A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike

HAVE YOUR SAY

18 September 2012

As ever, with all that I read about British defence policy the main problem is and always has been and always will be the RAF and it's strategic blindness if not incompetence

Today there is no longer a threat to the UK that can justify a large full time RAF only fighter force

What is needed is for the RAF to accept this reality so we can structure our armed forces accordingly and that means more naval & marine forces with a credible and powerful carrier strike and amphibious assault, supported by a better equipped royal fleet auxiliary.

Raf split between a 40% full time force with dedicated ISTAR/SEAD/fixed wing transports & tankers and a force of Typhoons for CAS and air defence of deployed troops.

A 60% part time national guard with responsibilty for QRA north & south, fixed wing transports & tankers

Lighter and more multi role regular army brigades, army to take full and sole responsibility of the helicopter force, supported by a ta force of heavy armoured brigades/divisions and mechanized/armoured infantry
andy - solihull

18 September 2012

Stop the utter nonsense blaming the RAF, the reason we lost the carriers is quite simply Cameron, Osborne and the treasury, end of. Perhaps those that voted Tory simply can't admit to themselves they are responsible for putting them in power.

And yes we do need a full time RAF strike/air superiority force, with the exception of 1982 the RAF has led every UK air offensive in every conflict we have fought.

We need carrier strike but the RAF are at minimum operational size they can be allowed to fall whereas the RN is below minimum operational size and capability.

If we want to find a solution then how about scrapping the plan to increase overseas aid from £7bn a year to £11bn a year by 2015. That would allow us to scrap the ludicrous plans to cut the Army and allow an increase in the RN budget.

Navy centric RAF bashing will only set the RN back not forward.
Graham - High Wycombe

18 September 2012

I do not believe it is utter nonsense

Where is the threat to this country that the carrier/amphibious strike groups could not carry out.

Russia is no longer a threat it would have to invade half of eastern europe before it got to Germany's eatern border border let alone the channel

RAF is not repeat not interested in carriers it is they that have frequently said "one nation one air force" not too mention the rumour probably true that the raf vetoed the army air corps from operating the blackhawks because the weight meant they had to have raf stamped all over them they also wanted the apaches as well i believe

Until and unless the defence budget is increased which it will not be any time soon if ever we have to look at our strategic interests

Carrier strike could have done everthing that the raf has done in times of conflict plus it can carry out disaster relief far more effeciently.

Finally blaming cameron clegg and co is just stupid the last labour government were even more incompetent sea harriers, t45 with p poor missile capacity, the world's biggest "harrier carriers" to name but three
andy - solihull

18 September 2012

Your anti-RAF bias is laughable and typical of the navy centric brigade.

Where is the threat I'll give you one, land locked Afghanistan where overflight from the sea based air power depends upon Pakistani permission.

Fact is we need both the RAF to specialise in land based air power operations and the RN for maritime based. We are not going to put all our eggs in one basket, we can look at joint force structures but that is the limit otherwise we lose specialisation.

As for the last Labour government being responsible what nonsense! the choices made in the SDSR were made by this Tory government and driven by a Tory PM and chancellor. They had choices including increasing aid by £4bn a year which was partly responsible for the decisions made in the SDSR NOT THE RAF.

To say that the last government were more incompetent with regards Harriers when it was this government that scrapped them just shows you are equally politically biased as you are service biased and that makes your arguments questionable.
Graham - High Wycombe

18 September 2012

Andy does have a point Graham,
Labour did reduce the defence budget in real terms year upon year when they came to power and allowed the black holes that we heard so much about to expand to the point that they did.

The coalition government had little choice to cut the forces as it did in the SDSR to bring these budgets and project shortfalls into line, which in the end has brought about the fiscal ability to allow the MOD to commit funding to future projects. The Labour government said that they would have cut the various department budgets by more than the coalition did if re-elected in any case; do you really think that MOD would have fared better under them as you post seems to suggest? I would advise to the contrary, Labour consistently showed its lack of appreciation for the costs of defence by reducing its budget year on year, whilst at the same time committing those forces to ever more campaigns, often without proper kit leading to the tragic consequence of loss of life.

Whether or not you or I agree with their decisions as to what capabilities were cut is another matter.

The issue of DfID budgets was requested by the UN I believe from wealthy developed nations and this government is honourable in trying to meet this demand, whether or not you or I agree with it. Personally I would prefer to see less money paid to the EU and instead spent domestically...
Laskovar - UK

18 September 2012

Very good article, UK defence has been a shambles for over 40 years, ever since the RAF decided that they were the ones that should fly fast jets.. and the navy shouldnt..

Anybody remember their claim that they could provide a 24/7 CAP at sea for a fleet? hahahah
Jex - UK

18 September 2012

There is nothing sensible in blaming DFID's budget. MOD's spending has always been much higher than 0.7% of GNI/GDP.

All parties share equal responsibility over the lost of Naval Strike ability. Btw, it was not just in 1982 that the Harrier was used Graham.
Jiesheng - N/A

18 September 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Turning this onto the sensible people amongst us who voted to get rid of Labour after the mess they left us in is not going to change anything. Yes the coalition government were wrong to axe the carrier strike capability, I acnnot and will not even try to argue that point with you. However the truth is simple, the legacy of the last labour government left us with an interest payment on the National debt, that was bigger than the defence budget. FACT!

Something had to be done to get spending under control, as I said I don't agree with where a lot of the cuts were made, however cuts had to be made.

Just to put your mind at rest, I will probably vote Tory again next time round, because I certainly do not want the buffoons especially Ed Balls, in charge of my hard earned tax money anytime soon.
Rob - Telford

18 September 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Next time I'll read what I have typed before posting it so it doesn't come across as gibberish. Just to add to Laskover, the Labour party also agreed to the same size overseas aid budget.

Personally I would have kept Carrier Strike and cut the overseas aid budget (especially to countries like India, who don't need it or want it), I would have tried to sort out the Welfare state and the awful waste that goes on in the Health Service, but neither of those exercises could possibly done quickly enough to reduce the amount of borrowing by the UK government in quick enough time.

The sad fact is, carrier strike was a quick and easy option, it was without doubt treasury led and certainly not defence led.

I don't know who you think the alternative government should be, because if you know of a political party, that has a realistic chance of getting into power, that would do anything different I would like to know.

I (like you) believe in good balanced armed forces across all three services.
Rob - Telford

18 September 2012

Where is the threat I'll give you one, land locked Afghanistan where overflight from the sea based air power depends upon Pakistani permission.

MM US NAVY CARRIER & EXPEDITIONARY STRIKE GROUPS NOT INVOLVED THEN?

US NAVY & MARINES HORNETS AND SUPER HORNETS US MARINE HARRIERS.

