control/Denial
    - R&D
    - Small Arms Training
    - Surveillance
    - Strategy
    - Urban warfare
    - CAS
    - BFPO
    - Sea Transportation
    - Amphibious assault
    - Helicopter maintenance
    - etc

    You sweep through all of the roles and determine commonality, applying the concept of DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) to eliminate duplication where possible, though often some similar roles will remain such as Ground Based, Sea Based and Air Based Air Warfare capability where the application of a role may be significantly different.

    The Command service then contacts the other role-based services to send elements in support of an operation.

    e.g. To support another Mogadishu

    - Command
    - Urban Warfare
    - CAS
    - Air Transportation
    - Surveillance
    - etc

    e.g. To send mail to our personnel in the Falklands

    - BFPO
    - Sea Transportation

    This is a tried and tested solution pattern to the Impedance Mismatch problem, I’ll leave you folks to decide how to actually broach applying this to the Services…

  19. Challenger

    The idea of moving helicopters in particular isn’t a merger as such, it’s moving something out of one command structure in-to another.

    I think it was Lewis Page who mentioned how before Suez the RAF wasn’t interested in helicopters, their was a general consensus that they would remain the purview of the Army and the Navy whilst the RAF concentrated on fixed wing aviation (yes I know the FAA had jets!).

    Now I’m not going to get into why this set-up changed or delve in-to the nightmare of service rivalry. I consider myself to be neutral when it comes to inter-service politics, I want what’s best and most effective for the service personnel involved, the taxpayer and the national interest.

    However I do not see what was wrong with that initial division of assets when it comes to helicopters. This is for the reasons of what helicopters broadly do and where they operate.

    1. Different types of helicopters tend to be designed, built and used to be fairly service specific. Apaches support troops on the ground, Chinooks lift them about. Similarly Merlin’s hunt submarines and Lynx strike at surface targets. I know there is often a bit of cross over, but I’m dealing with broad attributes here.

    2. RAF aircraft either operate from big airbases in the UK, or the equivalent when they head off for a foreign deployment. This is very different to using dusty or muddy ramshackle forward bases or the confines of a limited deck on a ship at sea.

    Right now somebody will be thinking about the F35. However, does anyone seriously think they are ever going to be deployed in the same way the Harrier could and often was? I would say the Lightning is way too expensive and complicated to ever be used outside of a fully functioning base or a carrier.

    Removing 3rd party involvement in very Army and Navy specific assets can only be a good thing. Why does everyone (I mean Chris B) keep brining up all of this talk of doubling up of personnel and horrific, inefficient waste etc? An Army that controls its helicopters gets more say in how the budget is spent and how the fleet is utilised. Who is going to be more willing to give all out support to troops on the ground the RAF or the AAC?

    Before anyone says it, I’m not gunning for the RAF, id say the same if the situation was reversed. If we were starting again and building armed forces from scratch this is the kind of logical framework that would follow.

    PS

    @Chris B. you keep on and on complaining that people don’t explain their views and dance around the issues. Well I would say you have being doing something very similar in being so overtly hostile to the kind of changes the rest of us have been suggesting. Of course you can have you’re opinion, but you can’t just angrily spit out words like ‘waste’ ‘inefficient’ ‘petty politics’ without having coherent arguments to back them up.

    I can’t speak for others but I don’t necessarily want to get rid of the RAF, only to look at ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of both the budget and how it translates into operational use.

    Id say moving stuff from the RAF to other services may be difficult, but it’s not impossible or illogical.

    There, done! (deep breath).

  20. Topman

    @ Challenger

    ‘An Army that controls its helicopters gets more say in how the budget is spent and how the fleet is utilised.’

    It already does budgetary command and control through Wilton along with the budget.

  21. Challenger

    @Topman

    Ok fair enough, it gets some control, but that’s not the same as having a total say.

    Typhoon useful to everyone, Sentry useful to everyone, Chinook?

    Id much rather see helicopter units absorbed in-to the Army’s new MRB’S. Dedicated fire and lift support is where the futures at!

  22. Chris.B.

    @ Alex,
    – Precisely, someone other than Topman in this thread who actually has a clue.

    @ ChrisM,
    – You’re going to have to forgive me for this and if anyone is easily offended by bad language then I suggest you move on, because I’m raging now and ChrisM I do have to preface this rebuttal by saying that I’m astounded by just how ridiculously fucking stupid and naive you are.

