Followed later by;

“To be honest I haven’t read any of Chris B’s last few comments. Don’t need to I have read it all before”

Contradiction? Much…

More like “Fingers-in-ears-not-listening-la-la-la-la-la… Rule Britannia!!”

To be honest I haven’t read any of Chris B’s last few comments. Don’t need to I have read it all before. Too busy today……

Its usually fairly easy to distinguish his trolling from his more serious comments.

All work and no play would make Think Defence a dull place.

Quite interesting.

Earlier you went on a mass tirade against practically everyone who comments on Think Defence, remarking how close minded and foolish everyone is, how we are all sycophants who do nothing but tow the party line and refuse to analyse alternatives.

Yet when presented with a comprehensive response trying to answer some of the points you’ve made, your response is just to post a video of a toy duck.

I think that says a lot about you.

“I don’t really have a problem with the RAF as such.”
– Sounds a lot like the arguments that used to be made by that infamous supporter of the RAF, Gabrielle. You don’t have a problem with the RAF, you just want to get rid of it at the earliest opportunity with seemingly no adequate justfication to explain why.

“My problem is more with those who see the need for a separate air because they believe aeroplane is in some way special, that it is a panacea to all defence questions, and air power somehow functions on its own plane (ha!) with its own telos”
– In the same way that you treat ships as being special and a panacea to every problem, right? I’ve yet to see anyone on here suggest that the RAF, or indeed aeroplanes in general, are the answer to every problem.

And yes, air power can and often does function on its own plane if you will, as part of a wider defence strategy. To try and pretend that it doesn’t is to disregard history itself.

I say again, some of the earliest exponents of what became the RAF were RNAS officers like Admiral Kerr, who as it happens was a big fan of the idea of building heavy bombers to attack targets deep in German territory.

This is because they understood the fundamental issue that two services operating large numbers of aircraft would understandably try to husband these forces away from each other, using them exclusively (or at least largely) to support their own forces, and would generally miss the opportunity to use air power as an offensive force hitting targets deep into enemy territory, as we saw with the army-centric Luftwaffe in world war 2.

It was also recognised that pooling the aircraft into one force allowed the full weight of that force to be thrown at whichever targets were deemed the most important at the time, as we saw with the RAF in WW2 that spent much of the early part of the war hitting targets in support of the navy such as docks, battleships and the sub pens in France, before later switching to targets that were of more interest to the land war in France.

They did all this and still provided missions like recce for the army, and pioneered the concept of “taxi rank” air to ground operations, with forward air controllers to help the army, and doing work to support people like the SOE with agent drops/pickups, re-supply work, and strikes against valuable intelligence targets etc.

In Libya we saw the same thing, an air force operating largely independent of the Navy and army. It helped provide air supremacy over the country, denying Gaddafi the use of his air force for transport, resupply, recce and attack purposes, while keeping the skies clear for allied intelligence and support services to be flown in (such as the rescue operation to pick up those oil workers), in the same way that the navy denied the seas to Gaddafi for his forces and supplies, while keeping supply chains open to the rebel ports.

In addition the air force (and NATO air power in general) was able to hit key targets of the Gaddafi regime, force him underground, disrupt his command and control (and that of his senior officers) over the loyalist forces, hamper the movement of supplies to the frontline, destroy loyalist armour, artillery and other vehicles, and through the use of aircraft like sentinel – gather intelligence about the movements and strengths of Gaddafi forces that could then be fed to the NATO fellas on the ground aiding the rebels, giving them a much better picture of what was beyond the front lines.

It would appear that you’re one of the few people who think that kind of thing is not of value.

“It does seem odd to me that the Army can operate artillery pieces, have forward observers in small helicopters, can move whole companies in Warriors, operate sophisticated attack helicopters, and then when it comes to move a platoon by Chinook has to have that platform operated by another service”
– That’s because the majority of those things above do nothing except support the army. The Chinook is a large helicopter that can be used for other purposes beyond just supporting the army.

“How is a helicopter any different from any other of the ship’s systems?”
– I don’t see many (re; anybody) arguing that it is, and indeed it’s one of the supporting systems that naturally is better filled by the Navy than anyone else.

“I would be happier if the UK FJ squadrons had an anti-ship capability. Even happier if we had an MPA too.”
– I think most people would agree with that. I do.

Thank you again. I don’t really have a problem with the RAF as such. My problem is more with those who see the need for a separate air because they believe aeroplane is in some way special, that it is a panacea to all defence questions, and air power somehow functions on its own plane (ha!) with its own telos. Yes I do think at times that the great investment does offer little return. That it isn’t always as
effective as we are lead to believe and that it’s reach isn’t as great. Look at the sophisticated USAF over Kosovo. Look the early Op Ellamy raids. Aircraft are vehicles no different to tanks or even ships**.

It does seem odd to me that the Army can operate artillery pieces, have forward observers in small helicopters, can move whole companies in Warriors, operate sophisticated attack helicopters, and then when it comes to move a platoon by Chinook has to have that platform operated by another service.

Imagine if the RAF operated a frigate’s flight. When there was a need for the helicopter the captain would summon the high priest of petrol pigeon who would attend in his priestly crab fat coloured garb to be briefed about the mission. The priest’s acolytes (some dressed in the same colour of veneration contrasting with their green faces due to sea sickness. Oh! How they wish they had been drafted to nice Typhoon squadron on land) would prepare the blessed petrol pigeon. Utter rhubarb!

How is a helicopter any different from any other of the ship’s systems? Do ships not run on large versions of the engines in the helicopter? Is the ship not full of sophisticated electronics? What about navigation and meteorological considerations? The RN can be trusted to drive a £500million destroyer, but some here think a £40million helicopter is so special it needs to be operated by another service. That there are mega savings to be made both in money and efficiency. Custard! I say custard! Consider the helicopter as a ship’s boat-cum-missile that can fly back home. It is important, but nothing more than another system onboard ship.

Then we have the arguments that the UK isn’t the US and somebody will mention some European state that lets its airforce operate from its navy ships. Well those arguments run both ways.

Now for the RAF. I have said lots of times now Voyager annoys me greatly. I would dearly love to see enough transport aircraft available to lift a very light paratroop group at a time of our choosing just as I want enough shipping to move a brigade without much fuss. I wouldn’t be without QRA. I do fear that the next air attack on the UK will involve cruise missile and that QRA won’t be make any difference. But I wouldn’t be without it and I think the Chinese are a couple of decades away from having submarines in the Atlantic any how. I would be happier if the UK FJ squadrons had an anti-ship capability. Even happier if we had an MPA too. But I can’t see how we can fund two capital intensive services especially when their appears to be little threat to the home islands and the areas of potential conflict are outside Europe. If there is a threat it is one on human scale as the affluent West hardens its borders to immigration.

** Ships. I tend to see ship as much as “places” as vehicles; extensions of a state’s sovereign territory. Their utility takes them beyond lesser vehicles that only perform one function. Is a destroyer a radar station, heliport, gun battery, a canteen, a dormitory, power station, diplomatic station, or all of those and more? When an aircraft can carry a ship 9000 miles and it has a crew of more than 150 and does more than move stuff and drop ordinance I may see aircraft as something more.

x: No worries on the kind words – I don’t tend to comment much anywhere these days, though still read avidly, and like I’ve said before I do tend to quietly wave my imaginary pom poms at most of what you write (and chuckle at your gags). I often feel that you have a bit of a voice in the wilderness thing going on, but I’m always glad and appreciative that you keep plugging away and representin’. You can always take that as read, since me constantly going, “Yeah! x FTMFW!!11!” would soon become tedious and pathetic for all concerned.

As to the saving costs, I mentioned it as a possibility because it could be, done right (which it wouldn’t be, of course). I keep being told that getting rid of duplication, and creating massive centralisation, increases efficiency and saves costs… but have waited several decades to see much evidence of that anywhere… though I see the exact opposite being true nearly everywhere I’ve ever looked. Articles of faith – they’re great!

When it comes to these sorts of things, I often think back to an article in ‘Aviation Week & Space Technology’ that I read ages ago (back when the magazine wasn’t shite), when the USAF started dabbling with Composite Air Wings; pulling a fully balanced, rapid reaction little air force together under a single command (rather than the various Commands having to liaise through their bureaucracy), and deploying and training together. IIRC the operating cost per plane increased by a third or half again, but performance roughly doubled.

Something along those lines for the expeditionary part of Simon’s idea: all involved can retain their grand historical traditions and allegiance to their particular Service tribe, but you get all the benefits of making everything tightly enmeshed (the organic vibe) at the spear tip where you need it.

Now, if I was running tings, naturally my first priority would be to have enough ships that any son of Britannia could walk from anywhere to anywhere on the planet without getting his feet wet; but my second priority would be to give the RAF some long ranged heavy bombers.

