- Reaction score
- 2,903
- Points
- 1,260
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2381402,00.html
Retire the RAF to focus military resources ]
The Times (UK), 30 Sept 06
Sir, Richard Need is surely right to say that the Royal Air Force should be merged into the other two services (letter, Sept 28).
The plain fact is that, land-based, it cannot always get where it is needed to counter today’s threats whereas carrier-borne aircraft can.
This is a different situation to that in the Second World War and the Cold War, but the RAF’s limitations were already evident in Korea, the air war of which was entirely fought by the US and Royal Navies from carriers. The Falklands war was another example that proved the superior value of carrier-borne aircraft.
The financial savings of absorbing the RAF into the other two services would go a long way towards paying for the proposed two large aircraft carriers that Colonel Tim Collins recently confirmed in an interview as being definitely required.
DAVID GUNN
Aldsworth, Glos
Sir, At first I was rather saddened by the suggestion that the RAF be disbanded, but later I considered the Falklands war. In that campaign RAF aircrew were present only under direct control of naval and army officers, an arrangement that seemed to work well.
Then I thought of the cancelled aircraft carriers, CVA01 and 02, that probably would have been completed had the RAF not existed. If that had been so, President Galtieri would probably never have invaded the Falklands, which would have saved the huge cost of their recovery and many British servicemen’s lives.
Perhaps, after all, Mr Richard Need has a good point.
PETER BRUCE
Lymington, Hants
Sir, The thinking by military strategists is that all future wars will be fought in the littoral zone, the area close to the sea, where most centres of population are concentrated. So the Royal Navy will be there to support operations on land.
The Royal Marines are soldiers who get to where they are going by boat instead of in the back of an armoured personnel carrier. The planned new aircraft carriers will be platforms from which to launch ground attack aircraft in support of the Army, and the few remaining destroyers and frigates will provide artillery support for the Army.
So let’s just have the UK Defence Force, with land, maritime and air groups. Our military identified the need to be “joint” many years ago. We now have a permanent joint HQ, a joint force HQ, a joint helicopter force, a joint force land component, a joint force maritime component, a joint force air component, a joint force logistics component and joint force harrier.
“Jointness” works as it puts the assets, regardless of the colour of the uniform, under the command of the formation or “component” that needs it.
TRISTRAM CARTER
Flight lieutenant (retired)
Totnes, Devon
Sir, Reading the letter from Richard Need, I was expecting it to be from Duncan Sandys, who expressed similar sentiments in 1957.
I am relieved that the Royal Air Force is still with us today.
TIM CARBURY
(ex-RAF 4190664)
Farnborough, Hants
Retire the RAF to focus military resources ]
The Times (UK), 30 Sept 06
Sir, Richard Need is surely right to say that the Royal Air Force should be merged into the other two services (letter, Sept 28).
The plain fact is that, land-based, it cannot always get where it is needed to counter today’s threats whereas carrier-borne aircraft can.
This is a different situation to that in the Second World War and the Cold War, but the RAF’s limitations were already evident in Korea, the air war of which was entirely fought by the US and Royal Navies from carriers. The Falklands war was another example that proved the superior value of carrier-borne aircraft.
The financial savings of absorbing the RAF into the other two services would go a long way towards paying for the proposed two large aircraft carriers that Colonel Tim Collins recently confirmed in an interview as being definitely required.
DAVID GUNN
Aldsworth, Glos
Sir, At first I was rather saddened by the suggestion that the RAF be disbanded, but later I considered the Falklands war. In that campaign RAF aircrew were present only under direct control of naval and army officers, an arrangement that seemed to work well.
Then I thought of the cancelled aircraft carriers, CVA01 and 02, that probably would have been completed had the RAF not existed. If that had been so, President Galtieri would probably never have invaded the Falklands, which would have saved the huge cost of their recovery and many British servicemen’s lives.
Perhaps, after all, Mr Richard Need has a good point.
PETER BRUCE
Lymington, Hants
Sir, The thinking by military strategists is that all future wars will be fought in the littoral zone, the area close to the sea, where most centres of population are concentrated. So the Royal Navy will be there to support operations on land.
The Royal Marines are soldiers who get to where they are going by boat instead of in the back of an armoured personnel carrier. The planned new aircraft carriers will be platforms from which to launch ground attack aircraft in support of the Army, and the few remaining destroyers and frigates will provide artillery support for the Army.
So let’s just have the UK Defence Force, with land, maritime and air groups. Our military identified the need to be “joint” many years ago. We now have a permanent joint HQ, a joint force HQ, a joint helicopter force, a joint force land component, a joint force maritime component, a joint force air component, a joint force logistics component and joint force harrier.
“Jointness” works as it puts the assets, regardless of the colour of the uniform, under the command of the formation or “component” that needs it.
TRISTRAM CARTER
Flight lieutenant (retired)
Totnes, Devon
Sir, Reading the letter from Richard Need, I was expecting it to be from Duncan Sandys, who expressed similar sentiments in 1957.
I am relieved that the Royal Air Force is still with us today.
TIM CARBURY
(ex-RAF 4190664)
Farnborough, Hants