    “Who do all those Heads of report to? Higher ups in the RAF. They would all go, and the Heads of would now report into other services structures”
    – Are you that blind? Perhaps willfully? You think all those departments would just slot into the current command structure? Of course they wont. The Chief of the Air staff would simply be replaced by a Naval Chief of the Air staff. If the Navy is going to take on a great chunk of aviation then it’s going to set up (as you would expect any large organisation to do) a new department that handles all the aviation. And given the size and budget scope of that department, it’ll be topped by a very senior official, likely a Vice Admiral. The Army would also have to do the same, topped by a Lieutenant General. Congratulations then, you’ve saved nothing, but you have managed to add two OF-8 ranks into the structure.

    “Of course the Heads of might not need to be so ranking if they are joining similar areas”
    – What similar areas? What head of Typhoons does the Navy have? What Head of Air Transport does the Army have? Oh that’s right, they don’t, they’d have to create one. And if you think they’d be knocked down in rank, you obviously haven’t seen the kind of ranks that top other programs for both the Army and Navy. It all ends up the same level.

    “The Army already has people in charge of the RLC who can oversee Air Transport”
    – Are you mental? You want the head of the RLC to just pick up Air Transport and run with, as if he doesn’t have enough to do already. I hate to disabuse you of that notion but it would need its own department, as it does now. And guess what, you’d end up replacing the Head of that with a similar OF ranked Army chap. Starting to see how this all works now?

    “The Navy will be needing a Head of FJs soon, the RAF one could transfer over and look after all FJs.”
    – Why would you even bother? This is the whole point and the reason why I continue to bring up accusations of service centric thinking here. You’re saving nothing by doing this, not a penny. You change nothing from an operational perspective, not a thing. You’ve even hired the same bloody bloke! The only thing you’ve done here is arbitrarily change the cap badge. Why? If not for operational or economic reasons, then why do this? The sole answer remaining is out pure bloody spite. How the fuck can you possibly think that is a good way to run an organisation?

    “The RAF/FAA/AAC are very similar businesses. They operate military aircraft”
    – Like I said before, they all operate military aircraft in the same way that you and Michael Schumacher both drive. One of those services does the same sort of flying that the other two do. Two of those services don’t do anything near what the other does.

    “Specialist knowledge would come over with the people who operate the individual types. Some high command would merge into the new structure. Its all good, and cheaper.”
    – Ah, I see you’ve fallen into this old clap trap again. Well I’ll do the same thing to you as has been done to others; why not just change all those dark blue uniforms to light blue, and just bring all the specialists over? “But, but but, but but, ethos!….” I hear you cry. Shut up. If such a flat out repugnantly stupid and simplistic argument works, then it works both ways equally well. There is no getting around this.

    “Sure the RAF want more Chinooks, they are in their empire – leading to service rivalry issues in procurement”
    – So the RAF spends years and years trying to acquire new helicopters to support the army and yet you still think that’s a service rivalry issue with the army? How the bloody hell do you come to these conclusions? Do you have a bingo machine that just spits out balls with random soundbites written on them that you then attach to various statements? Of course the RAF had been providing transport for the army using a certain group of helicopters called Merlins, but somebody took those away from front line transport roles in order to replace Sea Kings? Best keep that one hush fella, that would do your service rivalry arguments against the RAF some serious damage.

    “How does the RAF justify that rank structure under Head of ISTAR!! How many planes are all those officers operating??!!”
    – Perhaps it would be easier to look at the total figures for DE&S to put it into perspective, specifically focusing on the Navy and RAF;

    Total Royal Navy Personnel;
    – 1 Vice Admiral
    – 3 Rear Admirals
    – 12 Commodores
    – 45 Captains
    – 164 Commanders
    – 279 Lieutenant Commanders
    – 218 Lieutenants
    – 1352 other ranks

    Total Royal Air Force Personnel;
    – 1 Air Marshal
    – 2 Air Vice Marshals
    – 14 Air Commodores
    – 33 Group Captains
    – 130 Wing Commanders
    – 241 Squadron Leaders
    – 150 Flight Lieutenants
    – 1009 other ranks

    Or in other words, don’t be getting too outraged lest you realise that there is a slight numbers imbalance there, and that imbalance swings to the Dark Blue side.

    “You clearly dont understand administration and support activities”
    – I think you’ll find I do. And I think you’ll find it is you that has some very naive assumption that there is a pair of office bods sitting somewhere who do all the admin work for the entire service, as opposed to each unit being required to do a lot of its own admin stuff that I suspect it passes up. Hence they would continue to do this regardless of what colour uniform they were wearing. And thus you would once again save precisely fuck all.

    You seem obsessed with the idea that you can save a few million quid by moving people about and possibly losing one or two people along the way. Presuming your largely imaginary savings could be made, for what purpose? You’ve just destroyed an entire service, transferred several thousand people from one service to two others, along with billions of pounds worth of kit and estates, achieved zero operational gain, caused several years worth of rejigging, likely jeopardised many capabilites that will be cut by their new owners because all they really wanted was the budget slice to spend on other things, and all this because you thought you could save a few hundreds of thousands, maybe a few million?