MM HOW MANY GR4'S ARE IN AFGANISTAN

MM AFGANISTAN IS NOT A THREAT TO THE UK IT'S INTEREST'S YES (MAYBE).
andy - solihull

18 September 2012

But the Italian Navy is to be cut by ~1/3 over the next decade. As most of these losses will not be redressed through future programmes, the cuts are actually deeper than those imposed on the RN and include:

4-8 frigates
6-8 corvettes
2 SSKs
4 MCMVs
2 support ships

Despite the fact that they have been able to hang on to their Harriers, the Italian Navy as a whole will suffer a severe reduction in its operational capability in the coming years.
Murgatroyd - West Yorkshire

18 September 2012

Talking of land-locked Afghanistan as a reason to hold on to the RAF is frankly absurd.

The almost totality of the air campaign in 2001 over Afghanistan was launched from aircraft carriers at sea for lack of bases.
I can't write "totality", because the USAF's heavy bombers flying from Diego Garcia held up their own, but notoriously the UK is unable to fund a comparable system.
To this day, a vast number of missions over Afghanistan come from the sea regularly, from 2 US Carriers on station and from the french Charles De Gaulle when present.
In 2001, the AV8B+ Harriers of the Italian Navy took part to the operations and were given a medal by the US ambassador in Italy for their precious contribution.
And when "the RAF" went into Afghanistan, it was with the Harriers, including the navy-crewed ones, also because the available runway was too short for anything else.

The vast majority of the troops that went into Afghanistan in 2001 was made up by US Marines coming from ships aboard helicopters.

A lot of people, i see, has forgotten how "land locked" Afghanistan began. From the sea.

The things that proved necessary and that the RAF could and did provide were air tankers for air to air refueling, but we have to ask ourselves if we really need a separate service for cargo aircrafts and tankers.

Anyway, this piece is not intended to be an attack against the RAF, but against a certain kind of behavior that has left Britain full of "gaps" in several crucially important capabilities.
Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

18 September 2012

I agree with Graham's comments from High Wycombe.

Whether you like Labour or not, the firepower at troop level increased.

SA80 A2, L115A3 .338, GMG, HMG, Minimi, Javelin, UGL, ACOG, L129A1.

The common argument is that the Tories had to balance the books. However it was certainly a bad decision to have sold the Harries for such a low price after they had been upgraded.

I do think the Tories have made a hash of the last defence review. It placed short term financial gain above critical capability.
Gary Ewers - Newport

18 September 2012

Here we go again, bashing the RAF again.

Pathetic quite frankly.

All 3 services have their part to play and should be properly funded.

When reading the article on Italy retaining their carriers were we did not, one should also take a wider view of capabilities that the UK has where's Italy does not, which are numerous.

Example, would the Italians be affording their carrier if they had a fleet of SSN's with TLAM.

A gold plated capability we have, and spend billions on.

They do not, and as far as I know will not.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

19 September 2012

Graham.

Again we must agree to disagree, it is clear the RAF had influenced decision making in how previous harrier aircraft were owned, operated, upgraded and disposed of (and the platforms – CVS's – which supported them).

I would also contend (despite your erroneous claims) that there is clear evidence (from ship historical logs) that RN CVS's provided offensive air capabilities in lieu of them been provided in the first instance by the RAF. These include the Balkans, Sierra Leone & the Middle East.

I am not bashing the RAF as you will likely reply with; there is a clear need for both forces to operate their own organic air forces.

I would agree the RAF and RN are hollowed, especially since the Peace Dividend BS of the 90's, I really don't think the F-35 is the answer for the GR4 or Sea Harrier, but that is the hand been dealt. Twin engined replacements are really required; however not many people really realise the benefits these offer over single engined models.

I would agree, as other have suggested (including myself), that the UK should cut it's foreign aid and support the domestic defence market (and the jobs they provide), unfortunately, the public do not hold their government representatives accountable –as in the past – and everyone suffers as a result. Once upon a time British military hardware was really top notch, now, it is hit and miss. The Italian model (of other ministries financing capital programmes) is a good start.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

19 September 2012

Gary Ewers - Newport

Not a compelling argument, "firepower increased at troop level", most of the kit you named was bought as a UOR at the request of the Army to fight labour's wars, thats like saying that the Armies firepower increased during WW2 with the introduction of Sherman instead of Cruiser tanks. The fact that we would have paid through the nose for UOR equipment is another reason why the governments finances were so out of kilter.
Rob - Telford

19 September 2012

Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

I was taking Afghanistan as an example to prove the point that the ability to mobilise a land based air power capability is required alongside a maritime strike capability, both come with their own specialisations. We cannot and will not reduce our strike capability to maritime only. You fail to realise that every conflict we have fought and required air power since 1982 has been led by the RAF who have been able to operate successfully from land bases so to suggest that we can simply remove the RAF from the equation is the real absurdity.

Shaun - Ex_RNZN

Too late now but what should have been done was to scrap the FRS2 and hand the RAF's GR9's to the FAA and allow them to put Blue Vixen radar in them, that would have been the best airframe/engine/radar combination and could have kept us going till the QE enters service. Even if we operated circa 20 'FRS3' and scrapped the then 3 or 4 RAF GR9 squadrons to fund it that would have been sustainable and a balanced force structure between the RAF/FAA.

All,

The reality is the decision of the government in the SDSR to scrap whole capability rather than salami slice current capability was responsible for the lose of maritime strike capability.
Had we had a different government then we could have cut across the services but retained core capabilities across the spectrum although savings would have been less. Thus the fault is with Cameron, Osborne and the treasury as I previously stated.
Turning it into an RAF vs RN argument is ridiculous. Some of the commentators on this page should be more aware of their prejudices before they comment.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 September 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Still over simplistic, not the just the fault of Cameron and Osborne, the economic situation was not of there making, you seem to have it in mind that Labour would not have made any cuts. . . .

We will never know will we, but when you look at the commitments that they made, it is difficult to understand where they would have got the money from.

I am not happy at all with where the current government cut essential military capabilities, however I don't understand why you are so blind to the economics that led to the decision.
Rob - Telford

19 September 2012

To everyone
As much I would love to have a much bigger defence budget 50 billion is easily within our means it is not going to happen

Graham
Last I heard free speech and opinion was still treasured in this country just because you don't like or agree with what i say does not mean that i am prejudiced

You have not once said what the raf could/can/is doing that the rn/faa could not do.
ANDY - solihull

19 September 2012

Jex ...... and Graham

I well remember the RAF taking on Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations (TASMO) in exchange for getting the Navy Phantoms and Buccaneers with which to do it and then failing to do it .... even on major NATO STRKFLTLANT exercises ... where the UK led ASW force was operating far in front of STRKFLT with its carriers and the Amphibious force!!!
Rumour had it that the Buccaneers were too valuable for overland penetration to the east!!! Was TASMO just a political ploy to fill an RAF gap with no additional expenditure?? Shades of the Russian convoys losses due to NAZI air, surface and subsurface attack were not even thought about!! The lessons of the shortage of effective layered AAW defence from the Norwegian campaign were forgotten and look what happened in and around Falkland Sound!!

Gabriele well said!!!
Norman - UK

19 September 2012

Rob - Telford

You seem to ignore that they had choices, for instance they made the choice that overseas aid would be raised from £7bn per year to £11bn.
You also ignore that it was this government that made the decision that whole capabilities would be scrapped rather than overall reductions across a number of capabilities.

These are both decisions that this government alone is responsible for so it is not simplistic to blame them. They had choices and they made mistakes for which they should be blamed. That blame lies with Cameron, Osborne and the treasury rather than the previous government.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 September 2012

Graham from HW,

I think Korea was RN CV led and I believe it is a true fact that since WW2 only the RN FAA have shot down an enemy aircraft in conflict....the RAF have only succeeded in shooting down their own mates (RAFG). It is also a fact that the RAF have engineered the dimunition of the FAA over the past 20 years and would have done the same to the AAC if the could. They continue to argue to this day that there should only be the RAF.
chris - UK

19 September 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

I haven't ignored them, I agree that mistakes were made by this government which I cannot try to justify, however you ignore the fact that Labour were also going to increase the overseas aid budget to the same level as the coalition. . .

You ignore the fact that the interest on the national debt inherited from the Labour government was higher than the defence budget. . .

I have agreed with you on a number of occasions, that I did not agree with the wholesale cutting of capabilities, especially Carrier Strike and Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the point I am trying to make is the exercise in cutting department waste where it is really needed is much harder and takes much longer, just look at the problems and obstacles Ian Duncan-Smith is having trying to cap the amount a household gets in benefits to £25k a year, Defence does not win votes, but the fact of the matter is we needed to get spending under control, I do not like or agree with the cuts made in the treasury led SDSR but I understand why.
Rob - Telford

19 September 2012

Gary Ewers - Newport

Sorry, just read your last comment from your entry, which I do agree with to a degree, this was a treasury led SDSR and not defence led. £120 trillion pound labour debt led to that though, interest's payments higher than the defence budget. . .
Rob - Telford

19 September 2012

As far as i am aware the 4 billion increase in overseas aid was to try and portray the tories as a nice, friendly, caring party and not the nasty one.

Graham
The previous labour government was in power for 13 years and was very, very quick indeed to deploy our forces but reluctant very reluctant to fund that deployment.

I am also not a fan of this worse than useless government, but the black hole was of labour's making.

Their ambition for our forces was to be lauded but, without proper funding it was always destined to be right mess whoever won the last election.
ANDY - SOLIHULL

19 September 2012

Rob, UOR is not such a bad thing, we get the very best on the market whilst still maximising combined purchasing power.

Perhaps a bad example I chose, but an easy one to explain that under labour the troops did get some of the things we needed. Under the coalition we have seen cuts to the manpower and an attitude that you will get what you can 'afford'. Hence the quote from Cameron "You do the fighting... I'll do the talking".

Labour wars? I don't seem to remember the Tories objecting in parliament to the war on terror?

Allot of people comment that there would not have been a Falklands war had the Tories not sold HMS Hermes. In addition Thatcher knew of the planned invasion 3 months before it happened (SBS surveillance).

I think the question is simply are the harriers important and should they have been kept? Personally I think they were, because the RAF do a fantastic job but will now have to pick up the tab for no FAA capability.
Yes Labour left us in debt, but did anyone really see the recession coming? The people in the know were the bankers. I pray whatever government gets in tightens the loopholes which allow toxic debt to accumulate.
Gary Ewers - Newport

20 September 2012

Rob - and now the borrowing gap is even larger, and instead of the growing economy they inherited, this government has entered a double-dip recession; any faults that can be levelled at the last government are multiplied by this one. What is needed is long term planning, not short term cuts whose risks have not been weighed or analysed.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK

20 September 2012

AlMiles - Bristol, UK

Agree that we are still increasing the debt, however you will notice that the amount borrowed by the government each month has fallen dramatically compared to when Labour were in power.

The money is being spent on commitments that have to be paid for, some of it inherited from the previous government (huge interest payments for a start), it isn't simply a tap you can turn off. We still need to pay the defence budget, the welfare bill, NHS, emergency services etc, surely you can see that.

What is needed as you quite correctly point out is long term planning, and this is one area where I do agree with labour, we must make investment in selected projects that will get British people back working, it will increase tax revenue, reduce unemployment payments and start getting the country moving again.

That is a definate area where this government is lacking, they are trying to cut costs without thinking long term, which is exactly why I agree that cutting the carrier strike was wrong, why cutting MPA was wrong, I am not sticking up for these decisions, I am looking at the long term root cause which a number of people here appear to have forgotten.
Rob - Telford

20 September 2012

Gary Ewers - Newport

Some UOR's are neccesary, hence the name, I have been on the receipt of UOR's in Iraq and it was a fantastic way of getting good equipment when it was needed, however when it is used for large scale equipment purchases because of a lack of planning (Mastiff).

I am agreeing with people that getting rid of the Carrier Strike capability was foolish, my issue is with how short peoples memories are and forget the root cause of all this. This government have made some howlers of decisions, but when you mention about the labour governments support for our armed forces, how much of that was down to General Dannat and the way he manipulated the press and pushed the government into a corner, how about the equipment they said they were ordering to support our troops, then never did (Chinook helicopters).

Politicians, whatever the party are as bad as each other, none of them can be trusted.
Rob - Telford

20 September 2012

"You fail to realise that every conflict we have fought and required air power since 1982 has been led by the RAF who have been able to operate successfully from land bases so to suggest that we can simply remove the RAF from the equation is the real absurdity."

Hard to see how it could have gone differently, with the way the FAA was reduced to, effectively, a bunch of Sea Harriers first, and then to crewing RAF airplanes from 2006 onwards.

Until the FAA had airplanes, it was always there in first line.
And fought from land bases when carriers were not necessary, to no less effect than the RAF.


"But the Italian Navy is to be cut by ~1/3 over the next decade. As most of these losses will not be redressed through future programmes, the cuts are actually deeper than those imposed on the RN and include:

4-8 frigates
6-8 corvettes
2 SSKs
4 MCMVs
2 support ships"

The reduction in the number of frigates will actually be 2 in the end, as the last four FREMM at the moment remain planned. 6 are on order, 4 more to follow, for a force of 10, down from 12.
The "cut" you mention is the planned retirement of the first 4 Maestrale frigates (4 more, upgraded, are to stay) and of 3 out of 4 of the Soldati class, which are to be progressively retired by 2016.
You forget the FREMM entering service, though. It's almost like counting the retiring Type 42s as cuts.