You mentioned a week or two ago that the RAF relinquishing its bombers during the Cold War means that it shouldn’t get any since, but I’d argue that such bombers are far more needed now (the ‘look at what we’ve actually been doing’ principle, which is useful as a guide as long as you don’t then fall into the ‘preparing for yesterday’s war tomorrow’ trap) than they were then (extremely useful now, expensive nuke fodder then).

However fiendish and ebil the RAF may be, they’ve been around long enough now, and accomplished enough, that they should continue to exist… they’re such a big part of the British fabric, that it would be outrageously criminal to lose them – it would diminish us all. It’s disgraceful enough to even lose famous and noble squadrons.

So I agree that if we absolutely had to lose one air Force/Corps/Arm (which is, of course, some divide and rule, false dilemma bullshit – ‘we choose not to buy these things’) then the RAF would be the one, for your reasons; but what that really argues is that the RAF needs more money spent on it to restore its historical unique relevance. Gasp! There goes my beloved PTT membership.

Aye on the successor thing. I’ll have a look in a bit.

The trouble is that the period where the RAF controlled the FAA was only between 1918 and the later 1930′s which makes it difficult to compare that period accurately with the much longer period that the FAA had control of its own forces.

In regard to whether the FAA is a good thing or not, I’m inclined to think it is. I just happen to think that x’s guff about disposing of the RAF, and indeed the hate he seems to carry for other air forces, is just that; guff. It seems to have no basis in anything approaching the reality of what happens, and a lot of his arguments are often applicable back on his service of choice, that being the navy.

I think of a couple of things that are worth mentioning to this debate.

Number one is that some of the earliest proponents of an independent air force were in fact members of the RNAS. The very first flag ranked officer of the RNAS to achieve a pilots license was one of the main proponents of what would become the RAF.

Two, just because x talks about human elements doesn’t mean he’s right. Or in other words, I think at times he has some very weird ideas about how humans behave.

I know I’d stay away from them, they’re the dangerous modern thinkers on here

There is no real evidence whatsoever to say their are costs to be saved. What offends me on visceral level is, as I have made abundantly clear, this rather odd obsession with the need for a separate air service. “But we aren’t the US!”, they moan. No we aren’t not, sort of ignoring that the FAA and AAC actually exist because their services need them. Why is that I wonder? The lack of imagination, the lack of critique is woeful. It wouldn’t be so bad if the counter arguments weren’t presented in such a supercilious tiresome manner. If the best they come can come up with is “The Army toot guns. The RAF fly airyplanes. And the Navy does ships.” then honestly it is time to STFU. The latter is all I see. Think Defence? Really? More like Lets-View-Defence-Through-The-Prism-Of-A-Black-and-White-1950s-War-Film.

EDIT: I forgot to thank you for those kind words. At least some here get what I am on about…..

[Don't tell anybody but I've got a big soft spot for the evil RAF, lest you feel your bile and ire starting to rise, or mistakenly perceive me as one who wishes to disband the RAF.]

x is being his wise* but cheeky monkey self, for sure, but his point that organic (or at least composite) yields superior performance is a good one. The question is whether it’s worth sacrificing that superiority to save some costs, which is tricky since these are the things that are always hard to properly quantify on balance sheets (and thus accountant-types simply pretend don’t exist).

It *might* be worth it (which you’ll only ever really know in hindsight) but it’s no good pretending that something literally essential isn’t lost in the process (efficiency in one area is nearly always at the cost of efficiency in another).

[*x's points begin with, 'Given that humans are actually like this, then...', rather than the accountant-style (or/and social engineering style), 'Things will be so much better when we've successfully turned humans into ants...'.]

I really like Simon’s idea of splitting more along defensive and expeditionary lines, than drawing the lines elsewhere – do this and it doesn’t really matter whose stencilled letters adorn what so much.

[BTW, I've been mad busy; I'll pop over to your blog now and drop my meagre answers to your questions about my Successor post points I made here a while ago, in your Successor post - belatedly but as promised.]

I’m pretty far from being an expert on WWII but wasn’t the neglect not so much the number of the planes but the fact that most of the combat planes for maritime use were obsolescent flying crap? [Certainly no disrespect to the pilots of said planes though - bloody hell they had some stones!]

Looks like it was a warm day for you in Eastbourne. Did you enjoy the show?

– Haha, says the man with the Carrier obsession!

I’ve just come to presume by this point that a flying chap, perhaps one of the USAF or something, ran off with your wife. It’s the only explanation I can think of for why you hate various flavours of air force with such a passion.

I do like the way you went off on a tangent about synonyms though. I can’t remember ever using that phrase in my response or trying to suggest that RAF/Airpower were synonymous.

But hey, why tackle the points I made when you can prop up a strawman next to it and then have fun beating that down?

I saw what you did there!!!!

I do realise you’re trying to be funny, nevertheless using your definition…

I hope you have asked Santa for an imagination, sense of humour, course of psychological treatments to help you with your strange obsession with the RAF, or perhaps all three; but preferably the last one. The terms “air power” and “RAF” aren’t synonyms. Synonyms are words with the same or similar meanings. Airpower comprises the application of military strategy and strategic theory to the realm of aerial warfare. RAF is the name of an organisation that exercises some, but not all, of the UK’s airpower. Now while aeroplanes of various configurations and helicopters also of various configurations are fundamental to airpower wearing a light blue suit isn’t. Nor is being called Kevin. Nor is being an Alsation.

EDIT: One more thing. Aeroplanes and helicopters are just vehicles and not objects of religious veneration. Got that? Good.

Perhaps in era where pilots had to peer out of the window to figure out where the enemy were, then maybe a high level of cooperation would have been more beneficial.

Since then, things have changed.

In the close air support role modern pilots have targetting pods to peer down from above. The introduction of FAC who can give accurate ground appreciations to the pilots, plus the use of smoke and/or identification panels makes I would suspect makes that task a hell of a lot easier. Our pilots, along with coalition pilots, have been providing close air support in Afghanistan for many years now with very little in the way of friendly fire incidents. I’d suspect the need for a dedicated CAS trained squadron has greatly dimished since the era of Tactical Command.

@ x,
Maybe you’re drunk. Maybe you’re just pulling a wind up. Maybe you’re just bored. Those are the only real explanations I can think of for your spectacular rant above. I’m willing to give it a response though.

By the time world war two came around the fleet air arm had around 20 squadrons. 20. That’s hardly what you would call being neglected.

As for this whole “supporting actor” business. What a load of guff mate. You probably know perfectly well that the forces work as a team to meet the nations objectives, but just get some sort of bizarre kick out of fantastical statements.

I always find it odd that when you talk for example about the RAF transporting soldiers around the world, it’s always painted as the RAF supporting the army, slyly implying that the RAF is somehow like a servant to the army. But when you talk about the Navy transporting the army, suddenly the mood switches. Now all of a sudden the army is in a great debt to the Navy and you start talking about how the army has no strategic mobility etc. It’s just the most bizarre of service biases, the like of which never seems to reside with any of the actual serving navy types.

Then you branch of an go on further rants, not just against the RAF but it would seem the USAF is not good enough either. Presumably most air forces seem to feel your wrath? You constantly harp on this idea that air forces do nothing but support the other services, despite their being quite the catalogue of operations, in this countries history and that of others, where air forces conduct operations distinctly of their own need or affect, where they take “centre stage” for want of a better term.

I don’t know quite why this seems to irk you so much. The idea that, heaven forbid, air forces actually do a lot of work achieving some of the nations goals without it being in direct support of the army or Navy, in the same way that both those services do things that are largely independent of the other two services.

It’s also odd that you seem to hate aircraft so much, talking about them with such spite, believing their roles could be replaced with TLAM, only to then turn around and dampen that criticism down when it comes to talking about CVF.

You moan that the RAF spends too much money on fast jets and the expense of everything else, despite the fact that a quick check of the RAF inventory would show quite a significant (and recent) expenditure on a number of platforms that are distinctly not sleek fighter aircraft.

You also say their is little substance in the need for a separate air force to “protect” certain roles. Yet history has borne out that in the hands of others certain roles get neglected, and that having a unified command under a separate service has, in every case where an air force has been created, proven to be the catalyst for the proper organisation of effective air operations and the purchase of adequate aircraft, in both capability and numbers.

Since world war 2 it has become well understood that control of the skies, both over home territory and that of the enemy, gives one side a massive advantage, something astutely pointed out by General Smuts in his 1917 report that recommended the creation of a single, unified air force (“It is important for the winning of the war that we should not only secure air predominance, but secure it on a very large scale; and having secured it in this war we should make every effort and sacrifice to maintain it for the future. Air supremacy may in the long run become as important a factor in the defense of the empire as sea supremacy” – The Smuts report, 1917).

Pretty much every military force in the entire world, East and West, has come to the same conclusion. Very few have attempted to reverse the process, and those that have have found it wanting, as they came up against the same problems that led to the creation of an independent air force in the first place.

