Abolish the RAF

Dub13

This article is a few weeks old but its an interesting debate that is going on in the UK at the moment.

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

We’d have a more efficient, streamlined armed forces without the air corps, says Colonel Tim Collins

It was a Labour Government under Harold Wilson that perfected the ruse of taking pressure off the defence minister by setting the three Armed Services against one another. The art was encapsulated in a doctrine known as 'equal pain', in which defence cuts and savings would be imposed equally across the three services. The effect was to provoke bitter inter-service rivalry, which left the Ministry of Defence appearing as a detached and honest broker. It was also a clever and effective way to divide and rule.

One can have a certain sympathy for the Treasury however, as defence is the one public department that regularly comes in over budget - thanks largely to the disastrously inefficient way in which sub-standard equipment is procured. But salaries are also expensive and, in the face of pressure on manning the front line, we need to radically re-address how the cake is sliced.



With wars running out of control in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the pressure on forces elsewhere from Africa to the Balkans to who knows where next, we have to take drastic action. A conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach. The defence of the UK now centres on defending our interests overseas. There is no prospect of any significant increase in the share of public money for defence, so we have to come up with a radical way for the armed forces to do what we ask of them within the budget available. I believe this can mean only one thing: we have to lose one of the services.

There is only one service whose work can be undertaken by the other two: the RAF must go.

This would allow us to concentrate the existing Defence budget on just two services and use the vast savings, on infrastructure, senior officers and staff, on the front-line.

The measure would also present us with a terrific opportunity to make savings by rationalising procedures and how we buy our kit. Standardisation would mean economies of scale. The inefficient Defence Logistics Organisation would be much more sharply focused.

In the new expeditionary defence forces, the Navy would continue to shoulder the responsibility of our nuclear deterrent as well as taking over all strike operations - from land and sea. Existing strike aircraft would initially come under the Royal Navy, with interim command going to newly-transferred RAF officers. The procurement of future aircraft would demand an expeditionary capability. The emphasis would be on the ability to launch from aircraft carriers and limited overseas bases as opposed to high-tech interceptors for a war - the Cold War - that is long over.

The Royal Navy would also run all the transport aircraft that go into harm's way, again retaining RAF expertise initially and then evolving its own specialist branch. The remaining air transport tasks, such as carrying stores and passengers would be put out to private contract. (Many of them are already, and the policy brings huge savings.)

The Army would absorb all Special Forces and helicopter operations as well as performing their normal function of seizing and holding ground. This would be the least painful of the changes as helicopter operations have already been rationalised under the Joint Helicopter Command.

Naturally the servicemen and women who make up the RAF would need to be either re-assigned to the other services or given a reasonable redundancy package. There would be little scope to absorb the manpower except for the expensively trained pilots and other specialists. Such a rationalisation should achieve the sort of ground crew to aircraft ratios that are achieved in the Israeli forces for instance, more like ten per air craft than twenty, with a commensurate reduction of senior officers across the remaining services. At present there are more General-rank officers than there are squadrons, in the case of the air force, and ships in the case of the navy.

No doubt such a concept will cause a sharp intake of breath. But the Labour administration has left us no choice. We cannot back out of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan with honour. Who knows where they will involve our nation in a war next. Like a ship in a storm we have to consider chopping down a mast if we are not all to capsize. We can't function without an army or navy, but we can manage without the RAF.

DublinWriter

There's an old saying "The army hate the navy, the navy hate the army, and everyone hates the RAF".

It's also true in the states, the Marines despise the Army and really hate the USAF.

I'd take what Tim Collins says with a pinch of salt regarding the RAF.

Dub13

Speaking of Tim Collins I have his book at home,its on my "to read" list along with a few others.Has anybody read this book...?if so any comments....?

TempestSabre

Whats the point of this thread?

Dub13

TempestSabre wrote:

Whats the point of this thread?

To get a discussion going about the pros and cons of the UK Abolishing the RAF.It would be quite a big move unlikely maybe but worthy of a debate.

TempestSabre

Corporate rebranding thats all it would amount to. Unless you lose capability you still need the infrastructure and personally to operate the aircraft. Ditch the F35 if you want to save money.

Dub13

TempestSabre wrote:

Corporate rebranding thats all it would amount to. Unless you lose capability you still need the infrastructure and personally to operate the aircraft. Ditch the F35 if you want to save money.

Not necessarily,there is a big “Rank Imbalance” in the RAF,it drains cash left right and center.


The RAF has not so much “too many chiefs”, but those that do exist have a disproportionately high comparative rank compared to the other services. In the late 60s, with dwindling squadron numbers, the officer ranks were tinkered with. A Flight Lieutenant used to command a flight, Squadron Leaders a squadron, Wing Commanders a station, Group Captains a group etc. Nowadays a Flt. Lt is a pilot, Sqn Ldrs command flights, Wng Cdrs squadrons etc. So, they have a Brigadier equivalent commanding a battalion sized unit, a Colonel equivalent commanding a company sized unit.

I am note sure Abolishing the RAF is the way to go but it certainly needs to be restructured at very least.

TempestSabre

Whats the unit cost of a F35 vs early retirement for senior officer?

magick

i think it would be a dangerous idea to get rid of the RAF , and only relying on carrier based aircraft for ur cover , basically like putting one arm behind ur back or giving ur armed forced and extra disvantage in a conflict.

Euro Forces should begin to stand up for themselves rather than relying on a support role for the US

secret_squirrel

So essentially he is saying take Aircraft operations away from the specialists and let the 2 other organisations re-develop the years of operational experience the RAF has?

Riiiiggghttt.

Maybe there is a rank imbalance in the RAF, there are much easier ways to solve it than this.

He's a stirrer tbh.

Dub13

The Canadians did this all be it on a smaller scale back in the 60s when the Royal Canadian Air Force was merged with the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Army to form the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am not very familiar with the Canadian Armed Forces and how well or not this works.

the_syco

Heh. As much as I hate the Brits, the fly boys do have a nice rep for themselves. If they disband it, it'll be just another way of getting rid of it. What will the army want, tbh? Another tank, or another helicopter? And soon, there won't be any heli's left, just tanks.

I say they should keep the RAF, otherwise it may just be flushed down the toilet in the back room, so to speak.

Chakar

I find the fact that's there's a debate about the existence of the RAF very hard to believe.Why can't they just cut the budget? Or is there a good reason for that because they're serving in Iraq!!

ScottishDanny

Surely this is just Colonel Tim 'Media Warrior' being a mouthpiece? He probably has column inches to fill in the British papers. If you rely on the Fleet Air Arm to be your air cover for future conflicts doesn't that mean you'll need more aircraft carriers (which are probably the most expensive pieces of hardware the MoD would have to buy)? And wouldn't said conflict need to be near the sea? Not surprising that a grunt wants to kick the junior service,

TempestSabre

Aircraft that can land on a Carrier can usually land on a normal runway aswell.

the_syco

TempestSabre wrote:

Aircraft that can land on a Carrier can usually land on a normal runway aswell.

Aye, but its easier to get a carrier over somewhere, than to ass-kiss some fanatical regeime to allow your planes to land in their county so that they may refuel, rearm, and continue to bomb their neighbouring countries, tbh.

secret_squirrel

I find his comments truely amazing give than establishing Air superiority has been the overriding aim in most conflicts since WW2.

As Iraq and Afganistan are showing it doesnt necessarily win a conflict against Guerilla fighters, but it still makes supplying and supporting the grunts on the ground a lot easier.

It would be folly just to take Iraq and Afganistan as examples of how all modern conflicts are going to be fought.

TempestSabre

the_syco wrote:

Aye, but its easier to get a carrier over somewhere, than to ass-kiss some fanatical regeime to allow your planes to land in their county so that they may refuel, rearm, and continue to bomb their neighbouring countries, tbh.