There will be a reduction in the number of corvettes, but the corvettes being cut had been downgraded to patrol vessels by removing most of the heavy weaponry and so in my view do not make a loss anywhere as serious as those suffered by the RN.
Besides, there is, at least on paper, a plan for a new class of small vessels for the future.

The support ships will actually be replaced, if the review is respected.
There will also be a replacement for the submarine tender, and the new LHD for the amphibious force remains a priority.

The drop from 6 to 4 SSKs isn't any worse than the drop from 12 SSNs in 1990 for the RN to 7 now planned, is it?

At the state, although the italian navy is going to have to absorb quite some pain in the coming years by decommissioning several ships early, its situation isn't as bad as you paint it.

If other cuts will come, it'll be another story, obviously, but the current plans do not reflect your vision.


It should also be noted that here a lot of people is reading this Harrier comparison in a too narrow way, limiting it to just the 2010 decision in the SDSR.

In 2010, the Harrier was already agonizing and there were simply not enough left to make it worthwhile keeping them. However, truly demented decisions brought the UK to this situation, and those were made over several years in the last decade.
I do not mention the 2008 spat with the First Sea Lord without a reason.

What the UK tragically seem to lack, is a coherent strategy.

"one should also take a wider view of capabilities that the UK has where's Italy does not, which are numerous."

Of course, we could make a wider analysis and see that Italy never developed certain capabilities.
It cannot have SSNs because of the treaties of peace that followed second world war.
It lacks (for now) AWACS planes of its own for the air force (they are on the way from Israel) and is only now upgrading its MLRS to GMLRS.

But, going into the matter in depth, you'd also find the reverse: Italy has radar and optic satellites of its own.
The UK no.

And in our age, that's quite another glaring hole in the UK's capabilities.
Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

20 September 2012

"But, going into the matter in depth, you'd also find the reverse: Italy has radar and optic satellites of its own.
The UK no."

It is not quite as clear cut as that!

The UK has a bilateral intelligence sharing agreement with the US that other non UKUSA countries do not.

The UK, along with the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, share intelligence from Geogint, to Elint, Comint, Humint, Spy Satellites, and a whole range of other fields in which SIS/ SS and GCHQ work hand in glove with US Agencies, particularly the NSA.

So, again looking even deeper, one could say we have no need to develop radar and optic satellites ourselves! As our government is happy to keep the Special Relationship going with the USA in this field.

The wider implications or the rights or wrongs of this are irrelevant.

We don't NEED those satellites ourselves. We use those of the NRO.

We tried building our own in the 80's with Zircon.

My point was that with vast expenditures like we have on other capabilities such as SSN's which most other nations do not have then maybe the Italian Navy can afford prioritize it's carrier force.

Whether it is restrained from acquiring SSN's as a result of WW2 treaties does not change anything.

If Italy could operate SSN's would they afford to operate both? This is my point.
I suspect no.

Sadly the UK can afford to operate both but decided not to.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

20 September 2012

"It is not quite as clear cut as that!

The UK has a bilateral intelligence sharing agreement with the US that other non UKUSA countries do not."

I'm perfectly aware of that. Unfortunately, knowing that the US satellite resources are already overstretched for their own national needs, i feel i have to question the wisdom of totally depending on them.

I absolutely welcomed the Nova Sar experiment announced not long ago, or the mooted collaboration with France, but we'll see how the UK will solve the notorious carency of satellite bandwidth and surveillance.

In any case, i still fear you are not getting the point of the matter, focusing on improbable guesses of what Italy would be like with SSNs.
Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

20 September 2012

No matter which service people support the sad fact is:

the RAF requires permission from foreign states to overfly their territory when deploying and

the Royal Navy just haven't the vessels to do the job they used to do.

Neither service in its present form can do a large scale deployment to parts of the world in the face of other countries denying overfly permission or refusing to charter the vessels required to maintain a seaborne fleet ie ro-ro vessels.

Italy is better placed geographically than the UK in some regards to place its assets into the middle east where current operations are taking place. Also the Italian navy is centered in the med unlike the UK with its larger responsabilities.

Just one last point: the navy lost its CVA-01 carriers back in the 60's due to pressure from the RAF and the treasury, the government at the time- Labour.
JC - UK

21 September 2012

Rob,

what exactly do you believe, only you seem to argue for the sake of arguing. You have made statements, but when pressed circumnavigate to another opinion. Your orginal suggestion was that Labour had caused this, but now you state "Politicians, whatever the party".

Mastiff was an UOR because the MOD/Army had always lacked a clear vision on a replacement to the FRES program.

The Marines were clever and adapted the Vikings for Afghanistan. Because this worked we quite quickly purchased the Warthog on an UOR.

Your argument regarding Labour lacks credibility. The collation has just bought 25 foxhounds for £30 million. Because these vehicles are in addition to the 300 already on order, we are purchasing this batch at a high cost per vehicle.

If the collation had adopted a consistent approach they would have saved money. However by penny pinching we are now left out of pocket once more by a government who thinks that making short term cuts can stimulate fiscal stimulus.

False economy.

General Dannat reported on the interests of the people who were under him. Simon Bryant speaks out and he is told to shut up.
Gary - Newport

21 September 2012

Just one last point: the navy lost its CVA-01 carriers back in the 60's due to pressure from the RAF and the treasury, the government at the time- Labour.
JC - UK

is it not alleged/fact? that the RAF moved certain countries east of suez so as prove they could defend the navy fleet without the need for CV's
andy - solihull

21 September 2012

Jim Callaghan, had been in the RN. When given a secret paper on minesweeper numbers, he instantly knew there were not enough. In the end not much could be done, but at least he knew the issue.
Give a similar paper today to Cameron, Osborne, Clegg or Milliband & they would not have a clue what they were reading. No experience outside the Westminster bubble.
Roughly 20 years ago, I had a letter published in Flight Int saying the UK should buy Harrier IIPlus rather than SeaHarrier FA2. I was shouted down at the time, but I was right in the end, though it gives me no satisfaction to see the Harriers ditched by our oblivious political class.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

21 September 2012

Gary - Newport

It looks like you are just picking up on odd bits of what I have siad and ignored the bits where I have agreed with other contributors

Mastiff was never a replacement for FRES UV, it was a UOR for use in Iraq as a wheeled protected vehicle to be used in a high threat area.

Viking has not had a good time of it in Afghanistan, my old squadron supported 3 Commando Brigade in Afghanistan as Viking crewman, we had two guys killed in a minestrike, which is why the Army has bought the Warthog as a UOR, because it's mine blast protection is far superior.

Sorry if I was not clear about my opinions on politicians, it seems you have confused the fact that because I can remember back more than a couple of years, and remember that the previous Labour government left us with £120 trillion debt and a massive interest bill each month, for me supporting all of the decisions made by the current government. I don't. Please read the parts of my post where I quite clearly state that I think that the decision to cut both the Carrier strike capability and Maritime Patrol as a big mistake.

