Do we need the royal air force?

[Quacawa]

As we all know, the UK currently has a net national debt of £743.6 Billion. Regardless of who is in power in Westminster, there will be massive cuts in the next few years. Where will these cuts fall? Not Health or Education for sure, they are vote winners and even throwing money at an ineffective system will suffice in making people vote for “your party”. As always, defence will take the blow. The same has happened in every recession since time began, the 30s, 70s, 80s and 90s all saw drastic defence cuts to save cash. It seems to me like we are yet again awaiting the axe to fall.

So, where would defence cuts fall? Almost certainly in the Army is the answer. The Royal Navy is currently spending a massive wedge of the defence budget on sorely needed ships at £2.2 Billion+ and rightly deserve that money as 85-90% (approx) of the UK’s trade is by sea lanes which need to be protected. Furthermore, ships would be the core element of any future Rapid Reaction Taskforce. Yes, airplanes can move soldiers and equipment, but not in battlegroup sizes with all the necessary equipment (tanks, trucks etc).

The RAF also has large spending. The new Eurofighters for example are about £70 million each at least and including all of the new spares, weapons and new training for new aircraft the RAF are currently taking over ⅓ of the defence budget. Although new aircraft are needed, I do not think we should have spent so much on the Eurofighters. After-all, most modern combat work could have been undertaken by the Harrier as it is both Ground and Air attack able. We need a Nimrod replacement and more transport aircraft rather than flashy new fighters.

This means that the Army – who do the lion’s share of fighting and other work in modern operations - are left with less than 10% of the defence budget to spend on doing about 70% of the work. It seems that those idiots in government who have anything to do with procurement and have an influence on new equipment have never served in the Forces. They are still thinking of big, sexy, good-for-recruitment-posters billion pound ships and massively over-priced aircraft that were designed for the cold war.

They seem to have little or no concept on how the little things like a decent set of issue boots, improved ration packs, hi-tech, comfortable sleeping bags, well designed and well made clothing, reliable and robust equipment will win wars more surely than any multi-million pound flashy jet could.

I think that the best solution for both the long and the short term is to remove the Royal Air Force from the equation.

This is how defence works at the moment:

Royal Navy
A. Ships sail on and under the sea (70% of globe).
B. Ships can operate aircraft.
C. Ships can transport soldiers and equipment.

British Army
D. Kill the enemy.
E. Physically Deter aggression (ground presence).
F. HOLD GROUND (Often forgotten in arguments).
G. Provide helicopter attack and lift capability (Army Air Corps)

Royal Air Force
H. Aircraft kill other aircraft.
I. Aircraft attack ships and soldiers and important 'targets'.
J. Aircraft move soldiers and equipment swiftly.


I see no reason why H and I cannot be undertaken by A, B, D and G. Nor why J could not be undertaken by B, C, D and G.

In the past the Royal Air Force had a role. It could operate large bombers and other equipment only able to be stationed on land. Now, when a ship can carry enough small jets to demolish a city, it is a defunct organisation. It is simply a waste of resources and seems to divide the three services at all opportunities.

To move forward in defence, we need to make drastic changes. This, I believe, is one of them.

[Japanese East Asia]

Cool story bro

[Blunt Knife]

Cool story bro

Seconded. Thumbs up.

[Risottia]

As we all know, the UK currently has a net national debt of £743.6 Billion. Regardless of who is in power in Westminster, there will be massive cuts in the next few years.

In the past the Royal Air Force had a role. It could operate large bombers and other equipment only able to be stationed on land. Now, when a ship can carry enough small jets to demolish a city, it is a defunct organisation. It is simply a waste of resources and seems to divide the three services at all opportunities.

More than the RAF, whose role is to provide national airspace security, I think that the UK could decrease the Royal Navy.
After all, the UK has no empire anymore, so it doesn't need to mobilise large amounts of troops and equipment overseas - and, for small amounts, aircrafts are a lot faster. A smaller, less expensive Navy could still defend overseas British territories (like the Falklands for one), but why should the UK still keep strategic subs? Those cost like crazy and are anyway as effective, as nuclear deterrents go, as the land-based ICBMs are.

[Bears Armed]

Get the RN's long-promised new carriers & their aircraft (& their escorts) operational, and give the AAC some squadrons of Harriers or other aircraft for 'close support', and then maybe we could do without a separate RAF... as long as it never becomes necessary to defend our skies against enemy aircraft at high altitudes (above the range of the army's equipment), or to sweep eenmy aircraft from the sky in order to establish air superiority over a target area before the other forces go into action there...

More than the RAF, whose role is to provide national airspace security, I think that the UK could decrease the Royal Navy.
After all, the UK has no empire anymore, so it doesn't need to mobilise large amounts of troops and equipment overseas - and, for small amounts, aircrafts are a lot faster.

You can't land troops against opposition from the air anywhere near as easily as you can from the sea, and having 'assault ships' or 'commando carriers' in the area then provides your forces with a useful site for HQs & various 'support' facilities... and then, unless you already have secure airbases close by, you need aircraft carriers to supply those troops with air support.... and those vessels, and their logistic support, then need escorting warships for protection against enemy aircraft & submarines & fast missile boats.
Plus, we might also need 'escort' vessels to protect trade (e.g. against Somali pirates).

A smaller, less expensive Navy could still defend overseas British territories (like the Falklands for one),

Nope. The navy now is already only about half the size that it was during the Falklands War, and probably wouldn't be large enough to do the job properly if we had to repeat that exercise today.

but why should the UK still keep strategic subs? Those cost like crazy and are anyway as effective, as nuclear deterrents go, as the land-based ICBMs are.

Submarines can be hidden in the depths of the oceans, making it a lot harder for enemies to be sure of eliminating their threat "in time", whereas the UK simply isn't big enough for concealing the locations of land-based ICBMs to be feasible here. if we're going to retain a nuclear deterrent at all then submarines are the only way to do it...

[Tubbsalot]

What? You guys don't even need a ground army anymore. All they've been used for in the last decade is patrolling cities, and that's only because you followed the Americans into Iraq.

Modern, western aircraft blow everything else out of the water - they can rapidly dispose of any ground, air or sea target, over any terrain, from a variety of bases. Air power is necessary to maintain the untouchable aura of a modern nation. Why shouldn't it be united under one branch? It's certainly large enough and important enough to qualify for one.

Personally, I don't see why D and G can't be taken over by the air force, and E becomes irrelevant when there's nothing in view for hostiles to attack. As for holding ground, let's be realistic - Britain is only ever going to invade another nation with backup from other countries. Let the Americans hold that ground. God knows they spend enough on their military to warrant its use.

[Chumblywumbly]

Before any of this can be properly discussed, never mind implemented, the UK must have a foreign policy review; hopefully one which arrives at a much more sensible role for Britain than it is currently undertaking.

[Bears Armed]

What? You guys don't even need a ground army anymore. All they've been used for in the last decade is patrolling cities, and that's only because you followed the Americans into Iraq.

Northern Ireland. Sierra Leone. Kossovo. And they're fighting 'in the field', not just "patrolling cities", in Afghanistan....

Modern, western aircraft blow everything else out of the water - they can rapidly dispose of any ground, air or sea target, over any terrain, from a variety of bases.

But they can't hold territory... and if you're trying to end an insurgency or keep the peace somewhere then you do still need troops on the ground, because airstrikes simply aren't selective enough: Blowing up members of 10 or 20 families in order to kill 1 or 2 militants is counter-productive, because it probably gives the insurgents more recruits than it kills: unless you're willing to kill everybody in the country concerned then relying on aircraft to play a major role in such operations is bloody stupid!

Air power is necessary to maintain the untouchable aura of a modern nation. Why shouldn't it be united under one branch? It's certainly large enough and important enough to qualify for one.

