Posted on 06/08/2009 8:26:28 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
RAF chief predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power
The head of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, has sparked a major turf war within the armed forces after questioning the future of the Royal Navy's jet aircraft.
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent Published: 8:30AM BST 07 Jun 2009
The Chief of the Air Staff told The Sunday Telegraph that rationalisation in the armed forces would lead to the RAF running all combat jet operations.
The move would effectively neuter the Royal Navy's maritime air force, the Fleet Air Arm, leaving the service with just a small complement of helicopters.
The Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), a former Tornado pilot, accepted that the decision would be controversial but said that such consolidation of air power was "inevitable" and added: "We have got to kill some scared cows to make ourselves more efficient".
His comments were made amid increasing signs of friction between the service chiefs.
Last week, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the head of the Royal Navy, attacked his British Army counterpart, General Sir Richard Dannatt, for suggesting that the military's two new aircraft carriers were Cold War relics.
Sir Glenn, 55, heaped praise upon the Typhoon, the RAF's controversial multi-role combat jet, which, like the carriers, has been widely dismissed by many senior officers as a waste of money.
."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
RAF Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power Photo: DAVID ROSE
There’s probably some good economic reasons to make this happen. It will be interesting to watch. For decades now there have been arguments in the Pentagon giving rationale for combining our Armed Forces invarious configurations, but the entrenched bureaucracies protecting their turf have successfully fought off any serious efforts. If you just look at Procurement and Training, the savings could be enormous.
Rue, Brittania
At the same time, the US has the best Naval Air Force in the world. I believe there is a reason to keep them seperate from our Air Force. They each have their place.
Now there's hardly a "fleet" to speak of.
With Zero’s spending, can it be far off that the U.S. has to sell it’s fleet to meet the debt?
Agreed. Royal Navy aircraft are part of a ship, first. They become weapons only when they are not on the ship, but they are pointless without the ship. It’s possible to fly fighter and attack aircraft from anywhere to anywhere because of in-flight refueling, but why do it when there are carriers that can sail right up to the combat zone and project force on a few minutes’ notice? They conserve fuel, conserve manpower, and reduce fatigue.
This sounds like a classic power play. Both services are essential and both should be left to the men who spent decades mastering them.
Just following the Chicom model..they have the “People’s Army NAVY...”
The F-18 fighter is a good weapon system.. but in reality it is a short legged fighter compared to the F-22/F-15/F-16 series of weapons. The Naval version of the upcoming F-35 has a different range than the USAF Version.. Also.. if your going to have the USAF and the USN combined Air assets.. what of the Marine Corps? The AV-8B and the F-35C are ALSO different in range and use than the others..
So we combine.. and then start buying aircraft that can operate from carriers? That will cost Billions.. But it would provide employment to the aircraft industry. But the US is talking about limiting aircraft carriers too.. even bring the fleet down to 10.. with a possibility of going to even 8 down the road.
One size fits all concept sounds great for Procurement and Training but capability is the key.. Basically.. the USAF has to operate from farther ranges from their threat areas than the USN who can move the carriers at will. Air Refueling aircraft in either category of assets are due for replacement and are caught in political in-fighting today. Also.. are you going to combine USAF, USN, USMC, and USA assets to one big air arm?
I would think in the short term combining our service aviation assets would cost money that we as a nation today can not afford.
The affirmative action figure fraud-in-chief will be selling the natural resources on federally ‘protected’ lands first. Chicoms will be shipping our coal and oil to their production facilities and selling our own resources to us, before Barry gets to selling our ships and planes. He’ll have them docked and ground so long they won’t be operational anyway.
ping
The other problem is if Naval ships are under attack, the carriers are there to protect them. It would take to long to get land based Army Air to the scene.
To save money, the UK had excepted the idea that the RN would never operate outside of the RAF’s air umbrella, and despite the Falklands, they have persisted in this world view.
The RN Harriers were retired years ago in favor of the cost saving measure of putting RAF Harriers on their STOL CV’s.
The VTOL/STOL F-35 has promised to bring back some autonomy to the RN, but there is still no real AWACS capability and it may be too late for the RN to recover.
The savings are only to be found in areas where there is actually commonality, and to a vast extent this has already occurred. Primary training is now a joint operation, and weapons are almost totally universal. It is hard to see where any greater savings could be had in giving Naval Aviation over the USAF.
Perhaps in theory, but try flying an F-16 from the U.S. West Coast to cover the Straits of Taiwan. At 500 kts, thats 12 hours each way.
That's it in a nutshell. Considering the extra cost to train-up a naval aviator, posting him to a landbased RAF squadron would be a waste (though perhaps one that is more easily hidden).
Does this mean that the RAF presently controls the outcome of this dispute? ie. the RAF already controls all tactical jets & pilot training. The RN would have to apply to the governmnent to GET IT BACK?
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Relics are they? Well, I'd suggest Brits summon up the ghost of Lord Nelson, and ask, what does he think? Should lubbers be put in charge of gunnery? ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.