    The staggering scale of the stupidity of such an argument cant be expressed over a keyboard. I would love, love for you to walk into a meeting of the Chiefs of staff and propose that. They’d have the laugh of their bloody lives. Even better, become an MP, stand up in the House of Commons and propose that. You’d be the talking point for years to come.

    The fact that you can’t see how ridiculous and pointless your plan is just boggles my mind. For someone supposedly neutral and this great brain of mergers and admin, you don’t half come across as decidedly ill informed, and possibly slightly insane .

    @ wf
    I see you’re still dodging the questions asked of you? Good, good, keep it up. I’m sure eventually I’ll get bored and that’ll let you off the hook. You seem to have this slightly bizarre notion about CVF, like it’s going to spend its working life sailing up and down the Atlantic protecting convoy’s from zee Germans. I hate to break it to you fella but on operations that thing will be supporting the army. There is no way around that. You’re “it’ll do other things most of the time” line of reasoning applies to basically 100% of the RAF, but of course if you admit that then it jeopardises your entire rational behind disolving the service.

    Your argument was dead in the water from the moment you originally wrote it. I’m basically now just waiting to see how long you think can squirm around it before finally admiting that you can’t have your cake and eat it.

    @ IXION,
    “Your ‘cunning argument’- at least As I understand it, is:-”
    – No, you don’t understand it. The argument being put forward by others is “Group A uses toy B the most, so they should take it away from Group B”. So I countered by pointing out that “Group A also uses toy C the most (owned by group C) so therefore Group A should have that too”. At this point there is a sound of blustering, port being spilled and a whole series of reasons are advanced why this can’t possibly happen, despite the fact that these same reasons were tossed aside when used in defence of Group B.

    “So when I for the sake of argument say OK then lets look at that, you cry out (in Terms):- ‘HA! Caught you of course it’s bollocks I never for one moment thought the RAf could take over the carriers. It just show how stupid you are..’”
    – It does though. I even pointed out clearly when I made them that they were loaded statements designed for the specific purpose of using other peoples fallacious arguments again them, safe in the knowledge that they couldn’t be made without using an astounding level of hypocrisy. You even acknowledged that you were taking the bait when you did it. While I can sympathise to a degree that you made yourself look stupid by trying, that does not change the fact that you effectively put your hand into a set bear trap and our now whining that it went off and took most of your hand with it.

    “Sorry but with modern largely paperless systems, you can run a 50,000 people pay role pretty much with the same number as 25,000 pay role”
    – Providing of course that the data set remains constant and thus does not require the input of new data on any occasion, such as when people have holidays, go off sick, fail to show up for work, change working hours, change shift days, new people start work, other people leave work etc.

    You know, all those things that normal people do in the business world on a regular basis, something you would have realised if you had the first clue about how HR operates.

    “Likewise the 2 rather than 3 argument. It is of course not just changing the name on the form. If you think that is all that’s involved with in a merger then you are truly ignorant of management practice.”
    – I’m sorry, which side was arguing that 3 streams could be converted into 2 at the drop of a hat without any fuss and with no complications in the slightest? Hmmm, that would be your side of the argument. I think you’ll find my argument has always been that it’s a little more complicated than that.

    “Centralised supply / ordering the world over is done precisely because does lead to reductions in manpower, and often a more efficient service”
    – By businessess that deal in their own areas of expertise. If you add a whole new stream of items that need to be supplied, you need a whole new stream of people to manage that supply chain.

    “What you are in effect saying is that all the worlds major enterprises are wrong about how to do business, and economies of scale.. Ok if you want to believe that… that’s fine”
    – I didn’t say that. I’ve been consistently arguing that such businessess are complex organisations that employ a lot of people to do logistical work, and that the notion some have on here that you can just flick a switch and hand over a stream consisting of hundreds of new items that will be picked up seamlessly by the existing supply chain of the new owners is utter bollocks of the first kind.

    “OH and I did say the other services need to reorganise as well…”
    – Why? They’re doing just fine and dandy as it is right now.

  23. The Other Chris

    “…you can’t have your cake and eat it…”

    Not if we continue to think in terms of these conventional structures.

  24. Chris.B.

    @ The Other Chris,

    What I don’t get is this; where are these complaints about the RAF coming from? If you read the accounts of the people who have worked with the RAF’s helicopter pilots, perhaps with the exception of James’s incident with the flare, they generally seem to receive very high praise for their work. Of note is that basically every SF account that gets written, by people who spent an awful lot of time around the RAF and their choppers, seem to be particularly complimentary.