Because that united branch's leadership would probably try to concentrate on the big, showy projects (such as 'Eurofighter') -- and maybe try to re-establish a 'strategic bombing' role, to boost their service's perceived importance, too -- in lieu of providing the Navy & Army with the types of support that those other services actually need. Why do you think that the USMC has traditionally had its own 'Avaiation' branch?

Personally, I don't see why D and G can't be taken over by the air force, and E becomes irrelevant when there's nothing in view for hostiles to attack.

If you don't mind killing hundreds of civilians in order to kill the tens of militants who are hiding in theior communities...

As for holding ground, let's be realistic - Britain is only ever going to invade another nation with backup from other countries. Let the Americans hold that ground. God knows they spend enough on their military to warrant its use.

So you've forgotten the Falkands? Don't know about the British army's peace-keeping roles in various theatres of operation? Don't care that accumulated experience, and the doctrines based on this experience rather than just on superior firepower, make it generally better than the US Army at such peace-keeping & counter-insurgency work, meaning that this can be done with fewer casualties all round?

[Risottia]

You can't land troops against opposition from the air anywhere near as easily as you can from the sea, and having 'assault ships' or 'commando carriers' in the area then provides your forces with a useful site for HQs & various 'support' facilities... and then, unless you already have secure airbases close by, you need aircraft carriers to supply those troops with air support.... and those vessels, and their logistic support, then need escorting warships for protection against enemy aircraft & submarines & fast missile boats.

...I see your point, but seems to me that you're still keeping in mind a WW2 or Cold-War scenario, overall.

The opposition that Britain can find NOW is a lot smaller (think of the Entebbe raid!); and, if you have to evacuate civilians from a civil-war-scenario, ships are too slow anyway, so the airborne has to do the job.
Btw, think of the Russian raid on the airport of Pristina as Yugoslavia asked for ceasefire: they just flew in lots of Specnats and took away whatever it was they wanted to hide or take.

As for the Falklands: how many attacks on different British overseas territory do you think can be done simultaneously? Just concentrate the whole Royal Navy there and bingo. (Still I can't understand why the RAF doesn't keep a handful of interceptors and multiroles there - also a good coastal defence could be an idea).

As for the ICBMs: the Cold War is over! There's no need for that stealth anyway. Saturation works wonders: with the operative costs of keeping in line a single non-MIRV SLBM, just how many land-based ICBMs you could place in Britain?

[Colonic Immigration]

Uh huh, unlees we want more troops to die in the ME.

[Khadgar]

You can always do like Canada and expect the US to defend you.

[Praetonia]

Defence spending shouldn't be cut, but the RAF is pointless. Its ground support role could be taken up by the army and its minimal home defence and anti-shipping role could be absorbed into the navy.

All it does is funnel money away from the other services which actually do useful jobs. It also has form. It fed HMG all sorts of bullshit in the 30s about strat bombers ending wars in weeks which encouraged them to cut army spending. They also successfully campaigned to absorb the Fleet Air Arm and then neglected it, meaning the RN went into the first carrier naval war with carrier planes that were fundamentally the same as the ones being designed at the end of the Great War.

Bugger the RAF, they're more dangerous than the enemy.

[Maurepas]

Meh, itd just make more room for some more of our planes on the carrier, why not?

[JarVik]

You can always do like Canada and expect the US to defend you.

Funny how so many people seem to think that, even the more ignorant Canadians like to think there nothing to the Canadian military.

But Canada's one of the 10 largest economies on the planet, and big surprise the Canadian military expediture is also in the the top 10 on the planet. Our military is certainly small compared to the US military but you do have an economy and population thats quite a bit bigger than ours. So I don't think Canada's exactly defensless, that and anyone stupid enough to try will find out that there is worse than the Russian winter.

[Maurepas]

You can always do like Canada and expect the US to defend you.

Funny how so many people seem to think that, even the more ignorant Canadians like to think there nothing to the Canadian military.

