Cut Navy and RAF, Boost Army

[busby1971]

Another ex Army General wants cuts to the Navy and RAF but wants money pumped into Land Forces.

Linky Link Link

Why are these people so short sighted and only care about their own service, and why don't the ex-RAF Air Ranks get on here and speak up for us.

 

[pie sandwich]

He said the RAF had ordered 232 Typhoons - but rarely needed more than a dozen fighters on recent operations. More helicopters, transport aircraft and unmanned drones could have been bought, he added.

He is right with what he has said here. Do we really need 232 Typhoons.
We have 10 year old hercs that have more flying hrs than some USAF H's that are 30 yrs old. We really need new PAX AC, our Tri stars are second hand and the VC 10 is on the way out.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

He said the RAF had ordered 232 Typhoons - but rarely needed more than a dozen fighters on recent operations. More helicopters, transport aircraft and unmanned drones could have been bought, he added.

He is right with what he has said here. Do we really need 232 Typhoons.
We have 10 year old hercs that have more flying hrs than some USAF H's that are 30 yrs old. We really need new PAX AC, our Tri stars are second hand and the VC 10 is on the way out.

What good will loads of Hercs and helos be if we ever fight a conventional enemy (i.e. one with an actual air force)?

 

[True Blue Jack]

Remember, we're not actually getting 232 Typhoons, it was just too expensive to change the contract to reduce the order which is why we're busily training up Saudis as we speak.

What no-one has ever explained to these ex-pongo muppets is that to provide a continuous CAP, meaning that land forces have the fast-air on tap that they expect, takes 17 airframes. Managing that on our current resources takes a gargantuan effort from aircrew and techies (and other supporting actors!) alike.

And you're spot on with the state of our AT fleet.

Unfortunately, with the imminent prospect of a Defence Review and the Government searching down the back of the sofa to try to balance the budget, each of the 3 Services is going to be parochial about what it needs with little or no consideration for the other 2. The RAF is doubly screwed because we need the Navy to get its carriers in order to justify JSF and we only need either to fight some future conflict, not on current operations where land forces necessarily have primacy.

 

[CC]

TBH mate, I have to agree with the Helo and AT argument. When was the last time we actually fought an Air Battle?

 

[MontyPlumbs]

TBH mate, I have to agree with the Helo and AT argument. When was the last time we actually fought an Air Battle?

Maybe the fact that we won't have any air combat assets if things continue will be the trigger someone needs? Just a thought - especially with things like the Falklands back in the news.

 

[Talk Wrench]

TBH mate, I have to agree with the Helo and AT argument. When was the last time we actually fought an Air Battle?

An air battle is Army thinking.

What about air superiority then?

What about moving mud then?

What about reconnaissance then?

What about Close Air Support then?

What about interdiction operations then?

What about QRA then?

What about CAP then?

What about AT protection then?

etc


TW

 

[8:15fromOdium]

When was the last time we actually fought an Air Battle?

The Falklands, and the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor are testament to what happens when you do not have Control of the Air.

IMO the Senior Army bods are using the war in Afghanistan to strengthen their position. For the last 20 years campaigns have been dominated by air power, a lid was kept on Saddam Hussein for 12 years through the Southern and Northern no fly zones at a fraction of the cost the 2003 Iraq campaign and its aftermath. Yes the current campaign is dominated by the Army, but in future will our politicians have the stomach for such campaigns? I doubt it. Back to imperial policing from the air.

Don't get me wrong I think the Army should be bigger, but so should the RN & RAF, the world is becoming more dangerous and unpredictable.

 

[CC]

I hear what you're saying, but for all of the above see the USAF.

I personally don't believe we will ever again fight a conventional war again.

 

[8:15fromOdium]

TWDT_Xtremez_30:

An air battle is Army thinking.

What about air superiority then?

What about moving mud then?

What about reconnaissance then?

What about Close Air Support then?

What about interdiction operations then?

What about QRA then?

What about CAP then?

What about AT protection then?

I can just imagine the response to this on ARRSE (with apologies to John Cleese):

"Yes, but apart from air superiority, moving mud, reconnaissance, Close Air Support, interdiction operations ,QRA ,CAP and AT protection, WHAT HAS THE AIR FORCE EVER DONE FOR US!"

 

[CC]

TWDT_Xtremez_30:

I can just imagine the response to this on ARRSE (with apologies to John Cleese):

"Yes, but apart from air superiority, moving mud, reconnaissance, Close Air Support, interdiction operations ,QRA ,CAP and AT protection, WHAT HAS THE AIR FORCE EVER DONE FOR US!"

Brought us peace.....peace ah fcuk off.........classic film.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

I hear what you're saying, but for all of the above see the USAF.