    So why this obsession that people have with taking the helicopters and giving them to the army? Everyone talks about how it will be more efficient and more focused and more this and that etc, despite the fact that the RAF are performing their role to a very high standard and with very few complaints from actual service personnel?

    If there was a problem, maybe we could start the debate, but there isn’t. The only problem people seem to be able to identify at the minute is that the pilots wear light blue dress shirts, while their actual field performance seems to be ignored in favour of rhetoric about how much better things will be once it all goes green.

  25. Pete Arundel

    “So why this obsession that people have with taking the helicopters and giving them to the army?”

    Well, they are ONLY used by the ARMY. They are flown by and maintained by the RAF but their only function is to move the army around and so, logically, they could be flown and maintained by the Army Air Corps (or a new RFC).

    “Everyone talks about how it will be more efficient and more focused and more this and that etc, despite the fact that the RAF are performing their role to a very high standard and with very few complaints from actual service personnel?”

    It’s not an argument about the quality of personnel or training it’s an argument about, basically, just what the RAF is for and if a third service with it’s attendant brass and administration is necessary – that and the fact that if the AAC was flying Chinooks then costs would come down since a NCO is paid less . . . :-)

  26. IXION

    CHRIS B

    OK where do I start…

    OK I did understand your argument. Unfortunately, it appears you did not!

    Go re read your own posts. And not just the ones on this thread, you have been peddling this:

    ‘Well if the navy can take over the RAF, then the RAF can take over the Navy’

    Line as a ‘Killer Argument’ for ages.

    Its balls it’s always been balls, and you finally admitted it several posts back on this thread.. If we were playing cricket I would have yelled HOWZAT! then.

    As for catching me out, or making me look stupid: –

    Not sure where or how you think you managed that, and to what end. It’s a little difficult to argue that you have caught someone out, when they say (in terms);

    ‘I know you are trying to catch me out here, but for the sake of the discussion I will play along’,

    AND

    Who then goes on to point out why I cannot agree with your red herring proposal re Elephants.

    I am quite happy I have not been ‘Caught out’.

    BTW I quite like port. But none has been spluttered about service ethos etc, again as I said earlier we agree about that, I think that’s largely self serving bollocks.

    Remember I am the guy who happy to give marines, (and can see the case for the Amphibs and point class as well) to the army…..

    However like I said before, if it keeps you happy, keep thinking that…..

    As far as toys and group A B C whatever. Put simply whoever plays with the toys most gets to keep them in their cupboard, and clean and look after them.

    Unless of course they play with them so little, and then at the other kids house, that paying for the cupboard and toy cleaning cloths, makes it simpler for the other 2 kids to keep the toys at their houses.

    Like the RAF

    Where have I or anyone else argued that the merger could be carried out at the flick of a switch?

    It would need to be done carefully, with some fore thought and in a staged manner. AND yes there would be one off merger costs, some big redundancy payments for starters…

    As for the rest; The first thing that gets merged, and the first thing to suffer job losses as a result is the back office in any merger.

    I assure you that if you can run 2 X 25,000 pay roles with 2 depts of 8 you will be able to run 50,000 with 10 or maybe 11. And the 5-6 who go will be the top end of the pay scale in that dept.

    Examples.

    Let’s say the RAF runs 3-4 000 GS vehicles and those functions are merged with and army running 20-30 000, obviously most of the mechanics and local stores staff will remain. But the RAF fleet management team will go, almost to a man or woman.

    We will only have one Admiral of the fleet (car parks (North)), Air Vice Marshal (car parks (north)), can collect his cards. OR Visa versa depending on the point at merger which service has more northern car parks….

    One can just go on and on and on with examples form the basic economics of scale textbook..

    But hey,

    If Chris B thinks he is the Greater disputant since ‘Deep thought’
    and the greatest business management expert since Henry Ford, Who am I to argue?

    As the Penguins of Madagascar say:-

    ‘Just smile and waive boys,just smile and waive…’

  27. Simon

    Seems to me that “copters” are the problem, especially the basic utility types. Perhaps we should set up “Copter Command” rebrand the RAF to “Fighter/Bomber Command” and be done with.

  28. The Other Chris

    @Chris.B.

    I’m not sure to be honest. If I had to search for a reason, I’d suggest that the discussions originate more from a desire to increase (restore?) capability rather than service bashing specifically, even if that’s how it comes across.

    - Commenter’s feel the pressure of cuts and budgets
    - Commenter’s want to preserve/restore/increase capability
    - (Due to pride? Desire to continue to be active in world affairs?)
    - Commenter’s look at cost savings/efficiencies to free up budget
    - Incomplete/hasty/inaccurate analysis often ensues as to who is actually doing what

    I genuinely believe they’re coming from a good place though.

    @Pete Arundel

    Some other uses for Helicopters (not exhaustive):

    - ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare)
    - AEW (Airborne Early Warning)
    - VERTREP (Vertical Replenishment)
    - SAR (Search and Rescue)
    - ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance)
    - Ferrying, transport and diplomatic tours around the city/bay
    - CAS (Close Air Support)

    I’ll let you decide if the RAF and RN can make use of these roles too.

    @Simon

    I’m sure I played an 8bit game called ‘Copter Command* back in the eighties! Can’t have been as good as Harrier Attack which, to use @x’s terminology, was “wizard”.

    *Edit: Might have been the 16bit Carrier Command

    @Everyone

    It leads me back to if you want to eliminate duplication and look at focussed efficiency, you need to think of Military Blocks in terms of Roles, not Service Branches.

    As I think @Chris.B. is trying to convey, we should only look into restructuring if we think there is a problem.

  29. IXION

    Chris B

    The objection to the RAF are on my part almost entirely based on the recognition that The RAF has become a service organisation.

    Primarily It’s fixed wing aircraft fly the other 2 services primarily the Army. Insofar as it flies it’s own service it’s to support the others.

    It’s rotary assets are entirely for the use by the army.

    Much of it’s recon kit is for Army use. It used to fly MPA and ASW aircraft- entirely a naval support role.

    EVEN IF one accepts there is still a real role for ‘deep strike’ (IMHO THE light blue self licking lollipop), then only that and QRA UK remain as roles, and they could easily be done by the RN though FAA.

    Let us gets some kind of perspective here we are only talking about few hundred in service aircraft in total of all types.

    It is about saving money on:-

    Back office admin.
    The Capitation costs .
    Etc etc.

    Not on out brave and capable pilots. Indeed the idea would be that the money saved would be used to better support them and their aircraft.

    Inter service rivalry will be with us for ever after with the marines the Yanks get it 4 ways. Cutting 3-2 gets rid of one whole set of arguments.

    After all If! (And I do say if). The (Im)famous Blackhawk conversation, is true, Then that alone is almost enough reason to do it.

  30. The Other Chris

    @wf

    Can’t we move back to more constructive lines? The discussion’s getting a little, err, non-constructive.

    e.g. Do we need to restructure the Armed Services at all and, if so, why?

  31. Simon

    The Other Chris,

    Combat Lynx for the BEEB?

    Carrier Command for Atari ST, Amiga, C64, etc – great game but I seem to remember the little planes flying in tight circles rather too often.

  32. Chris.B.

    @ wf
    “I’m still waiting for replies to my arguments”
    – You don’t have any arguments left. Your sole argument was “RAF should go because all it does is support army”. You were countered with “fine, all Carriers do is support army, carriers go to army too”. And all you’ve done since that point is avoid answering the question, because you know you’re up shit creek without a paddle, and no matter how much effort you try and expend deflecting the attention from this, I’m going to keep bringing you back to this. Answer the question.

    @ Pete Arundel
    – “Well, they are ONLY used by the ARMY”
    If ONLY you had a clue what you were TALKING about.

    “They are flown by and maintained by the RAF but their only function is to move the army around and so, logically, they could be flown and maintained by the Army Air Corps”
    – I occasionally get on a train. Ergo, by your logic, I could drive the train and maintain it because I use it. Oh wait no, that’s bollocks isn’t it, like a lot of the arguments on this thread.

    In fact, you know what, I give up. Fill your boots lads. Pat yourselves on the back and talk shit about the RAF to your hearts content. I turn this thread over to you. I’m not wasting more time repeating myself. Most of you don’t appear to have the first fucking clue how large organisations work, yet you all talk like your Lord Sugar.

    You keep going on about these massive savings you’re going to make when you don’t even have the first fucking idea about the organisations you’re talking about, having not bothered to do any of the underlying research that’s required, I mean why would you when you can just come straight here and talk shit about your fantasy theories without bothering to do any study into the actual realities.

    You seem to think that you can release great swathes of experienced technical staff and managers while handing equipment over to people who don’t have the first fucking clue how to manage it, and you expect it to all go swimmingly.

    There is optimism and there is even things like misguided naivety, that can be set right fairly easily. But some of you are just being willfully fucking retarded. Last time I counted you’d been through about sixty mergers or whatever it was you claimed, yet none of you seem to be able to demonstrate having the first idea what a merger actually involves. I’m smelling copious amounts of bullshit.