But Canada's one of the 10 largest economies on the planet, and big surprise the Canadian military expediture is also in the the top 10 on the planet. Our military is certainly small compared to the US military but you do have an economy and population thats quite a bit bigger than ours. I so I don't think Canada's exactly defensless, that and anyone stupid enough to try will find out that there is worse than the Russian winter.

Doesnt mean we wouldnt seize the opportunity to "defend" you,

[Chumblywumbly]

So I don't think Canada's exactly defensless, that and anyone stupid enough to try will find out that there is worse than the Russian winter.

[West Failure]

Think of the moustaches though, losing those would be a terrible tragedy.

[Risottia]

But Canada's one of the 10 largest economies on the planet, and big surprise the Canadian military expediture is also in the the top 10 on the planet.

Ehm. No.

wiki: list of countries by military expenditure

Rank Country Military expenditures (USD) Date of information
— World Total 1,470,000,000,000 2008[2]
— NATO Total 1,049,875,309,000 [citation needed]
1 United States 651,163,000,000 2009[3][4]
— European Union Total 312,259,000,000 2008-2009
2 People's Republic of China 70,308,600,000 2009[5]
3 France 67,640,900,000 2008-2009[6]
4 United Kingdom 64,005,100,000 FY 2009-10[7]
5 Japan 48,860,000,000 2008[8]
6 Germany 45,930,000,000 2008[9]
7 Italy 40,050,000,000 2008[10]
8 Russian Federation 39,600,000,000 2009[11]
9 India 32,700,000,000 2009-2010[12]
10 Saudi Arabia 31,050,000,000 2008[13]
11 Turkey 30,936,000,000 2008[14]
12 South Korea 28,500,000,000 2008[15]
13 Brazil 23,972,836,012 2009[16]
14 Australia 23,040,500,000 2009-10[17]
15 Spain 18,974,000,000 2008 (est.)[18]
16 Canada 17,944,621,100 2009-2010[19]
17 Iraq 17,900,000,000 2008[citation needed]
18 Israel 13,300,000,000 2009[20]
19 Netherlands 12,000,000,000 2008[21]
20 Poland 11,791,000,000 2009[22]

IF the military expenditures were some sort of effective measurement of a country's military power, we'd have the following results:
1.the two world superpowers would be the US and PRC (or the US and the EU if we'd consider the EU a single country).
2.Italy would have a stronger military than Russia, Japan stronger than Germany, Iraq stronger than Israel.

By the way, one can notice that Canada (a G8 country) has lower expenditures than some non-G8 countries (namely: India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Korea, Brazil, Australia, Spain), and about the same as Iraq (only 44 M$/year difference).

Military power =/= military expenditure (absolute) =/= military expenditure (GNP percentage) =/= population... etc etc etc

[JarVik]

You can always do like Canada and expect the US to defend you.

Funny how so many people seem to think that, even the more ignorant Canadians like to think there nothing to the Canadian military.

But Canada's one of the 10 largest economies on the planet, and big surprise the Canadian military expediture is also in the the top 10 on the planet. Our military is certainly small compared to the US military but you do have an economy and population thats quite a bit bigger than ours. I so I don't think Canada's exactly defensless, that and anyone stupid enough to try will find out that there is worse than the Russian winter.

Doesnt mean we wouldnt seize the opportunity to "defend" you,

Well, via NORAD and NATO our countries are pledged to defend each in the face of outside aggression. Air defense I believe is the most integrated as the legacy of the coldwar threats were primarily of that type.

[Maurepas]

Well, via NORAD and NATO our countries are pledged to defend each in the face of outside aggression. Air defense I believe is the most integrated as the legacy of the coldwar threats were primarily of that type.

I know, I know, I was kidding, the implication was that afterwards we'd finally take control of our hat,

[Intestinal fluids]

Funny how so many people seem to think that, even the more ignorant Canadians like to think there nothing to the Canadian military.

