Royal Navy or Royal Air Force?

[Stan.J]

Interesting article in The August edition of "Warships"

Suggestions by the out-going head of the Royal Air Force that his service should one day take over the operating of all fixed-wing jets - a move that would see the end of the Fleet Air Arm`s fighter squadrons - provoked a stinging broadside from an Admiral. The original comments, by former Tornado pilot and 1991 Gulf War veteran, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, were made in the U.K`s Sunday Telegraph newspaper at the beginning of June.
Sir Glenn, who is retiring, reflected when asked if the Fleet Air Arm`s fixed- wing aviation element should be turned over to the RAF. "We have got to kill some sacred cows to make ourselves more efficient." It is no secret that the RAF is desperate to kill off the Royal Navy`s two new future carriers and if it cannot do that, at least have control over the jet fighters that fly from them, a move regarded by many senior naval officers as operational insanity. The anger felt in Naval ranks no doubt prompted the angry letter to the Sunday Telegraph a week later from a recently retired head of the Fleet Air Arm. Rear Admiral Scott Lidbetter. Pulling no punches Rear Admiral Lidbetter wrote "Sir Glenn`s proposal neglects other equally radical and potentially cost effective solutions in a naive and transparent attempt to forward the interests of the RAF." The former naval helicoptor and fast jet pilot added. "Absorbing the roles of the RAF, it`s aircraft, and the people required to fly and service them, into the Royal Navy and the Army would bring huge cost-savings while offering much improved co-operation and integration".
In a further rebuttal, Rear Admiral Lidbetter pointed out."The resulting two armed service, with their embedded air-power expertise, would allow a reduction of around 20,000 people, and provide the 10 per cent savings in defence, which I believe are to be expected throughout the public sector."


Seconds out, Second round!!!!!

[alanbenn]

Stan, very interesting article, why not then get rid of the RAF, have all RN airstations with Rn personnel flying, maintaining all aircraft wherever they maybe stationed.

Surely that would also reduce costs?

But then I was just a lowly matelot...what would I know.


Regards
Alan

[qprdave]

I agree Alan

Get rid of the RAF. Navy retaining their control and even enhancing it. The Army Air Corps taking over the land based aircraft. The US Marines have their own aircraft (Harriers) and it seems to work.

I wonder how many lives and ships could have been saved in WWII if the RAF, who had their own agenda and plans, allowed more aircraft to be released to back up RN needs

[oldsalt]

When the decision to scrap the large aircraft carriers was made the Government of that time, Labour, said that the RAF could protect the fleet from its foreign air bases. Shortly after that statement, they shut the foreign air bases. It is true that the Fleet Air Arm aircraft at the start of WW2 were obsolete, even though Hurricanes were flown off carriers to re-inforce Malta it was a long time before more effective aircraft were supplied to the FAA.

[astraltrader]

The RAF shouldn`t worry - they should just hang on with a bit of patience and wait for the two carriers to be cancelled, then there will be no fast jets left in the RN anyway!

[TrotOneLower]

I can't remember which, but some Admirable countered this in memorable style. The RAF are already incapable of fulfilling their commitments. Most Harriers operated in the Afghan theatre are flown by RN pilots.
An Aircraft Carrier can operate at range, you cannot pick up a runway and take it with you, unless it is on a ship.
Healy and the Air Staff were wrong in the sixties, and they still are today.

[alanbenn]

Trot, spot on. The more carriers we have the more mobile airfields we have, then we don't need foreign air stations, which would probably be the 1st target in any conflict, wipe out the airstation...no capability.

But much more dangerous taking on an aircraft carrier with destroyer escorts.

Regards
Alan

[TrotOneLower]

Particularly the 45s. I think they are mustard, took a while, but I am now convinced.
Also, if we in the Eastern Atlantic are now friends, and will remain so, then what use, apart from littoral air defence, is having a larger Air Force.

As is being seen in Afghanistan, apart from having to pack up, and move, at great expense, the small number of aircraft we have there; there is not sufficient room to park our stuff. The Big Boy, who owns the ball, has occupied most of it. Nope, confronted by a logical tactical, and strategic argument, this chap would not even have a prosthetic leg to stand on.....fool.

[sumochipmonk]

It should be remembered that the Royal Navy is the consumate fighting force because when the Army go to war they need the NAVY and the RAF to get them there. When the RAF go to war they need the NAVY and the ARMY to protect them. When the NAVY go to war they don't need either the Army or the RAF because they have there own Army in the MARINES and there own RAF in the FLEET AIR ARM.

[sumochipmonk]

It should also be remembered that in the 50's and 60's when we had a senior Crab Officers as Chief of the Defence Staff they managed to have all the Aircraft carriers including the ARK ROYAL scrapped. The Navy fought back in the 70's by conning the then Labour Government to spend 5.2 billion into building 4 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS by calling them THROUGHDECK CRUISERS. then in 1982 everybody and their Granny suddenly realised we needed AIRCRAFT CARRIERS and the AIRCRAFT that operate from them. Maybe this RAF Officer should study his history before openning his gob and giving his brain a treat..