    So enjoy your thread. Enjoy talking to each other about your wet dreams that are never going to happen, for reasons that are clearly beyond your comprehension. You’ve had it explained to you in great detail now and you’re still not getting it, so fuck it, I’m not going through it all again.

    Stay here, remain ignorant, enjoy yourselves.

  33. Phil

    Chris B – your posts are golden!

    Everyone else, I propose what you all really want to see happen:

    The United Kingdom Marine Corps and the Royal Navy.

    Much cooler and much more Mobile Infantry like.

  34. wf

    @Chris.B “Answer the question”

    Read http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/the-post-they-tried-to-kill/comment-page-4/#comment-58309

    @The Other Chris: sure. On what basis should we assess whether we need to restructure? Chucking some thoughts into the pile, I figure we could assess things on the basis of:-

    - Operational effectiveness: can we make the administrative organisation more closely reflect the operational one, thus making training easier?

    - career opportunities: do the existing organisations provide a clear path for advancement for potential generals/admirals/air marshals? Nothing worse than joining an organisation where you know you can never aspire to the top job

    - purple thinking: in what way can we promote thinking purple? Can we permanently organise multi-service formations, large ones, in which promotion and ratings are multi-service?

    - duplication: what can we remove to de-duplicate?

  35. James

    Am I out on a limb again by having a fit of the heebie jeebies at even the thought of the RAF joining the Army?

    (Not very serious bit). They are Kevins with a completely different, and mostly work shy, ethos. And they wear polyester. We don’t like them and no one gives a toss as to whether they like us. They also use the stupid lat long system and park their helicopters in the wrong field. They have far too many excuses for not flying, like the moon is in Sagittarius or something.

    (More serious bit). Operating multi-£M flying machines is massively complex, with logistic systems that would terrify the Army and require a huge change in how we work. The Army can just about stretch to a few Regiments of AH, but that is taxing and not really what we are geared up to do logistically. A great deal of what the RAF do is integrated into coalition and multi-national command systems that the Army has little experience over. There is a fundamental mismatch in between normal Army operations (close battle, tactical), and strategic national operations.

    Judgement: They are Kevins, and we’d let ourselves down both socially and operationally if we took them on. Like any normal dog, they need the occasional bit of stick to make sure they know who they work for, but also a bit of love now and again, and the odd run around the park chasing tennis balls (AKA doing something completely light blue with fast jets).

    ;)

  36. Pete Arundel

    “I occasionally get on a train. Ergo, by your logic, I could drive the train and maintain it because I use it. Oh wait no, that’s bollocks isn’t it, like a lot of the arguments on this thread.”

    Yes, you may occasionally get on a train but you are not the sole user of said train. The train provides services to lots of other users. If, however, you were the sole user then I would suggest buying yourself a car and saving what, as the sole user, would be a really big train fare.
    Chris B. you have just proven yourself unworthy of my time.

  37. Pete Arundel

    “Some other uses for Helicopters (not exhaustive):

    - ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare)
    - AEW (Airborne Early Warning)
    - VERTREP (Vertical Replenishment)
    - SAR (Search and Rescue)
    - ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance)
    - Ferrying, transport and diplomatic tours around the city/bay
    - CAS (Close Air Support)

    I’ll let you decide if the RAF and RN can make use of these roles too.”

    A lot of those roles are naval so the RAF don’t perform them anyway. Those that are currently performed by the RAF could, at least in theory, be performed by the AAC – as CAS already is.
    Which is rather the point I was making.

  38. Chris.B.

    Just had to come back for one last stroke at the wicket,

    @ wf
    That link you provided is not an answer. That’s the written equivalent of you putting your fingers in your ears and saying that you don’t care what the MoD or the Navy does with its Carriers because that’s not how you see them, thus it is wrong.

    Or in other words, your just being a knob.

    @ Phil,
    I hope that’s golden in a good way!

    @ James,
    You could organise a new service day; “Hug a Light Blue” ;)

  39. Jed

    James – ref those strange blue beret wearing army aviators – do we truly think that if they can manage Lynx AH7 with TOW and Lynx AH9 that they really can’t handle the additional complexity of Longbow Apache and perhaps re-built Pumas ?

    As for ships – well I have sat in a scorpion and holy shit that is claustrophobic ! Plus my father was wounded in Korea when he (and the rest of the crew) had to bail out of their Centurion, so even joining the Andrew after the graphic details of HMS Sheffield crew and Welsh Guards burn victims etc – I rather fancied my chances a bit more with the damage control !! Which brings me to the obligatory dit…..