But Canada's one of the 10 largest economies on the planet, and big surprise the Canadian military expediture is also in the the top 10 on the planet. Our military is certainly small compared to the US military but you do have an economy and population thats quite a bit bigger than ours. So I don't think Canada's exactly defensless, that and anyone stupid enough to try will find out that there is worse than the Russian winter.

Canadas military motto: An Army of One....his name is Bob.

Its impossible for Canada to have an effective military, too many French.

[The Macabees]

Cool story bro

I think you mean:

[Colonic Immigration]

You can always do like Canada and expect the US to defend you.

Um... no

[Kaenei]

I think you're missing a very important point - namely that historically the Royal Navy has whenever possible, eschewed Aircraft Carriers for the betterment of their ridiculously expensive surface fleet. The Fleet Air Arm is considered a distinctly un-Navy-like proposition and its only barely preferable to letting the RAF run the show. What kind of self-respecting sailor wants to be a glorified taxi service? If given a choice between CVs and more, shinier Destroyers or Frigates the RN is going to choose the later on every occasion. Up until very recently the top brass in the Navy were distinctly ambivalent to the threat of the cancellation of the CVF program - bare in mind that in a time when the RN's surface fleet is cut to the bone these are the same men who spend £1,000,000,000 on ONE ship. The madness of spending a billion pounds per Type 45 "Anti-Air Destroyer" speaks for itself.

Some of you guys are painting the Royal Navy in a totally unrealistically saint-like way. The RN loathes the concept of airpower - it despises it. Everything about the aeroplane undermines good honest sailing on the seas. The RN was dragged kicking and screaming into modernity in this respect but it'll be damned before it becomes most well known for flying planes. Quite simply the RN would rather battle the Army than the Air Force in this respect - If the RAF was disbanded then the RN would find itself spending far more time flying than sailing save for the glut of CVs that would surely follow and any self-respecting Royal Navy man would rather swing from the gallows than choose an Aircraft Carrier over some nice, solid, destroyers.

Some of you sound exactly like the bushy-bearded haughty Admirals of the 1920s who boldy predicted the aeroplane would go the way of a novelty or party favour. Of all the arms of the Ministry of Defence the Navy has been the most guilty of resting on its laurels and don't be fooled for a second into thinking the Admirals aren't painfully aware - they know they've contributed nothing beyond logistics since the Falklands and are in desperate need of an image-boost.

Witness the sheer madness of sending Type-42 Destroyers to the horn of Africa to undertaker customs and piracy patrol which a Coastguard cutter at a fifth of the cost could quite easily achieve - all in the desperate name of trying to justify ridiculous shipbuilding programs that have given us a lopsided surface fleet.

You're also wrong on the budget. It is a well known fact that the Defence Budget is always split three-ways between the services regardless of the pressing needs of one over the others at any one time. (Another ridiculous situation)

And if you're going to have a go at the expense of the Eurofighter, I'd love to hear someone defend building Destroyers that cost a billion pounds a ship!

The Army hate the RAF and the Navy, but they need air support before they go in or they'll all be killed. The Navy hates the RAF, but it is never going to accept the role of the RAF because that would take precious pennies away from their gold-hulled, marble-carved destroyers and frigates we don't even really need in their current form.

The RAF is here to stay because quite simply, nobody else wants the job.

[Greed and Death]

But Canada's one of the 10 largest economies on the planet, and big surprise the Canadian military expediture is also in the the top 10 on the planet.

IF the military expenditures were some sort of effective measurement of a country's military power, we'd have the following results:
1.the two world superpowers would be the US and PRC (or the US and the EU if we'd consider the EU a single country).
2.Italy would have a stronger military than Russia, Japan stronger than Germany, Iraq stronger than Israel.

By the way, one can notice that Canada (a G8 country) has lower expenditures than some non-G8 countries (namely: India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Korea, Brazil, Australia, Spain), and about the same as Iraq (only 44 M$/year difference).

Military power =/= military expenditure (absolute) =/= military expenditure (GNP percentage) =/= population... etc etc etc

To go from expenditures to power we need to factor in accumulated expenditures, then decrease them in value over time.