Tuesday, May 01, 2012

RAF vs. FAA


The battle between the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm is becoming a bit clearer.

The latest from Sharkey Ward is helping me to flesh out the argument.  I'm not sure I can pick sides on this one but at least I'm starting to get where the battle lines are drawn.

Its all about money...funding...and procurement.  Check this out, an open letter....
Dear Chancellor,
 
You will wish to be aware of the figures that the Permanent Undersecretary to the Ministry of Defence failed to provide to the Public Accounts Committee last week during its deliberations on Carrier Strike. These are now provided for your information in the attached document. The savings available to the taxpayer are indeed considerable if the right choice of aircraft is made for the Queen Elizabeth class carrier (varying from nearly £5 billion to over £13 billion).
 
I would suggest that earlier figures presented to you by CDM may have been less than forthright.
 
The suggestion of a return to the F-35B STOVL aircraft was initiated by DE&S and CDM who would appear to have an alliance with MoD/RAF. I am now informed that The RAF are due to announce a tender/consultation on the Future Air Defence Aircraft.  It is no surprise that they are looking at F-35C with its deep strike capability rather than the F 35B STOVL (or alternative with equivalent or better spec).  One must question therefore why they are trying to push the F-35B STOVL aircraft for our new carriers. Presumably they think that if the carriers only have the STOVL aircraft with its comparatively limited capability, they will be able to seek justification for any new aircraft that has a reasonable DPOC capability.
 
I understand that they are due to announce a requirement for UP TO 180 fighter jets! This figure would appear absurd when we as a nation are seeking to project our Foreign Policy and defend our energy supplies, trade routes and overseas interests with just 60 carrier borne, fast jet combat aircraft.  It is for consideration that our disembarked, shore-based naval fighter aircraft could also provide a robust fighter air defence of the United Kingdom (against which there is no perceived threat).
 
With very recent analysis showing that the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm is 40% more efficient than the Royal Air Force in the Administration and operation of its aircraft, this provides a financial and a logical argument for having larger carrier air groups that can conduct strategic operations overseas and, at the same time, provide for the air defence of the United Kingdom.  There would then be no need at all for any specialised "Future Air Defence Aircraft".
 

Inter service politics.  This will get nasty before its all done.

1 comment :

  1. The RAF and the FAA have historical animosity between them. In the 1910s and 20s, the Royal Navy was by far the world's leader in carrier aviation. Most of the early naval aviation milestones were first reached by the Royal Navy. However, due to politics, they had to relinquish control over their aviation assets to the RAF. The RAF, more concerned with land-based aircraft, allowed British naval aviation to stagnate and fall behind the US and Japan, so much so that when WWII broke out, Britain's most effective plane was the Fairey Swordfish - a biplane. The Swordfish and its pilots served with distinction, playing a big role in the attack on Taranto - the first air attack on such a fleet - but it, along with other British carrier aircraft, was fundamentally outdated. Eventually the Royal Navy got control over its assets back from the RAF, but the bad blood between the two services exists to this day - not amongst the common men in each branches, but certainly amongst their leadership.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.