    On the Bicester, two of those “young stokers” were in the main engine room (3 big diesels) taking readings or whatever when someone in the MCR decided to test the Halon drench warning system – so down in said engine room big ceiling mounted police car type red flashing light starts up – your warning to get the hell up the ladder and gone while you still have air to breath – so their “colleagues” in the MCR, knowing there was no real problem, rush out and dropped the hatch on them, dogging all the clips (imagine as you pooh your overalls on the ladder trying to knock clips off, someone above is putting them back on!) – after thirty seconds of screaming panic they obviously realized there was no actual gas being released…… however as you can imagine they were not happy chaps — I expect flashing lights may still give them a bit of a shudder….. :-)

  40. James

    @ Chris B,

    I’d need a course of preventive vaccinations before I could ever hug a light blue***

    Jed,

    I am bemused as to what “dogging clips” may be. The only thing that comes to mind is home video snippets captured by some adventuresome couple and filmed at the back of the ASDA car park, but that seems far too heterosexual for the Andrew.

    *** well there was a rather pretty RAF lawyer who shared a potentially dull weekend on Divisional Staff Officer duty, and who rather fell for the splendour of the surroundings and the Mess Kit. But as she was a lawyer and not a Kevin, and on the mid 90s experimental scheme where the 3 services swapped lawyers (on the ridiculous grounds that “March in the guilty bastard!” somehow implied that the chain of command was a bit biased in favour of the prosecution), she could be forgiven.

  41. ArmChairCivvy

    The post they tried to kill…
    - well, I printed the post-Suez part of it, to keep inside the appropriate book, for further reference

    Has sort of lost its way? But good points here:
    “@The Other Chris: sure. On what basis should we assess whether we need to restructure? Chucking some thoughts into the pile, I figure we could assess things on the basis of:-

    - Operational effectiveness: can we make the administrative organisation more closely reflect…

    - career opportunities: do the existing organisations provide a clear path for advancement for potential generals/admirals/air marshals?…

    - purple thinking: in what way can we promote thinking purple? Can we permanently organise multi-service formations, large ones, in which promotion and ratings are multi-service?[ CFR. the new one?]

    - duplication: what can we remove to de-duplicate?”

  42. IXION

    All

    Re Chris B ‘You seem to think that you can release great swathes of experienced technical staff and managers while handing equipment over to people who don’t have the first fucking clue how to manage it, and you expect it to all go swimmingly.

    There is optimism and there is even things like misguided naivety, that can be set right fairly easily. But some of you are just being willfully fucking retarded. Last time I counted you’d been through about sixty mergers or whatever it was you claimed, yet none of you seem to be able to demonstrate having the first idea what a merger actually involves. I’m smelling copious amounts of bullshit.

    So enjoy your thread. Enjoy talking to each other about your wet dreams that are never going to happen, for reasons that are clearly beyond your comprehension. You’ve had it explained to you in great detail now and you’re still not getting it, so fuck it, I’m not going through it all again.

    Stay here, remain ignorant, enjoy yourselves.’

    Wow, how lucky we were to such an expert on site on RAF organisation and deployment.

    What a pity he has decided not to enlighten us further.

    Meanwhile back amongst the non swivel eyed tendancy…

    James

    I think implicite in the merger idea is a huge change in the AAC and FAA. There would be all those technical trades (which no one except our jibbering friend has suggested anyone wanted firing) joining.

    I suspect it is once, and only after the initial merger that significent changes in how things were doing would follow.

    Reorganisation would be a huge undertaking, and not to be done in a half arsed fashon.

  43. James

    ACC,

    meteorology is one thing that needs de-duplication if it has not been already. We discovered on the Joint UAV Experimentation Programme (2003) that all 3 services had separate Met systems, and worse that all 3 had different bases of estimate and ways of presenting the info. Wind speed, temperature and pressure are all pretty service agnostic I would have thought.

    As a final shocker, this problem even became international. The NATO Armaments Ballistic Kernel (NABK), the piece of software that did the computation for indirect fire was calibrated in Celsius and KiloPascals with no facility for manually inputting Fahrenheit or standard atmospheres which the US Navy used. It has probably changed now (I’d hope so), but even so, how much duplication and international nonsense is needed for basically what is the functional equivalent of looking out of the window and observing that it’s a bit rainy outside, and somewhat chilly?

  44. ArmChairCivvy

    he-he, that was quick:
    -de-duplication done
    -ditto for purpleness (just that the new Command has not been much mentioned on this blog?)

    Only the easy (?) stuff left: operational effectiveness (or was it efficiency, meant?) and career opportunities to hit on the head

  45. IXION

    ACC

    Are you imply we should keep and more importantly pay people to do jobs in the military we don’t/ no longer need them to do, just to keep a career path open?