What I have tried to argue, is that I understand why they have done it because of the massive debt they inherited, I would have personally tried to cut elsewhere (overseas aid / welfare bill for instance). I fail to see where my comments about the Labour party lack credibility, they are facts, some of which are off the Labour party manifesto from the last election.

I am not a big lover of the current government, though I fail to see I viable alternative at the moment, though must admit some of the noises made by Labour recently do interest me (investment in selected projects to boost growth).

Your comment "Your argument regarding Labour lacks credibility. The collation has just bought 25 foxhounds for £30 million. Because these vehicles are in addition to the 300 already on order, we are purchasing this batch at a high cost per vehicle.

If the collation had adopted a consistent approach they would have saved money. However by penny pinching we are now left out of pocket once more by a government who thinks that making short term cuts can stimulate fiscal stimulus."

No argument, some of the decisions made by the coalition are barking and indefensible, hence my comment, you cannot trust a politician whatever the party.
Rob - Telford

21 September 2012

Andy - Solihull

Yes, the RAF moved Australia 500 miles to support their arguement against naval CVA's, pity politicians couldn't read maps eh!
JC - UK

22 September 2012

Gabriele

I think you are underestimating the impact of the planned cuts on the future operational effectiveness of the Italian Navy. The truth is that:

1) Training, maintenance and personnel numbers are all being cut (e.g. naval manpower to be reduced by 7,000). This WILL impact on readiness and sustainability.
2) The Navy will be left with too few high-end escorts and submarines and too many small multirole vessels. A fleet of just 4 SSKs, for example, is completely inadequate. The comparison you make with British SSNs is a false one as RN SSN numbers fell rapidly in the 1990s in response to a sudden and dramatic change in the geo-strategic situation. The current situation re. Italian SSKs is completely different as there will be no reduction in commitments for the reduced fleet.
3) The planned cuts WILL NOT be sufficient and it is highly likely that additional reductions will have to be made. Some of the new additions you mention will doubtless fall victim to these, and the impact on future capability will therefore be greater than you suggest.
Murgatroyd - West Yorkshire

22 September 2012

As you have eloquently pointed, UOR is to fulfil an urgent operation gap. Because the FRES UV never got off the ground (1998) we went to war with a wholly inadequate vehicle.

The Mastiff was largely to replace the Snatch land rover which was wholly inadequate in terms of protection from IED's. Albeit I am not certain how FRES would have coped without the addition of a V shaped Hull, but it would certainly have provided a better alternative.

The Bulldog was also upgraded for high threat areas.

The Viking has performed admirably for what it was originally designed to do and before the addition of the Mastiff was the most favoured vehicle to ride in. Tragically a Royal died after the vehicle hit an old Russian anti-tank mine. As per the Jackal, the orginal brief was to avoid likely IED locations by having increased mobility and staying off the beaten path. The Warthog with its improved weight/armour is a welcome improvement upon the concept and can perform more functions.

Even I would be scared at 120 Trillion which would be more akin to the state of Britain's finances after the WWII. The current debt stands roughly at £1.04 trillion (66.1 per cent of national income). What you must remember though is that we are the largest shareholders in the banks.

What has the coalition done to tighten the regulation since it has got into power? All I seem to recall is that they sold Northern Rock for less than its market value.

Banks have to work, like oil they are pretty much guaranteed to return a profit. In time the share price will raise and the government will sell the shares for something nearer their true value. Once this happens the debt repayments will fall considerably. Whilst this happens should the coalition continue to perpetuate a culture of fear in view to making more & more public services transfer to the private sector?

However as much as I hate politicians, the MOD has to take responsibility for cost overruns and constantly changing the contractors brief. Poor management means we pay through the teeth on new projects like the T45's etc.

Gary - Newport

22 September 2012

chris - UK

I meant since 1982 rather than except 1982 although I didn't word it that way so my fault.
On the subject of shooting down aircraft, half the kills in 1982 were RAF pilots on loan so I think it fair to say the honours are shared in that case. However shooting aircraft down is only one part of air power projection the attacks led by the RAF between 1991 and 2011 in a number of conflicts and ongoing in Afghanistan are just as important as any aircraft downed in aerial combat.

andy - solihull

My god you are accusing the RAF of being responsible for the withdrawal east of Suez !!!! It was a purely political decision made by the government of the day not not due to anything relating to the RAF. There is a saying that a man needs to be aware of his prejudices and do you need to remember that if you want to be taken seriously.
Graham - High Wycombe

24 September 2012

It was a purely political decision made by the government of the day not not due to anything relating to the RAF.

A POLITICAL DECISION BY A LABOUR GOVERNMENT!!!!

Yes, the RAF moved Australia 500 miles to support their arguement against naval CVA's, pity politicians couldn't read maps eh!
JC - UK

I BELIEVE HAD WE BUILT AND OPERATED THEM IN 1982 HOW MANY LIVES WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN SAVED WITH SUPERIOR AIR DEFENCE WITH MACH 2 CAPABILITY F.14 TOMACATS, STRIKE CAPABILITY FROM BUCCANEERS AND (PROBABLY)E2 HAWKEYE AEW.
I DOUBT GALTIERI AND HIS MOB WOULD HAVE TRIED HAD CVA BEEN BUILT

GRAHAM/EVERYONE

THE FACT IS DEFENCE IS NOT A PRIORITY AT THE MOMENT SO WE HAVE TO GET THE BEST OUT OF WHAT WE HAVE GOT AND THAT IS NOT HUGE EXPENSIVE ONE TRICK PONY LAND ONLY BASED FIGHTERS.

CARRIER BASED AVIATION CAN OPERATE ON CARRIERS AND LAND!!!!!

AND PLEASE DO STOP RABBITING ON ABOUT MY PREJUDICES MY OPINION IS JUST AS VALID AS ANY RAF CENTRIC COMMENTATORS PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO LIVE IN LA LA LAND WHO SEEM TO THINK THAT POLITICIANS SHOULD LOOK MORE TO DEFENCE. SHOW ME A LABOUR GOVERNMENT THAT DONE THAT AND I WILL SHOW YOU A BUNCH OF LIARS. THE FACT IS THERE IS NO VOTES IN DEFENCE ANY PARTY WHO SAYS THEY WILL PRIORTISE DEFENCE OVER HEALTH, EDUCATION OR THE EVER MORE WASTEFUL (AND EVER SO LOVED BY LABOUR) WELFARE STATE AND YOU WILL HAVE A LOSING PARTY.
andy - solihull

24 September 2012

There is a saying that a man needs to be aware of his prejudices and do you need to remember that if you want to be taken seriously.
Graham - High Wycombe

AGREE WITH YOU PERHAPS YOU SHOULD TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE AND LOOK AT YOUR PREJUDICES
andy - solihull

24 September 2012

It seems to me that there are people posting comments who don't know their history, are not willing to accept the truth and accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about just because their views don't match certain others who post biased views.

Isn't democracy great!
JC - UK

25 September 2012

Andy - Solihull

Not me that thinks we can do without a navy (or maritime strike) its you that thinks we can do without an effective air force. So no prejudices on my part!

Also I won't SHOUT as you should realise that only weakens your argument. However you fail to understand that the ability to deploy and sustain land based expeditionary operations is as much a specialisation as is maritime operations for the FAA.
As for calling the RAF a 'one trick pony' what was that about prejudices again... I think you will find they have a good range of capabilities including ISTAR with E-3D and Sentinel R1 and Reaper for COIN making them perfectly flexible and adaptable.

We will never put all our eggs into either basket. Both have their advantages and disadvantages .

BTW you were blaming the RAF not that the government was Labour at the time. Any case you voted in this bunch of upper class twits that effectively scrapped our maritime strike capability not me.

Also wasn't it the last government that committed to building two QE carriers and JSF and wasn't it this government that wanted to cancel those 'thingies' (as Osborne called them at the time).
Graham - High Wycombe

25 September 2012

GRAHAM

READ MY ORIGINAL POST FROM 18 SEPTEMBER ON DEDICATED ISTAR/SEAD, TYPHOON FIGHTERS OPERATED BY THE RAF

THE LAST LABOUR SHOWER SCRAPPED SEA HARRIERS AND THEN DECIDED TO BUILD 2 65000 TONNES STOVL CARRIERS THEN PUSHED BACK BUILDING THEM TO SAVE MONEY, LEFT THE ARMY & MARINES WITHOUT BODY ARMOUR, PROTECTED VEHICLES THEN CUT THEN HELICOPTER BUDGET ETC ETC

AND AS I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS CUURENT SHOWER I ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY

IN THE FUTURE PLEASE STICK TO THE ARGUMENT.

THE DEFENCE BUDGET WILL NOT AND NEVER WILL BE INCREASED TO THE POINT WE CAN OPERATE BOTH SERVICES AT THE LEVEL THEY SHOULD WE SHOULD THEREFORE CUT OUR CLOTH ACCORDINGLY OUR/YOUR CURRENT POLICY IS TRULY LAUGHABLE AN ISLAND NATION WITH THE MOST LAND CENTRIC DEFENCE FORCES. PATHETIC

FINALLY ONCE AGAIN PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION GIVEN THE MESS YOUR LABOUR GOVERNMENT LEFT US AND I REPEAT THE FACT THE DEFENCE BUDGET IS NEVER GOING TO BE INCREASED AND CUTTING OUR CLOTH ACCORDINGLY WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE WIELDED THE AXE TO KEEP CARRIER STRIKE OPERATIONAL

TORNADO SCRAPPED OR MAYBE THE WELFARE BUDGET CUT IN HALF OR OVERSEAS AID CUT IN HALF HEALTH EDUCATION CUTS ETC ETC.

p.s sorry for shouting but as an x 45cdo i think i have the right to vent my frustration and anger at anyone who thinks the last labour shower record on defence was brilliant

look forward to finally getting an answer from you
andy - solihull

25 September 2012

Andy
"Events dear boy, events" as MacMillan said.
Our political class may not want to increase defence spending, but a military disaster in an unstable World may force their hand. In politics, never say never.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

26 September 2012

The Harrier was the perfect national defence platform, we could have used it on our carriers and imagine having 200 of them hidden away in forests, barns and hills all over the country.
Any weapons it lacked could have been designed, built by British Engineers, I believe it was so good an option for national defence, the EU simply had to get rid of it, and our EU Compliant politicians duly agreed to carry out those orders.
Ade - Hull/UK/None

26 September 2012

andy,

First of all I have never voted Labour so YOUR apologies are accepted!

There is no way that we are going to be able create and maintain an effective 60/40 full time/reserve air force. First you could not retain that number of reserves, we are struggling to recruit 10% and still maintain the skills required. Your proposals are complete fantasy based on your desire to increase funding for the RN at the RAF's expense. You even make absurd allegations about the RAF being responsible for the withdrawal east of Suez which along with your shouting (RM or not) makes you look hopelessly biased and self defeating.

So lets look at the situation, the RAF pre-SDSR had eight Tornado squadrons and three Harrier we now have six Tornado and no Harrier so the RAF has taken its share of cuts. In future the Tornado out of service date is 2019 and I don't expect the RAF will operate more than two F-35 units, the same as I expect the FAA to operate which is a gain of two squadrons over the present for them and a loss of four squadrons for the RAF.

Almost certainly F-35 will be operated in a joint force that will allow deployments from either service in either expeditionary or maritime capacity. Therefore in future the cloth is being cut and it will be the RN/FAA that is going to gain the most even if they have suffered the most now.

I would personally like to see the increased aid budget increase from 7 to 11 billion per annum by 2015 scrapped and held at the present level that would be 4 billion saved from 2015 which if even 1 billion was added to defence would help.
Graham - High Wycombe

26 September 2012

RAF will be also be operating 107 TYPHOONS more than enough for ops how many tornadoes do we have in afganistan 4, 5, 6 not many the fact the RAF will also operate F.35 suggest to me that the RAF will effectively have a veto on carrierborne ops just as they did with JFH.

If as you say the RAF operate land based fighters why are they demanding a say in carrierborne ops?!!!





ANDY - SOLIHULL

26 September 2012

ANDY - SOLIHULL

The RAF will operate just five Typhoon Squadrons for around 20+ years with upgrades. They currently have four squadrons using a mix of tranche 1 and 2 aircraft so one more will be created by 2015.

The figure of 107 is part political as it means the UK has with the sale of 72 Typhoons to Saudi Arabia met its contractual obligations but after retiring tranche 1 Typhoons early the 107 tranche 2 and 3 is the minimum required to operate around 75 for that length of time which is what it will actually operate not 107 as you stated and that means 52 (*) tranche 1 aircraft will be withdrawn very early and not upgraded (maybe sold/used for spares).

Now JFH, you are mistaken again! The RAF did not veto carrier borne operations that is a navy centric myth. The fact that FAA GR9's were sent to Afghanistan while RAF GR9's were not yet trained and able to fly from carriers caused a loss of carrier capability but the decision was not the RAF's alone, the FAA wanted to be on ops and rotate through active service. Joint Force does not mean one service dictates rather decisions are taken together and with the joint chiefs. Once more prejudices and ignorance trump facts on your part.

Your next point 'why are the RAF getting F-35'. Answer: because it will have unique capabilities that the RAF need as much as the FAA and pairing it with enhanced Typhoon will allow a formidable expeditionary force to be deployed!
Joint Force structure is the future it will allow a QE carrier to have a full compliment of a/c while allowing the FAA to use RAF expertise to be deployed as part of an expeditionary force or the RAF to use RN expertise to allow them to deploy from a QE carrier. It maximises our assets and how we can effectively deploy them.

Oh and enjoy the 25 refurbished and upgraded excellent Merlins that the FAA will get from the RAF to replace the Sea King 'Junglies'.

(* Originally 53 but one lost in 2008 wheels up landing at China Lake in US. The UK contractually agreed 232 to gain a 37% work share in the program.)
Graham - High Wycombe

26 September 2012

What is not often said in respect of defence cuts is that the poor productivity of UK public services is estimated as costing around £80-100 billion per year. In other words, we pay £80-100 billion over the top for what we get. To be fair, much of the private sector is not much better.

Imagine what 5% of that could do if spent on defence. The problem is that the powers that be seem incapable of addressing the problem. Budget cuts translate into service cuts rather than smarter working. Little is done to tool up the public sector with the skills found in world class industry to raise productivity.

The armed services clearly know how important it is to train people to do their jobs. What is needed is a similar mindset in civilian life in respect of the bog standard skills used to raise productivity.
Clive Bone - Bideford, Devon

27 September 2012

Andy,Solihull,

I agree with you, as a maritime nation it is crazy to have a huge army at the expense of naval and air forces, besides the Army isn't going anywhere without the navy or the army.
DefenceSynergia recently wrote to the the NAO, highlighting the waste and lack of due diligence on the carrier project.
We believe that by buying F18 e/f for the Navy and F35A for the RAF and fitting cats and traps to both carriers could still be accomplished and at a saving of some £2.62bn and on time.

Tim Dainton - Romsey

27 September 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

Where is this huge Army you speak of, surely you don't mean the British Army which is barely large enough to meet its current commitments and will be the smallest it has been since the Boer War soon.

I agree that the cuts to the other Armed Services have been savage (in particular the Royal Navy), but how much of that is down to the Navy pushing for two large carriers out of a shrinking defence budget, for a Maritime Nation to have only 19 Escorts is ridiculous, we should have at least a dozen more vessels but where is the money going to come from.

Regarding your comment "besides the Army isn't going anywhere without the navy or the army" (I assume you mean the airforce) is in large part true, however the facts speak for themselves in almost all conflicts you need boots on the ground to have an effect as well, the Navy (I know you will mention the Royal Marines)and the RAF (please don't mention RAF Regiment) cannot do that all on their own, you need an Army to do that as well.

What we need is correctly funded, correctly equipped, and well balanced Armed Forces across the board, capable of meeting all of our commitments something that the Armed forces have been denied by all governments over the last couple of decades.
Rob - Telford

27 September 2012

Rob, Telford,

I totally agree with what you say, even more than you can imagine as far as funding defence properly.
But we have to work with what weve got.

The Navy is too small and the RAF(yes did mean the RAF), is heading the same way, but unless we can find savings the government will not even look at anything in the present financial crisis.

Whats needed is more for less money, not less for less as those in power seem to think. Easy to do? No its not. But the services and the MOD need to look carefully at what they are buying and why. In fact I'd say any procurement needs to go to the NAO (National audit office) before main gate and have regular checks after that.

Saving £2.62 billion on the carriers/airgroup would be a start that could buy three extra frigates.

Some senior naval officers are already muting we cant afford Trident. What they need to be careful of is to make sure any saving by using alternatives, obviously alternatives that work, are spent on defence and not on other Government expenditure.

The army strength should be around 90,000 with reserves on top of that. But the Army is the easiest of the three services to build back up should be it be needed.

No one should deny that there are inter service rivalries and that there are some blinkered officials in the MOD, but that's not the reason were in this mess. Although it doesn't help. The main reason is the economy and has been for decades.

Tim Dainton - Romsey

28 September 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

Gotcha, getting used to people having a pop at the Army, though you are correct in saying that the Army is the easiest to build up, however certain skills still need husbanding as if they are allowed to end they will be very hard to replace at short notice (a bit like Carrier Strike), with all of the technology advances in all three services once a skill set has stopped being used and the personnel are allowed to leave the service, or move to a different branch / speciality it is very hard to get back the level of expertise.

I still think that Anthony (Bristols) idea from last year gives us the best chance of increasing our global presence, that we should buy a modified Khareef style Corvette, cheap, reasonably equippped, smallish crew, which can complete the patrol / counter piracy / drug interdiction jobs. The fact that we could buy three of these for the cost of a Type 26. I would still push for a minimum but of 13 Type 26 and buy a further ten Khareef class, we absolutely need to build up the strength of the Royal Navy again.
Rob - Telford

28 September 2012

If you're looking for expanded details behind the decision to ditch Harrier, the following three part articles should provide more food for thought:

[1] http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2012/09/withdrawing-harrier-taking-right.html

[2] http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2012/09/loosing-harrier-part-two-sdsr-debate.html

[3] http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2012/09/withdrawing-harrier-part-three-op.html
The Other Chris

01 October 2012

graham oh graham please do get real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RAF transferring 25 merlins well thank you very much, now they can transfer all chinooks scrap puma and replace with blackhawks (which they have vetoed the use by the AAC)

As for your erm facts about the veto of JFH trust me i know this to be a FACT whether you factually believe it or not.

As for your accusation that the raf need f.35b to satisfy their "unique capabilities" plese as ai said at the top get real please get real

"Events dear boy, events" as MacMillan said.
Our political class may not want to increase defence spending, but a military disaster in an unstable World may force their hand. In politics, never say never.

If and i believe when it happens it will be because of primarily grahams lot would have persuading everyone that a carrier is vulnerable to anti ship missiles but a T45 which is cheap(er) and does not pose a threat to fixed wing combat aircraft.

ps i have been updated on who shot down who and what in the falklnds and your accusation that the RAF shot down half of Argentins combat losses is a RAF propaganda LIE.
andy - solihull

02 October 2012

andy - solihull

The chinooks will remain RAF they are best placed to operate them alongside C-17 and A400. As for blackhawks who says the AAC wanted them or the RAF vetoed them and who says the would be right anyway. As for the Puma upgrade it will keep them in service till the 2020's so is by far the cheapest option.

So lets get this you get your your facts probably from a source as hysterical, irrational and anti-RAF as yourself and that's it they are the 'facts' because they fit your view. Sorry but what I said regarding JFH was perfectly rational and explained the absence of carrier strike for a few months which you see as some Machiavellian plot by the RAF.

As for the Falklands:

http://www.naval-history.net/F42britsuccesses.htm

OK not half more like a quarter of the shoot downs but add in BB and the GR3's that provided all the photo recce and I think the RAF can partially share some of the honours which is what I said.