Imagine what it costs to run a carrier group! This is meant to be a money saving exercise. Besides the B2 can reach anywhere.

babybundy

the raf do a fair bit for the irish government beleve it or not they are our air cover

Capt'n Midnight

babybundy wrote:

the raf do a fair bit for the irish government beleve it or not they are our air cover

:rolleyes:

Ok they do provide a lot of air-sea rescue.

cork1

If you go to the royal navies website u can see the plans for the new carriers that they are building.What I want to know is what will this cost to build the new carriers and fill them with the new planes they are buying.Plus whats wrong with the old ones they have to be fairly modern seeing as they were alrite to serve in Iraq?

TempestSabre

The current carriers aren't "proper" carriers, they are really helicopter carriers modified to allow the Harriers to use them. However they've ordered different planes F35 they need different, carriers. The current ships aren't exactly new either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

cork1

What u said about the british carriers being modified helicopter carriers was a good point but Harriers take off vertically most of the time so why did they have a ramp for launching aswell.U would expect that they would be trying to find as much space as possible.

pucan

The standard horizontal take off allows a heavier weapons and fuel load. Vertical landing is the norm.

TempestSabre

cork1 wrote:

W....Harriers take off vertically most of the time so why did they have a ramp for launching aswell...

You've answered you're own question. They don't take off vertically all the time.

Taking off vertically in harriers, (or helicopters for that matter) uses a lot of fuel. Fuel that could be better used to increase range or payload. So where possible they use some forward motion to take off. The forward motion generates more lift. The ski ramp is simply a more energy efficient way of doing this, it basically throws the harrier into the air. It also means they don't need a catapult.

Thats my simple understanding of it. Maybe I'm wrong.

TempestSabre

pucan wrote:

I would imagine that Sea harriers don't take off vertically because of wind. Vertical take off would be pretty tough with even a 30 mile an hour cross wind.

Carriers turn into the wind to launch aircraft. It means faster airspeed over the deck and thus the aircraft wing. Which means they can take off in a shorter distance and/or with a heavier load. That used to be the case. AFAIK.

TempestSabre

pucan wrote:

T....Vertical landing is the norm.

Didn't know about that. Where did you read that? I've only ever seen the British Harriers recover vertically though, so your probably right. Its less efficient than landing normally. But handy all the same, I'm sure.

bk

cork1 wrote:

What u said about the british carriers being modified helicopter carriers was a good point but Harriers take off vertically most of the time so why did they have a ramp for launching aswell.U would expect that they would be trying to find as much space as possible.

The Sea Harriers are STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) aircraft, they can take off vertically, but they can't carry as much weapons and fuel and it wastes a lot of fuel if they take off this way, so they use the "ski-jump" instead.

As to your other questions, the two new carriers will cost £3bn total. They will carry 42 F35 Joint Strike Fighter each (compared to nine jets per mini-carrier currently). The F35's will be STOVL and operated as such, but the carriers are full sized and can be converted to catapult operation if needed at a later stage.

As to why replace the mini-carriers? Originally they were designed during the cold war to operate as part of NATO to defend shipping lanes, basically close air defence and anti submarine operations, they weren't designed for offensive operations, that was left to the US.

The problem with this was discovered during the Falklands War when the Brits needed to go to war thousands of miles away without US help. The Harriers had only a very limited range of operation and could only be used in a defensive roll. While the Harriers did a great job, a few Argentine jets snuck past them and were able to sink British ships, almost ending the war.

Had they had full size carriers, with offensive, long range jets, the Argentines would never have even been able to get close to the British ships, they could have even destroyed the Argentine jets on the ground at the start of the war, thus saving many British lives and guaranteeing victory.

After the lessons learned in Falklands, navy's around the world changed their tactics and that is why the Brits are now building much larger, full size carriers with far greater offensive capabilities to project power around the world.

As an example the 42 jets on one carrier is 3 times more then the number of Tornado's Britain deployed in the first Gulf War and equal to the number deployed in the second Gulf War. So that is a lot of fire power.

Capt'n Midnight

Loved the way the current ones were called "through deck crusiers" to escape budget cuts. As someone pointed out the expensive part of carriers are the electronics and other overheads that are a fixed price per carrier. Steel is comparitively cheap. So building small carriers is a waste of money if you then kit them out with all the extras.

IIRC a harrier can hover for 90 seconds max, and to do that it carries about 600Kg of water to dump into the engines to cool them down. That could be fuel or payload if they could land normally.