  46. ArmChairCivvy

    Not at all, would sort of contradict the “operational efficiency” point.

    “Career opportunities” in this discussion, I take it, means a structure (and career paths that come with it) that can attract, at the junior intake stage, the level of candidate that will be of any use at Staff level, and higher. Obviously only a small fraction… wheat and chaff and so on

    When I was in Accenture, they realised the Up-or-Out can be taken too far, and started nominating Directors (unheard of in a partnership)
    - call them Unit Command to clarify the parallel

  47. ChrisM

    Re the idea of cutting back to just RM and RN…

    We are apparently not going to do occupation forces again, and instead just concentrate on the ability to smash our way in from the sea and our lovely new floating bases then leave it to locals/UN/AU/anybody-but-us to tidy up.
    I keep wondering whether we should be increasing the RM and moving the Army to a more home garrison role? You could then have different terms of service – join the RM and expect to be deployed a lot/bob about on boats much of the year, join the army and you get to stay at home for a career in one of the garrison towns, with the occassional deployment.

    A version of this concept would have the Paras on similar terms as the RM. Is it culturally feasible for ex-Paras to move “down” into the rest of the army when they want to settle down a bit and stop bouncing around the planet kicking in doors?

    Happy to hear why this wont work, though preferably deconstructed sensibly rather than a foaming at the mouth ranting green version of our resident RAF disciple!!

  48. x

    @ Chris M

    To be honest our forces were tokens in global terms for the last decade or two of the Cold War.

    If WW3 had come NATO wouldn’t have lasted long and the “button” would have been pressed.

    Conventional forces are caught between three competing tropes. We have nuclear weapons which on theoretical, if not applied, level make conventional forces redundant. Then we have asymmetric force whose ingenuity is aided by Western liberal concerns for human rights (which some take as an absolute which it isn’t just the current over arching trope). And then we have globalisation and interdependence which many, even here, trot out that conventional war on world scale is unthinkable; again this is just an idea and ideas have their own time; this it the tension between realism and liberalism; the cost of armed forces is set against social and commercial concerns.

    Another idea I beat to death is that we in the UK view defence through, understandably, a 20th prism of a large army opposing a continental foe. And “we”, even with 1982 and GW1, don’t realise that an army is difficult to move and isn’t a strategic service in that unlike a navy or air force it can’t reach out for 1000s of miles. The tongue-in-cheek rant by a certain red trousered individual reveals the depth of that lack of understanding as he speaks, understandably, from his training and service culture. Tomorrow’s wars will be fought outside Europe, the need for force will arise quickly, those who mass force the quickest (even if it is light in Cold War terms) will win the day, and the conflict will rapidly end meaning those forces can be withdrawn. The idea of armed force will follow a pre-Napoleonic or early modern model in that forces will be small, expensively equipped and trained (so hard to regenerate), and be needed to fight another day so force preservation will be a driver.

    Something I tried to articulate to Chris B and failed is how we view expenditure on platforms is eschewed because of 20th century lens. And we will have to re-evaluate what we buy and why. I will try another example without much hope. We are about to 20 or so A400m and a project cost of £100million a copy. That is seen reasonable by many and goes unquestioned. But if I said by £2billion of shipping instead many here couldn’t cope with that shift. To be clear not saying that they are wrong; we need transport aircraft. But the idea in itself jars as it just goes against the accepted norm.

  49. James

    X,

    I resemble that remark…. :(

    Here’s me banging on across numerous threads and several months about needing a proper ARG for rapid interventions, and I am called out for not understanding about speed to theatre and rapid intervention. Fair enough, you may have missed a comment I made about FRES should be based on an ARG, while 16 AA Bde and Spearhead remain air deployable. That would give us the ability to rapidly deploy a Brigade within the rapid timescale needed anywhere in the world. The rest of the Army need to trundle along to bulk out the deployed force if the initial rapid deployment does not do the trick. Don’t see how any of that fits with your description of me.

    There’s another point, possibly of mutual confusion, and it is the definition of the world “strategic”. By your writing, I infer you are mostly talking about great distances. My view – which I believe to be the service definition, but I am happy to debate further – is that strategic instead means “outcome achieved”. By and large, the majority of conflicts only culminate in strategic outcomes after land forces are employed, but to be fair there are some that really are maritime or air based entirely. That’s why we have three services, and I’m not ever going to advocate that one is disbanded and split between the other two.

    I do however reserve the right to keep referring to Kevins as Kevins, and to deliberately mix up ship and boat when referring to the gin palaces the Andrew bob about in. I expect little different from them, and it’s pretty normal for people to gently mock the other services until we’ve got a proper enemy – be they civil servants or Saddam – to unite against and fight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>