[TrotOneLower]

Can't argue with any of that. That said, this was a while ago now, and the Admirables have put forward an overwhelming case for not only keeping, but enhancing the Fleet Air Arm, at the same time stressing that if one service is redundant, it is, in fact, the RAF.

[ObiWanRussell]

Originally Posted by sumochipmonk

It should also be remembered that in the 50's and 60's when we had a senior Crab Officers as Chief of the Defence Staff they managed to have all the Aircraft carriers including the ARK ROYAL scrapped. The Navy fought back in the 70's by conning the then Labour Government to spend 5.2 billion into building 4 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS by calling them THROUGHDECK CRUISERS. then in 1982 everybody and their Granny suddenly realised we needed AIRCRAFT CARRIERS and the AIRCRAFT that operate from them. Maybe this RAF Officer should study his history before openning his gob and giving his brain a treat..

Whilst in general agreement with all of the above, the Invincible class didn't cost anything like that amount. Invincible herself was delivered in 1980 for around £150million, and the third ship Ark Royal cost around £220million in 1985. Illustrious came in somewhere between the two in 82. The 'fourth flat top' RFA Argus came in for much less than Ark Royal, and HMS Ocean in 1998 again was delivered for much less than any of the Invincibles. Five flat tops for less than £1Billion. Not bad going. Thecurrent price of the CVFs is very misleading as well, the ships don't actually cost £5billion for two, the total price includes a complete reorganisation of the remaining shipbuilding industry as well as reconstructing the building dock at Rosyth dockyard. None of this is cheap by any means, but it is part of a larger overall plan to secure warship building in the UK for the next few decades. The type 45 programme is already winding down, and the follow on Future Surface Combattant project is several years away from first orders, so the carriers are necessary to cover the transitional period between T45 and FSC. Cancelling the carriers means closing the shipyards, killing the industry stone dead and the next generation of RN warships will be built abroad. BVT know this very well and I believe they have deliberately backed the government into a corner on this, and the Tories will discover it too if they haven't already.

The current (useless shower) government know nothing of naval or military matters and care less, all they do is go to the Navy in this case and say 'this is your budget, what do you want to spend it on?' to which successive 1SLs have said 'Carriers!', because they know without them we will only have a glorified coast guard. The RAF has proved time and again for several decades they are incapable of providing the air cover and air support needed by the fleet at sea, hence the continuing need for the Fleet Air Arm. When the RAF talk about taking over naval Aviation, they are really talking about grabbing the budget for the Fleet Air Arm and diverting it to their own pet projects. I believe the RN is ahead of the game here, and the reason they handed the Harrier force over to the RAF was because they knew the crabs would make a mess of things in terms of providing aircraft for the carriers we have now. Many complain that the CVSs frequently deploy without jets aboard, and this in fact weakens the RAFs case for total control of naval aviation, well ahaead of the service entry of either the CVFs or the F-35 Lightning. I think the RN is keeping it's powder dry for the moment, and giving the RAF enough rope to hang themselves with.

The real battle ahead is for control of the aircraft to fly from the carriers, and I believe the best model for 'Joint Force Lightning', would be under FAA control, along the lines of the FAA of the 50s 60s and 70s. Naval Air sqns, with 800 series numberplates, and manned jointly by FAA and (volunteer) RAF personnel. That way thos crabs who want to stay on land aren't forced to suffer the sea going life whilst those of a more broad minded outlook get the experience of a lifetime. The FAA crews get to live in a true naval environment again insted of lodging with the crabs in Rutland and this will benefit both recruitment and retention. Those crabs who serve on the carrier will eventually return to the RAF much wiser for the experience and if they make it up the promotion ladder will be much less likely to be 'anti carier' in their outlook...

[Wafu]

Originally Posted by TrotOneLower

I can't remember which, but some Admirable countered this in memorable style. The RAF are already incapable of fulfilling their commitments. Most Harriers operated in the Afghan theatre are flown by RN pilots.
An Aircraft Carrier can operate at range, you cannot pick up a runway and take it with you, unless it is on a ship.
Healy and the Air Staff were wrong in the sixties, and they still are today.

What a pity the Ark wasn't in commission at the Falklands flare up.
a. It would never have happened (personal view).
b. The Buccs wouldn't have missed the runway at Port Stanley and the RAF wouldn't have had the embarrassment of doing just that.

[davep]

i think to save money we should just shut up shop and let the RAF carry on, on their own. Dont think it would be very long before the government and the people suddenly realise that as an island nation you do actually need a navy never mind what the various service chiefs say to justify why their pet service should get the biggest budget.
but then after 19yrs of cuts and extended periods of sea time i'm just getting a bit jaded at the complete sea blindness of governments of all shades.

[Dave Hutson]

Won't be long before some government puppet, sorry, muppet, comes up with the idea of filling in the channel so we don't need a Navy at all, that would please Brussels and all the brown noses cowtowing to a United Europe.

They'll always need us more than we need them [bin proved twice in the last century - big time]. But then politicians forget all that and get on with protecting what they do best - their expenses and pensions whilst keeping to their motto of "Stuff you Jack, I'm Bulletproof"

Just my humble opinion.

Dave H