Because of the scant air cover the Falklands war could have been lost so many ways. The US handed the UK all their info on Argentina, spy sattelites, manuals from joint training exercises they held with the Argentininans. They also gave them the newest sidewinders that could be fired at a aproaching plane, the earlier ones would only lock onto the heat signature after the plane turned away. They also dug deep into invertory. The campaign could have been over had any of the larger vessels been sunk, carriers , canberra, or possibly some of the remaining cargo ships. This could have happened had the Argentines launched an all out saturation attack with 40 aircraft. This could have happened if they'd had more exocets (though tatics would also play a part). While the mainland could have been targeted most of the Vulcans were near the end of their airframe lives and it could not have been sustained.

bk

Another point, had the Brits had proper carriers, with proper air cover, it would not have only saved the lives of the Brits on the ships sunk, it would likely have also saved the lives of many British and Argentine soldiers.

Had the Brits had full sized carriers with long range ground strike aircraft, they would have been able to take out the Argentine jets on the ground, which means the Argentine ships would have stayed in port, for fear of being hit by the Brit jets and then the Argentine soldiers on the Falklands wouldn't have gotten any support and would have been left with no option but to surrender. The war could have been won without the Birts actually invading the islands and losing men there.

Mick86

Dub13 wrote:

... A conventional attack on the UK homeland is no longer conceivable because our potential enemies just do not have the reach.

Until the Iranians get nukes.

Tim is suffering from End of History Syndrome. He has forgotten that it's better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it.

Maskhadov

The title of this thread is a nonsense. There is no way any right thinking western nation is going to do away with its air force. A responsible nation takes care of its nations security and doesnt have to ask someone else.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

The title of this thread is a nonsense. There is no way any right thinking western nation is going to do away with its air force. A responsible nation takes care of its nations security and doesnt have to ask someone else.

You mean like the US which has three of the world biggest airforces, the USAF, USN, USMC was able to take care of its nation security? :rolleyes:

Maskhadov

Exactly. The USA went on the offensive post 911 after the terrrorists. The war in iraq may be wrong but Bin Laden hasnt been up to much in Afganistan since american ground forces went in there.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

Exactly. The USA went on the offensive post 911 after the terrrorists. The war in iraq may be wrong but Bin Laden hasnt been up to much in Afganistan since american ground forces went in there.

So having the 3 biggest airforces in the world was usless for defending their airspace but great for bombing other countries, especially those without a credible airforce. So which country would you like the Air Corp to bomb?

Dub13

Maskhadov wrote:

There is no way any right thinking western nation is going to do away with its air force.

The Canadians did.

IrishAirCorps

cork1 wrote:

Harriers take off vertically most of the time so why did they have a ramp for launching aswell.

Wrong, Harriers only take off vertically when in training and on an empty payload, they have the ski jump as its called on the carriers as the harrier wastes an awful amout of fuel if it trys to take off vertically with a payload so its economical to use the length of the carrier for take off and the ski jump gives the aircraft an added boost to get airborne with a payload much like the USN uses the Catapult to boost the Aircraft to get her airborne.

IrishAirCorps

Dub13 wrote:

The Canadians did.

Wrong, the Western nation that got rid of its Airforce was New Zealand, Canada still operates FA-18's etc and deploys overseas.

TempestSabre

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Wrong, Harriers only take off vertically when in training and on an empty payload, they have the ski jump as its called on the carriers as the harrier wastes an awful amout of fuel if it trys to take off vertically with a payload so its economical to use the length of the carrier for take off and the ski jump gives the aircraft an added boost to get airborne with a payload much like the USN uses the Catapult to boost the Aircraft to get her airborne.

Did you disagree with what everyone else posted or something?

Dub13

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Wrong, the Western nation that got rid of its Airforce was New Zealand, Canada still operates FA-18's etc and deploys overseas.

The Canadian and New Zealand setups are similar.

Canadian Forces Air Command (AIRCOM) is the air force element of the Canadian Forces. AIRCOM is the descendant of the Royal Canadian Air Force.In 1968 aircraft and bases of the Royal Canadian Air Force were scattered across several different commands of the newly unified Canadian Forces.

Maskhadov

Dub13 wrote:

The Canadians did.

They didnt get rid of their F 18 fighters did they ?

TempestSabre wrote:

So having the 3 biggest airforces in the world was usless for defending their airspace but great for bombing other countries, especially those without a credible airforce. So which country would you like the Air Corp to bomb?

I would like to see the Air Corps being able to properly defend its airspace and also participate in foreign UN missions where modern fighter jets and helicopters are required.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

...I would like to see the Air Corps being able to properly defend its airspace...

Somehow I think if the US couldn't...

Maskhadov wrote:

... and also participate in foreign UN missions where modern fighter jets and helicopters are required.

For example?

Maskhadov

of the top of my head Liberia..

The USA has a lot of problems with departments not communicating with each other.

TempestSabre

Maskhadov wrote:

of the top of my head Liberia..

The USA has a lot of problems with departments not communicating with each other.

Its not a USA only problem.

Whats needed in Liberia? What UN air forces are there currently?

Maskhadov

Its particularly noted in the US though.

Lots of helicopters are needed. Fighter jets were required in Iraq for years.

TempestSabre

You mean Ireland doesn't? This from the place that has a national aquatic center that leaking water out of it, and a port tunnel thats leaking water into it.

Actually they needed fighter bombers, not fighters. Big difference. The fighter squadrons F15c's in irag actually had to be rotated home more often as they were getting rusty having nothing to do over there. They were actually more active on when at home training.

Bombers and Helicopters have nothing to do with defending airspace.

bostonian

isn't there a massive administrative cost involved in eliminating the RAF? new uniforms, paperwork issues, business cards/letterheads... it would cost more unless they eliminated staff.

OS119

bostonian wrote:

isn't there a massive administrative cost involved in eliminating the RAF? new uniforms, paperwork issues, business cards/letterheads... it would cost more unless they eliminated staff.

not really, the savings involved in 'slimming' the both over-officered and over-ranked RAF would be considerable. i read somewhere that 1 in 13 members of the Army is an officer, wheras 1 in 3 members of the RAF is an officer. that costs, particularly given the apparent tradition within the RAF that almost all jobs are staffed by people of significantly higher rank than those in equivilent jobs in the Army or Navy. bringing - over time - the rank/age structure of the RAF into line with the other services would save a staggering amount of money.

thats not to say i think its a particularly good idea - purely because no Navy or Army has yet demonstrated that it can manage the control of Air Doctrine without being partial to its own doctrine - and therefore allowing both 'pure' air doctrine, and the needs of the other service to suffer.

the current debate is brought about by two factors: firstly that currently pretty much 95% of RAF activity is directly in tactical support or Army activity - SH, AT, CAS, ISTAR - so the argument goes "why have a seperate air arm when the Army is, in effect, the command authority for the RAF? - its almost like the Royal Artillery being a seperate service - which would be ludicrous"

secondly its Army dissatisfaction with the RAF, both on a doctrine level - SH almost non-existant, AT on the verge of total collapse, CAS as an apparent very low priority while the RAF is spending massive amounts on an Air Superiority Fighter - which a few BEAR H's to the contrary, we aren't going to get much use out of - all 20 years after it became very apparent to the UK defence establishment that expeditionary warfare was going to be the 'next big thing' and whats needed for Expeditionary Warfare is Air Transport, Support Helicopters, Intelligence Surveilence Target Aquisition and Reconnaissance, and Close Air Support - effectively that the RAF is still trapped in a Cold War mindset. on an individual level you'd be hard pushed to find a soldier who hasn't been fcuked around by the RAF, everything from being left in Afghanistan for three weeks after your tour has ended because the RAF can't find an aircraft to bring you home, to the moronic and jobsworth attitude of the RAF Police and RAF Movers when soldiers use their 'services'


as you can imagine, the nuances of a discussion on AirPower and its role on the modern battlefield can get put to one side when such things happen, in the 'should the RAF exist as a seperate service' debate, the RAF is usually its own worst enemy...