I personally don't believe we will ever again fight a conventional war again.

How many USAF aircraft were on hand during 1982 then?

 

[CC]

That's my whole point. I asked the question when was the last time we fought a typical Air Battle and the answer was 1982. So, considering that was over 25 yrs ago, do we need to invest in small pointy fast ac or some decent AT and more helos?

Like I said, where ever we go now we won't be far away from the USAF and if you believe this government would be up for a fight with the Argies over the FIs then you're a fool.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

That's my whole point. I asked the question when was the last time we fought a typical Air Battle and the answer was 1982. So, considering that was over 25 yrs ago, do we need to invest in small pointy fast ac or some decent AT and more helos?

Like I said, where ever we go now we won't be far away from the USAF and if you believe this government would be up for a fight with the Argies over the FIs then you're a fool.

So you would p1ss away our entire offensive air force...making it nothing more than a glorified taxi service for the Army? Who knows what will happen in the next few years - do you have a crystal ball?

You are a member of the wrong service I think, maybe you should sign up for an account on ARRSE. With friends like you, does the RAF need enemies?

 

[True Blue Jack]

That's my whole point. I asked the question when was the last time we fought a typical Air Battle and the answer was 1982. So, considering that was over 25 yrs ago, do we need to invest in small pointy fast ac or some decent AT and more helos?

Like I said, where ever we go now we won't be far away from the USAF and if you believe this government would be up for a fight with the Argies over the FIs then you're a fool.

All of the above.

Obama has made his position on the Falklands quite clear - he doesn't want to know. So in the unlikely event that the Argies' rhetoric turns into something more sinister we may well find ourselves on our own. And with the promise of billions of barrels of oil seemingly about to bear fruit, can any British government afford NOT to defend the islands?

 

[Shugster]

What no-one has ever explained to these ex-pongo muppets is that to provide a continuous CAP, meaning that land forces have the fast-air on tap that they expect, takes 17 airframes. Managing that on our current resources takes a gargantuan effort from aircrew and techies (and other supporting actors!) alike.

If they're servicable most of the time, which does happen but no too often.

Maybe 100 or 125 would free up enough dough for a few hercs etc.

 

[smokeyreid]

One of the reasons we may not have fought an air battle is because having a strong air defence capability in itself is a deterent. Three points to note on Air Defence......

1) Not to long ago a Russian bear aircraft tried our air defences and then found the resultant response, an F3 in quick time and then a typhoon to take over. The Russians at the mo are growing their economy and armed forces. Lets not forget maybe the cold war has gone, but a new one is always hanging in the balance.

2) Only 18 months ago Typhoons were sent to the Falklands to take over from the knackered F3's. It annoyed the Argies because they began to think we had forgotten about the islands like in 1981, however the Typhoons have shown a new commitment to the islands from us. Now look whats happened with the oil situation. Maybe the Typhoons being there has just stopped another invasion?

and most importantly...

3) Just remember the Typhoon is also supposed to be the next super fast jet that not only does air superiority but bombing as well, yes they have a bombing capability all beit at the mo in the process of being refined by 17 and 11 Sqns at Coningsby. 41 have done alot of ground work for this from when I was on the sqn. Who's gonna do the army's bombing when the harriers have been scrapped and the tonkas retired?

What about air superiority, moving mud, reconnaissance, Close Air Support, etc.....

DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Tashy_Man]

That's my whole point. I asked the question when was the last time we fought a typical Air Battle and the answer was 1982. So, considering that was over 25 yrs ago, do we need to invest in small pointy fast ac or some decent AT and more helos?

So when was the time before 1982 that we fought a typical Air Battle ?

Agree that AT needs to be replaced but think it would be very short-sighted to get rid of all that is fast and pointy !!

Crack on..............DT_Xtremez_09:

Then again why would and EX high rankers speak out ? They have their nest nicely feathered.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

... Who's gonna do the army's bombing when the harriers have been scrapped and the tonkas retired?

What about air superiority, moving mud, reconnaissance, Close Air Support, etc.....

DT_Xtremez_14:

All the Chinooks and Hercules these blinkered fools are trying to push on the RAF (shortly to become the AAC if some have their way) I reckon!! DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[CC]

LOL, you really are a tool. When did I say that? But I ask you this, how many countries out there could offer us a proper conventional Air War?

Not many and those that can, if we get into a scrap with them, then we are proper fcuked. Like I said, apart from the FIs, I can't see us getting into any scraps where the USAF won't be.

And if you want a real deterrent, then we have our RN nuclear deterrent.

We have a brilliant ISTAR capability and we will always need to provide CAS. However, we do need more Helos and proper AT (not tristars that are on their last legs). But do we need to invest in fighter ac when the USAF will provide our air superiority?