Massive military cuts

Stringy · 14 Aug 2010 at 20:17

wordy said:
The RAF, at the moment (apart from escorting a could have Russian MPAs out of UK airspace) share roles with the Fleet Air Arm in afganistan, why not increase the Fleet Air Arm

Without wanting to belittle the Fleet Air Arm the RAF very much takes the lead when it comes to aviation in Afghanistan. The Fleet Air Arm have experience yes, but nothing in comparison when it comes to Air-to-Air Refuelling, ISR (Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissaince), recent CAS, maintenance of an Air Bridge, Tactical Command and Control, UAVs...

And the first comment made me chuckle. Then again I wouldn't expect most people to understand how much importance the government put on the military task pertaining to the integrity of the United Kingdom's airspace.

RoboCod · 14 Aug 2010 at 20:18

Castiel said:
I would agree, however I was discussing possible alternatives to huge cuts damaging our operational effectiveness, We have seen with the Falklands that joint operations can be led effectively with the Navy as it's core and as we are an Island and most, if not all of our operations are overseas it seems pertinent to expand that disposition.

The Falklands, a place far away across lots of water, hence heavy Naval requirement. Afghanistan, a place far a way with lots of land around it with friendly air and army bases quite capable of supporting our assets.

I wouldn't amalgamate all three services. It seems to be the asssumed budget cutting choice in this thread but I don't see how it is financially feasible.

Over Clocker · 15 Aug 2010 at 13:24

Remember that the RAF actually had a pretty big role in the Falklands war.

The Vulcan Black Buck raid
RAF Harriers flying from Hermes
All of the Hercules missions to and from Ascension Island. Thanks to the RAF, Ascension Island became the world's busiest runway for a short time!.

meghatronic · 15 Aug 2010 at 13:31

Over Clocker said:
Remember that the RAF actually had a pretty big role in the Falklands war.

The Vulcan Black Buck raid
RAF Harriers flying from Hermes
All of the Hercules missions to and from Ascension Island. Thanks to the RAF, Ascension Island became the world's busiest runway for a short time!.

I'm no expert, but I've read quite a few books that suggest the RAF's involvement (from Ascension) was nothing more than a way for the RAF to demonstrate they had a willy too, and a colossal waste of money.

NO ONE is attempting to belittle the RAF, but their successes in the Falkland's (Number One Fighter Squadron & the Chinook) were operating off the Navy.... hence, could be much more efficiently absorbed into the Senior Service.

Over Clocker · 15 Aug 2010 at 13:40

IIRC the RAF flew most of the RN's stores to Ascension for them to pick up on the way, as most RN ships left in such a rush there was no time to fully stock them.

Hercules and VC.10 transports flew over 500 sorties to Ascension by the end of the war to bring in more than 5,000 people and 6,000 tons of freight.

The RAF also defended Ascension island from any possible aggression, however unlikely that was to occur.

RAF Nimrods also flew in front of the Naval task force, in over 100 sorties from Ascension. Don't forget the hunter killer subs rely on the information the Nimrods give them!

Stringy · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:20

Over Clocker said:
IIRC the RAF flew most of the RN's stores to Ascension for them to pick up on the way, as most RN ships left in such a rush there was no time to fully stock them.

Hercules and VC.10 transports flew over 500 sorties to Ascension by the end of the war to bring in more than 5,000 people and 6,000 tons of freight.

The RAF also defended Ascension island from any possible aggression, however unlikely that was to occur.

RAF Nimrods also flew in front of the Naval task force, in over 100 sorties from Ascension. Don't forget the hunter killer subs rely on the information the Nimrods give them!

Yeah but because the Harriers flew from carriers in a war over 25 years ago the RN are clearly better placed to absorb air duties.

Would someone please remind me where the lions share of flying has taken place from in all major conflicts since then?

That said, if we were to pare back our military commitments to literally only defending the Falklands (slightly extravagant for a blue water navy?) then it would be the logical choice to stick the RAF into the RN

TBirdUK · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:24

Why not, to consolidate and reduce the expenditure:

Disband the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air corps and re-resource/task the RAF
Close the RAF Regiment and Royal Marines and give resource/task to the Army

Seems to me a better way of reducing expenditure, keeping the expert services doing what they are good at and using the resources in the most effective way (both economies of scale and keeping the independance to allow efficient use of the little everyone has left)??

I know that you wont like the idea but it is a way of saving money without damaging the overall ability to maintain a fully (including airpower) effective fighting force.

Slam62 · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:25

oh do come on, the faukland islands are not ours, Maggy started the war to win the election, plus we thought there might be oil there.

All we need is a nuclear weapon so if any one gets anywhere near invading we can nuke them.

this country and America can not afford anything they have.

sanaxe1 · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:32

Slam62 said:
oh do come on, the faukland islands are not ours, Maggy started the war to win the election, plus we thought there might be oil there.