Then you start with the over flight rights thing again, or the need for land bases. As has been pointed out by many people, including naval types and people like Sir Humphrey over at the Thin Pinstriped Line, Naval forces require the support of foreign land bases (in the form of ports) as well, in order to provide localised supplies of fuel and food, as well as providing links back to GB for the flying in of things like additional munitions and personnel when needed. I’d also remind you that during GW1 for example, US navy carriers stationed in the Red Sea needed just as much permission to fly over Saudi Arabia as the USAF did. But of course if we bring up the point that on that occasion they actually had to fly further to get the area of operations than land based aircraft then I’m quite sure you’ll have a fit of indignation.

I was putting shopping away. Have yet to do any hoovering. Sainsbury’s car park was chaos. The funny thing is I don’t really like Christmas..

@ APATS re USAF.

Yes I got a bit ranty. I got a bit carried away and wasn’t as funny (well I find me amusing) as I wanted to be. My point was the USAF supports everybody else it doesn’t drive events but follows. As for air superiority well yes they do the lion’s share when there are convenient strips of concrete nearby but I don’t think the USN and USMC would want you to gloss over there contribution to that task in Korea, Vietnam, GW1, and GW2. Remind me again which service started to look at the need for dogfighting in the 1960s when another service still believed missiles were the answer and instituted their air combat programme after the success of the latter programme? Now it is debatable whether that is enough reason to do away with or not have a separate service in the first place. (As I said the Soviets had separate services for everything. I think the armies of the world were playing with rockets long before the aeroplane was invented. But Soviet organisation was as much about political control as for any other reason.) Just because aeroplanes fly it most certainly isn’t a good reason to do away with specialist aviation services at the sharp end and merge everything into one service. Like I said I got ranty. It was a poor attempt to pick at the philosophical under pinnings of the need for a separate air service.

@ Simon

I understand the history of the RAF and why politicians (and service men) of the time thought it a good idea. You can set that against a broader cultural canvass where flying was new, exciting, and seemed to offer a fresh frontier (just like Africa and the Americas) to be conquered by industry and science. Very 19th century idea framed in the works of Wells and Verne. I remember my primary school headmaster, a great man a RAF bombardier/navigator during WW2, telling the story of how the entire school was called out of lessons to see the R101 fly over. It isn’t hard to see how the idea of a separate air service would seem logical to the society of the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s. And even I would admit that the RAF’s has been far from poor. But can 3 services competing for resources, especially one when does little more than support the other two be really seen as logical? Compare the parlous state of the FAA(RAF) in 1938/9 with the FAA of the 1950s and 1960s. Compare the latter man for man, plane for plane, pound for pound with the RAF of the era; which was the most cost effective? I know TD likes to publish his little list of all the campaigns the RAF has taken part in post WW2. But it is always a supporting actor. Something that is always brought up in these discussions is the idea if the Army ran its own air wing other capabilities would suffer. In a way that argument is used against CVF. But really doesn’t the RAF always looks after the fast ‘planes first and everything else second? As I said above like all organisations it has its own agenda and its own priorities. I have mentioned the poor state of the pre-war fleet air arm or the infamous shifting of Australia. These things happen because man is a political animal; but if you mention them you get accused of clutching at straws as if many here don’t live in the real world and had to compete for things. Do we really think the Army would leave the UK defenceless so that it can have more helicopters? I don’t. But it appears some argue we need a separate air service to protect certain roles which really is clutching at straws and have little substance. Um. I think aviation still sits centrally within the public’s imagination. We are sea blind and many don’t realise how dependent we are on the sea; perhaps no less or more dependent than other states but still dependent. But the majority of the population climbs aboard a plane once year and I am sure if pushed many would say they think that the majority of stuff is probably moved by air. Therefore it easy to sell the idea that the RAF sits centrally at the heart of UK defence. Yes I believe the RAF PR’s department ( ) is its most effective unit; look at how many sporting fixtures over a Remberance weekend have RAF guards. Look at Op Ellamy all that WW2 guff was dragged up. Planes launching daring raids. Longest raid since Icarus etc. etc. If the RN had launched 12 cruise missiles from a frigate in the Med it would barely got more than a paragraph. The high cost of airframes, tankers, the problem of over flying rights, the relative short ranges of these operations. Consider that as a nation during the 20th century we went from worrying about global (Imperial) defence supporting operations from Canada to India to worrying about the North Sea and Germany.

Oh I am going to stop…….