Should we do away with the bulk of the RAF?

[Mannginger]

I ask this question after reading this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/26/predator_b... which details the fact that small, unmanned prop drones are now flying into contested space and reducing the AA threat and that the US is seriously evaluating introducing turbo-prop craft back into the theatre for prolonged operational support

For me the questions that the article poses on the value of having "excessive" (my emphasis) air-to-air capability and even manned strike aircraft are valid ones (and I'm a massive fan of the RAF and dreamed of being a fighter pilot - but are they rapidly becoming obsolete?)

Did the comprehensive spending review get it wrong or have they got the balance right "just in case"? (Bearing in mind the age old quote of preparing to fight the last war).

My tuppence worth is that we will and should reduce the number of manned aircraft as the capability of un-manned vehicles increases which it seems to be doing on an exponential basis from what I can tell.

[Eric Mc]

It's already been done.

[Mannginger]

Genuine lol at that Eric and not a response I was expecting but I can see why you said it!

[sharpfocus]

There's a very anti-RAF, specifically, sentiment from the Register. I suspect there are one or two there with a chip on their shoulder for some reason.

[MadMullah]

As technology advances

the RAF will be semi-gaming arena with a field of command controlling drones and firing with screens all around them.

[Eric Mc]

Mannginger said:

Genuine lol at that Eric and not a response I was expecting but I can see why you said it!

Compare it to (say) 1975 or even 1955.

[eharding]

sharpfocus said:

There's a very anti-RAF, specifically, sentiment from the Register. I suspect there are one or two there with a chip on their shoulder for some reason.

Google the author's biography. University Air Squadron, then joined the Navy. Pure speculation, of course, but you might wonder if he was rejected by the RAF post-UAS, and has never really come to terms with the rejection.

[bosscerbera]

Guam said:

Yeah we tried this before in the 1930,s and that worked out really well. You cannot build modern fighter Aircraft or train Pilots in ANYTHING resembling what was possible back then, not to mention we got away with it by the skin of our teeth in the battle of Britain.

We are more exposed as a Nation than at any time in our history imho. What Cameron (and his predecessors) have done is bordering on criminal negligence, where the nations security is concerned

But why would anyone want to invade us? The only things worth nicking are State benefits and Tornado GR4s haven't proved much of a deterrent against that.

A system of monitoring subsea, sea and airspace intruders with an effective missile system would serve the purposes of defence. That might also prevent our rulers from spunking our money on idiotic forays abroad.

[Dixie68]

The author is Lewis Page - go onto any Army or RAF forum and do a search and you'll see he's been anti anyone but the Navy for years. Shocking as he is ex-Navy.
Additionally, I have ex-work colleagues in the RAF who were involved in the winding down of squadrons after the cuts were announced - they were even sending stuff off to RAF museums - when they were suddenly told to stop what they were doing and get everything back as it was needed for the RAFs role in Libya. It doesn't fill you with confidence that the government knows what they're doing when it comes to the military.
As for Lewis Page, I'm trying to think of a non-offensive way to describe him but I can't - he's a ct.

[davepoth]

Dixie68 said:

The author is Lewis Page - go onto any Army or RAF forum and do a search and you'll see he's been anti anyone but the Navy for years. Shocking as he is ex-Navy.
Additionally, I have ex-work colleagues in the RAF who were involved in the winding down of squadrons after the cuts were announced - they were even sending stuff off to RAF museums - when they were suddenly told to stop what they were doing and get everything back as it was needed for the RAFs role in Libya. It doesn't fill you with confidence that the government knows what they're doing when it comes to the military.
As for Lewis Page, I'm trying to think of a non-offensive way to describe him but I can't - he's a ct.

It's always been the same; I guess you know all about Black Buck. We had a big problem this time around though - we're locked in to some horrific spending commitments in defence (QE Class Carriers, Nimrod 2000, JSF, Eurofighter, Astute class subs, Type 45 Destroyers, A400M, FSTA, Type 26 Frigates), and I think all of those are massively overspent and behind schedule, and couldn't be broken out of. That's why we had to lose capability.

[Mr Dave]

Mannginger said:

I ask this question after reading this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/26/predator_b... which details the fact that small, unmanned prop drones are now flying into contested space and reducing the AA threat and that the US is seriously evaluating introducing turbo-prop craft back into the theatre for prolonged operational support

Where would turbo-prop aircraft of the types being suggested for COIN work in Afghan and Iraq fly from, if they were in RAF service, in todays operations?

If they were in use in Afghan operations, what size of area could they cover, how much time over the area could they provide when compared to say a GR4, how long are transit times to and from where our soldiers could be in dire need of air support? What could they do on current ops that say a WAH-64 not do?

Would be a very useful supplementary and cost effective addition to the RAF, but not a replacement for proper ground attack aircraft.

Unmanned drones are great and are coming on leaps an bounds, but they arent there yet. For an idea of one of the many reasons why, just look at the number of predators lost by the USAF.

I still maintain that drones have their place, are very beneficial to the RAF and will have a greater role to play in the future, but at the mean time they are useful to supplement manned aircraft, not to replace them. And for what they do they do seem fairly cost effective.

However the whole "drones making manned aircraft redundant" thing seems very reminiscent of the whole "missiles making manned aircraft redundant" thinking (pushed quite hard by the missile and drone manufacturers) such as that shown by the defence white paper in 1957.

[dandarez]

bosscerbera said:

Guam said:

Yeah we tried this before in the 1930,s and that worked out really well. You cannot build modern fighter Aircraft or train Pilots in ANYTHING resembling what was possible back then, not to mention we got away with it by the skin of our teeth in the battle of Britain.

We are more exposed as a Nation than at any time in our history imho. What Cameron (and his predecessors) have done is bordering on criminal negligence, where the nations security is concerned

But why would anyone want to invade us?

I agree. They don't need to, we have already been invaded!

Foreign forces quietly took over everything that was once ours and what we once owned, right under our noses and we didn't even notice, let alone murmur about it.

And not forgetting the Trojan Horses that we welcomed with open arms on our shores (and continue to do so) blindly giving refuge and welfare to, in a lot of cases it seems, little more than 'an enemy within'.

All the while we purport to be the world's policeman, while off-duty at home!