All we need is a nuclear weapon so if any one gets anywhere near invading we can nuke them.

this country and America can not afford anything they have.

We had the Falkland's before Argentina was even a country!

Over Clocker · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:38

Slam62 said:
oh do come on, the faukland islands are not ours, Maggy started the war to win the election, plus we thought there might be oil there.

All we need is a nuclear weapon so if any one gets anywhere near invading we can nuke them.

this country and America can not afford anything they have.

at your knowledge and comments!

Slam62 · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:42

sanaxe1 said:
We had the Falkland's before Argentina was even a country!

we also had several square miles of the rest of the world which we stole from the inhabitants.

Von Smallhausen · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:43

Slam62 said:
oh do come on, the faukland islands are not ours, Maggy started the war to win the election, plus we thought there might be oil there.

I must have missed the bit where the Argentine and UK governments conspired to allow this.

Argentina started it by invading the islands which, like it or not, is UK territory and has been since the 19th Century and they invaded to try and deflect the state of the country under a failing military junta.

need is a nuclear weapon so if any one gets anywhere near invading we can nuke them.

It doesn't work like that.

Slam62 · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:44

Over Clocker said:
at your knowledge and comments!

Can you be more specific old chum. I would like to address your concerns.

Slam62 · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:47

Von Smallhausen said:
I must have missed the bit where the Argentine and UK governments conspired to allow this.
Argentina started it by invading the islands which, like it or not, is UK territory and has been since the 19th Century and they invaded to try and deflect the state of the country under a failing military junta.
It doesn't work like that.

Haha

and we still have an empire don't we.. oh wait

this country's ridiculous military delusions would be funny if we didn't take ourselves so seriously.

Castiel · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:48

TBirdUK said:
Why not, to consolidate and reduce the expenditure:

Disband the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air corps and re-resource/task the RAF
Close the RAF Regiment and Royal Marines and give resource/task to the Army

Seems to me a better way of reducing expenditure, keeping the expert services doing what they are good at and using the resources in the most effective way (both economies of scale and keeping the independance to allow efficient use of the little everyone has left)??

I know that you wont like the idea but it is a way of saving money without damaging the overall ability to maintain a fully (including airpower) effective fighting force.

Amphibious troops in the Army? Where?

You have just dismantled the most effective fighting force we have. :rolleyes:

Von Smallhausen · 15 Aug 2010 at 14:58

Slam62 said:
Haha

and we still have an empire don't we.. oh wait

this country's ridiculous military delusions would be funny if we didn't take ourselves so seriously.

We still have territories around the world. What is your point ?

If Spain decided to take over Gibraltar or a central american country decided to have Belize, do we just let them ?

Do you deride the government or the military when you suggest delusions ?

The military go where they are told to be it Afghanistan now or Afghanistan 150 years ago.

TBirdUK · 15 Aug 2010 at 15:02

Never said there was amphib troops in army, I said - give resource to the Army - achieves the aim of reducing command chains etc that you were on about!

And although I wouldnt argue they are an effective fighting force, I would question why it would remove the force - it would just re-distribute as you were so keen to do with the RAF.

snowball1 · 15 Aug 2010 at 15:05

The Tories keep bleating on about the civvies numbering nearly the same as the Army, for a start they fail to add the RAF and Navy to the figures, they also seem to forget they binned lots of military posts and replaced them with civvies (we have something like 30 civvies on my sqn, most of them replacing junior ranks)

Stringy · 15 Aug 2010 at 15:06

TBirdUK said:
Never said there was amphib troops in army, I said - give resource to the Army - achieves the aim of reducing command chains etc that you were on about!

And although I wouldnt argue they are an effective fighting force, I would question why it would remove the force - it would just re-distribute as you were so keen to do with the RAF.

You make a fair point, close the RM camps and co-locate them with the Army, think of the logistics savings! After all the RM operate out of Camp Bastion on current operations and that's largely an Army camp!

Castiel · 15 Aug 2010 at 15:15

TBirdUK said:
Never said there was amphib troops in army, I said - give resource to the Army - achieves the aim of reducing command chains etc that you were on about!

And although I wouldnt argue they are an effective fighting force, I would question why it would remove the force - it would just re-distribute as you were so keen to do with the RAF.

You would be better off expanding the better trained and cheaper to maintain Royal Marines and redistributing the Army, it would have better cost savings and you would not lose the specialist training and amphibious nature of the Royal Marines.

The army have no experience of amphibious operations, yet the Marines do have experience of Infantry operations so the movement toward the Royal Marines and not away from them would be the more sensible movement.

The RAF do not do anything that the RN or Army do not do already or could integrate with little adjustment.