The RAF need the capabilities of F-35 alongside Typhoon as they are different aircraft with different strengths and weaknesses we do not put all our eggs in one basket and JFL will allow both services to operate F-35 effectively allowing either a QE to operate at maximum capacity or an expeditionary force to be deployed with input from either service.

As for me proposing we can replace a QE with T45 thats just cobblers again on your part, I have always supported the carrier program and JSF. Its not me that need to get real!
Graham - High Wycombe

02 October 2012

Andy, Graham.

The Labour government (in consultation with the Armed Forces) vetoed the offer of the purchase of nearly new UH-60L Black Hawks, they chose instead to modernise 28 Pumas for the same price. I was still serving at the time and it was never made clear who the Helicopter would have been used by AAC or RAF, the reason given for not going ahead with the purchase of the equipment was the length of time it would have taken to get the neccesary training and support facilities set up in the UK and recruiting enough Aircrew, pilot, co-pilot, loadmaster and door gunners, as well as the ground crew. We only had to look at the shambles we had in this regard when we bought Apache into service, for years we could not field more than a couple of squadrons of them while we were getting the neccesary people trained.
Rob - Telford

02 October 2012

yes graham, whatever you say graham.

My information came from someone who fought in the falklands flying SHAR all of the information quoted by me on this site is from ex or currently serving RAF/army/navy personnel FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!
andy - solihull

02 October 2012

As a relative newcomer to this site it has astonished me that some people's wider strategic knowledge and grasp of the FACTS is to say the least crap.
andy - solihull

02 October 2012

andy - solihull

Graham and I disagree quite often on a number of subjects (I get on most peoples tits at some stage), however, assuming you mean him with your last comment, I also find him very knowledgeable and respect his opinion, even if he disagrees with me.

I often get things wrong or mis-interpret information that I have read, but quite often it is because I have a different view of something, we often have to agree to disagree. After 24 years service in the Army (I know what you will say filthy Pongo) and having been on a number of tours, I try to remain objective, however I know that I sometimes let the loyalty to my service creep in.

I do understand Graham's annoyance with people who blame the RAF for what is going wrong in the other Armed Services, the same way I get defensive when people call on the Army to be cut dramatically, when they have been committed to operations for so long, its got that bad,we have had to call on your former lot to help us out a bit, (women's underwear included).

As I have stated before I believe that we should have well balanced, well equipped Armed Forces, this isn't the case at the moment, the Royal Navy is in the worst possible position, but is that really the Army or the RAF's fault? A lot of it has to be blamed on successive governments, not just the current one, but stretching back to the 60's, Defence does not get you votes (unless its the Falklands war all over again), keeping skip licking chavs who have never done a days work in their life does and that is all politicians care about.

To be blunt, there are a lot of very knowledgeable people on this site and they do have diverse opinions which may not always agree with our own, its a democracy after all.
Rob - Telford

03 October 2012

rob again

graham bangs on about RAF being a land based air force yet thinks they should have an input in carrierborne aviation they should stay away and leave it the experts RN/FAA

ps if anyone is interested in the FACTS they should read sharkeysworld blog and discover the disgraceful treatment of a REAL HERO by the land/naval air force on the flight back from acsension in 1982.

PPS SORRY FOR SHOUTING
ANDY - SOLIHULL

04 October 2012

ANDY - SOLIHULL

Utter complete rubbish again, the only facts your interested in is from anyone that is hysterically anti-RAF and totally navy centric.
To the point where the withdrawal east of Suez was an RAF plot to deny the RN.

As for JFL you will find that RAF pilots have flown from carriers for decades on secondment and as part of a joint force will be able to do so again.
Joint Force is not a euphemism for the RAF taking over control as you make out with incorrect statements regarding Harrier deployments to Afghanistan as proof of some conspiracy. What it does mean is that specialisation is retained as there are still separate FAA and RAF units but they are operationally able to deploy with either service.

JFL is the only way that both services needs for F-35 can be met while preserving the specialisation of each service. In fact it is probably the only way to do so as the more likely alternative is that the RAF operate F-35 alone for both services which is actually more likely than the FAA operating them all.
However Joint Force structures and interoperability are the way forward and that is what will happen with F-35 between the RAF and FAA.

Also as for bad treatment in 1982 I would say the attitude of some members of RN to the 10 Harrier GR3 deployed was abysmal and a good reason why we have gone JF to break down such nonsense!
Graham - High Wycombe

04 October 2012

Listening to certain arguements here the only course of action is to disband both the air arms of the RN & RAF and create a new one service air brigade. It could be known as "Her Majesties Flying Club". LOL

As the world and friendships change it may soon be that land based aircraft in the UK will struggle to deploy overseas as they are basically short/medium range aircraft. If this was to happen naval deployment of aircraft would be the perfect answer.
At present, as we are struggling with shortage of cash, how about making the RAF responsable for the defence of the UK - typhoon, and let the RN have the F35 as the offensive element. When times are better then roles could be broadened once again.

Not very likely to happen I know but something to think about maybe in this time of austerity
JC - UK

25 October 2012

> have the MiSE pour money into "national" defence programmes; the aircraft carrier Cavour, the Typhoon

Eurofighter is a disaster, it costs a huge sum to keep flying and is utterly unreliable. It breaks down in cold and wet places, like german Baltic shore or northern italy. The austrians also very much regret getting the EFA-2000, rather then the Gripen. Cost and tech issues are galore.

Italy was silly to get rid of the F-16, which flies for less than half the price per hour. (Swiss Gripens fly for 2/3rd the price of F-16 per hour.)

> the Cavour carrier can get its full complement of 14.

The F-35B VSTOL JSF is a failure both financially and technologically. Eventually the Cavour will fly 22 Eurojet-powered Sea Gripens, which the italians will co-manufacture with the swiss.

On the other hand, Italy needs to spend more on the skills of her pilots, rather than flying hardware. During Iraq War, the anglo-americans wanted to send the italian Tornado unit home, due to massive incompetence.
Tamas Feher - Budapest Hungary private

28 November 2012

Tamas Feher - Budapest Hungary private

Watch out for the wicked witch, I love fairy tales.

What utter c**p, Sea Gripen, is that going to be supported by the Sea Hercules?
Rob - Telford

23 January 2013

It is worth remembering that the majority of the coalition air activity over Libya was provided by maritime air assets. The land based assets, including the RAF, played a valuable but less significant role. The reason for that is self evident. The really sad thing is that the enormous costs of flying from Marham and deploying the RAF to Italy would have paid for the retention of Ark Royal and the Joint Force Harrier for several years. The deletion of Carrier Strike not only removed a valuable and much needed capability but also cost us significantly more in thend than if we had retained it.
Ian - London