RN Fleet Air Arm and RAF in battle over funding

[CougarKing]

The service rivalry comes into play again.

From The Sunday Times

December 7, 2008

Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers

Michael Smith

THE RAF is trying to use a major cash crisis within the Ministry of Defence to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm, defence sources said last week.

Its campaign, which is being fought under the slogan "one nation, one air force", has led to the head of the Royal Navy, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band threatening to resign.

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of air staff, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the navy and the air force.

Torpy believes that the lack of a carrier-borne attack aircraft until the first of the new aircraft carriers comes into service, now 2015 at the earliest, will not be a problem.

He argues that with the main focus of UK military operations for the next decade likely to be land-locked Afghanistan, there is no current need for carrier-borne aircraft.

When the new carriers come into service the RAF can fly the Joint Strike Fighters that are currently due to fly off them.

Scrapping the Harriers five years early in 2013 is seen as a relatively painless way of saving £1bn, the cost of keeping the aircraft flying.

The £1bn is what the National Audit Office says will be the cost of two Harrier support contracts, one with BAE Systems and the other with engine supplier Rolls Royce.

It is the only aircraft support contract that has yet to be signed so the MoD could decide not to go ahead with it without incurring penalty clauses.

Getting rid of the Harriers will also lead to the closure of the Joint Harrier Force base at RAF Cottesmore in Rutland, adding to the cost savings.

Torpy is thought to have the support of Air Marshal Jock Stirrup, the chief of defence staff, for the measure which is set to lead to a major clash between the RAF and the navy.

But senior naval sources said last week that Band will resign if the RAF proposals are pushed through. "He's had enough," one said. "The navy has been cut and cut and cut again to get the carriers."

The conflict comes amid what the sources said was the worst inter-service fighting since Labour's notorious "east of Suez" defence cuts of the mid-1960s.

Band is furious that the navy is taking the brunt of the cutbacks caused by a £2bn black hole in the defence budget, the sources said.

John Hutton, defence secretary, will announce this week that the navy's cherished two aircraft carriers will be delayed by up to two years.

The navy agreed to a string of cuts to its ship numbers to keep the carriers and is now facing not only the loss of all its fixed-wing aircraft but also major cuts to its submarine force.

One of a number of options designed to save money involves the accelerated retirement of the navy's current Trafalgar-class attack submarines and delays to the Astute replacements.

This would leave the navy with only four attack submarines for the five years between 2020 and 2025, compared to the current eight.

It has also been told its new frigates, known as the future surface combatants, have been indefinitely postponed and plans to get rid of aging Type-22 frigates have been scrapped.

Hutton has told the defence chiefs that they must come up with a final plan to save the £2bn shortfall by a meeting of the defence board on Friday December 19.

The Ministry of Defence declined to comment on the issue ahead of Hutton's anticipated announcement this week.

 

[daftandbarmy]

God Bless the RAF, but they can't fly like the Fleet can.

On the upside, maybe we can pick up some of those surplus subs at a bargain price? Hmm... I wonder where I've seen that happen before?

 

[cameron]

I can't believe the RAF is bringing up this s@#% again.  With all due respect Air Marshall Torpy is showing the lack of foresight that causes nations to be caught with their pants down.  I suppose he has a crystal ball that tells him Britain's next conflict will be a landlocked country like Afghanistan.  I've made this point before in another forum and i'll make it again, before 1982 nobody expected the Royal Navy to sail halfway around the world to battle a South American country. While I respect and admire the RAF they need to get over themselves and stop seeing the Fleet Air Arm as a rival instead of a useful counterpart.

 

[time expired]

Is this any suprise?,after all the bosses in the RAF and incidentally the USAF,
are all pilots and have allways had a inferiority complex vis a vis naval pilots.
The very act of bringing an aircraft aboard a small moving carrier deck as part
of their daily routine proves conclusively that they are better pilots.
Seriously though this a case of the evil politicians playing one service off
against the other in the interest of cutting the military budget.The RAF has fought
naval air since its inception and has usually won.The USAF has been less successful
and the USN has usually held its own.Most people are not aware that the RCAF
did its best to sink Canadian naval air and in the end succeeded.
A point often forgotten is the fact the RAF has not shot down an aircraft in over
4 decades, unless one counts the RAF Jaguar shot down by an RAF Phantom
over Germany in the 70s,while the Navy has had much more success.
                                            Regards

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is this any suprise?,after all the bosses in the RAF and incidentally the USAF,
are all pilots and have allways had a inferiority complex vis a vis naval pilots.
The very act of bringing an aircraft aboard a small moving carrier deck as part
of their daily routine proves conclusively that they are better pilots.
Seriously though this a case of the evil politicians playing one service off
against the other in the interest of cutting the military budget.The RAF has fought
naval air since its inception and has usually won.The USAF has been less successful
and the USN has usually held its own.Most people are not aware that the RCAF
did its best to sink Canadian naval air and in the end succeeded.
A point often forgotten is the fact the RAF has not shot down an aircraft in over
4 decades, unless one counts the RAF Jaguar shot down by an RAF Phantom
over Germany in the 70s,while the Navy has had much more success.
                                             Regards

I strongly agree. Here's a good example of the stuff they need to fly in. The RAF are not incapable of flying in these conditions, just more concerned that they'll miss tea at the bed and breakfats they usualy parl their aircraft next to on exercises:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4MbCu_YRM4&feature=related