Skip to comments.
RAF chief predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power
Daily Telegraph ^
| 07 Jun 2009
| Sean Rayment
Posted on 06/08/2009 8:26:28 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
RAF Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power Photo: DAVID ROSE
To: sukhoi-30mki
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.
To: sukhoi-30mki
3
posted on
06/08/2009 8:33:45 AM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
("I've conquered my goddam willpower." Don Marquis)
To: Old Retired Army Guy
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.
4
posted on
06/08/2009 8:41:32 AM PDT
by
RC2
To: sukhoi-30mki
IIRC, they did this before, right after WW1. They folded the FAA into the RAF. Of course, back then the UK had a "fleet" -- a big one! When aircraft carriers began to come into their own in the late Twenties, the FAA was reestablished.
Now there's hardly a "fleet" to speak of.
5
posted on
06/08/2009 8:56:31 AM PDT
by
Snickersnee
(Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?)
To: Snickersnee
With Zero’s spending, can it be far off that the U.S. has to sell it’s fleet to meet the debt?
6
posted on
06/08/2009 8:58:18 AM PDT
by
AxelPaulsenJr
(Please God Save The United States From The Democrats, and Barack Hussein Obama. Amen.)
To: RC2
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.
7
posted on
06/08/2009 9:00:25 AM PDT
by
sig226
(Real power is not the ability to destroy an enemy. It is the willingness to do it.)
To: Snickersnee
Just following the Chicom model..they have the “People’s Army NAVY...”
8
posted on
06/08/2009 9:01:09 AM PDT
by
ken5050
To: Old Retired Army Guy
The savings would be an illusion considering the increased costs of the multi-role training necessary to cover mission specific requiremnts of each branch of service.
The Army has one overall mission it trains for. The Marines have one overall mission it trains for. The Air Force has one overall mission it trains for and the Navy also has one overall mission.
But they are four distinctly separate missions. It is more economical and efficient to train four separate groups in four separate missions than it is to try and train one large group in four separate missions.
The U.S. Navy discovered this back in the 1800's when they tried to replace the Marines with Blue Jackets, that is sailors who could perform the duties of Marines. Because of mission and training requirements, the Blue Jackets began acting more like Marines and less like sailors. In the end, Blue Jackets were really Marines.
I suspect the RAF will find the same thing if they try to take over the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. The RAF will find that it is not within their budget to train all pilots for both air superiority operations and sea-control operations. Thus, they will have to train two separate groups of pilots. In the end, all those RAF pilots serving on carriers will simply become the new "naval aviators."
9
posted on
06/08/2009 9:05:02 AM PDT
by
84rules
( Ooh-Rah! Semper Fi!)
To: Old Retired Army Guy
"If you just look at Procurement and Training, the savings could be enormous." Ok.. I can see it that way.. But this retired Air Force Guy can also bring up this truth in the statements being said when its in regards to the US Armed Forces. If the USAF and the US Navy Aviation are to combined.. its going to cost the US quite a bit of money as aircraft age.. even more so than it would today.
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.
10
posted on
06/08/2009 9:10:22 AM PDT
by
Kitanis
To: AxelPaulsenJr
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.
11
posted on
06/08/2009 9:11:34 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: magslinger
To: sig226
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.
13
posted on
06/08/2009 9:40:12 AM PDT
by
RC2
To: sukhoi-30mki
This already happened. When the RN got rid of their conventional CVs they gave up the issue of air control. Their swan song was in the Falklands when their Harriers faired far better than they had any reasonable chance to against the Argentine Mirages.
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.
14
posted on
06/08/2009 9:44:17 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
To: Old Retired Army Guy
Theres 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. 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.
15
posted on
06/08/2009 9:49:42 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
To: sig226
Its possible to fly fighter and attack aircraft from anywhere to anywhere... 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.
16
posted on
06/08/2009 10:13:50 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
To: 84rules
The RAF will find that it is not within their budget to train all pilots for both air superiority operations and sea-control operations. Thus, they will have to train two separate groups of pilots. In the end, all those RAF pilots serving on carriers will simply become the new "naval aviators."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).
17
posted on
06/08/2009 10:51:50 AM PDT
by
Tallguy
("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
To: SampleMan
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?
18
posted on
06/08/2009 10:55:33 AM PDT
by
Tallguy
("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
To: Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; Bean Counter; investigateworld; ...
SONOBUOY PING!
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.
19
posted on
06/08/2009 1:57:34 PM PDT
by
magslinger
(The first dog has papers but the President doesn't. How interesting!-cubsfanconswoman)
To: sukhoi-30mki
"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. " 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? ;-)
20
posted on
06/08/2009 3:31:05 PM PDT
by
BroJoeK
(a little historical perspective...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson