Is It Time To Disband The RAF?
Discussion
News this morning - The RAF are to 'retire' 30 Typhoons - this will reduce the inventory of combat aircraft to just 138 combat aircraft.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13143557/...
Is It Time To Disband The RAF?
WOW, given all the media talk of potential war in the next decade with Putin's Russia and/or China (over Taiwan), controversial stuff.....
But seriously, the British Armed Forces are no longer fit for purpose, they are not capable of defending the country, let alone helping our NATO allies. Billions of £'s are wasted by the military with overmanning and a top heavy military bureaucracy fighting amongst themselves for limited resources. Should we leave NATO, completely rethink the role of our armed forces, replacing our standing forces with a UK only National Guard and having a small (say) 10,000 strong Expeditionary Force - that 'might' fight outside our own borders?
Before we consider the solution lets examine the problem.
It's not just the RAF that is overstaffed, providing little military capability for the budget
The RAF will have just 138 actual combat aircraft but employs 31000 personnel to fly them. 230 airmen/women per combat plane
The RAF has six military bands, more bandsmen than aircraft
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than a parachute battalion
The Navy Has more Admirals than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
Facts:
The RAF has manpower of 31700.... but how many actual combat planes does it have? 2000? 1000? 500? 250?
Answer: Forget about transport and support planes, such as tankers: it has just 168, yes one-hundred-and-sixty-eight actual combat aircraft, of which 30 are to be retired by next year, leaving an inventory of just 138 actual combat aircraft.
The combat aircraft inventory is currently 137 Eurofighter Typhoons and 31 F35s.
And this is before we take out all the planes that are 'not serviceable', what 20%? But, for the sake of argument, lets assume that all combat aeroplanes in the inventory are actually flying........
Given the RAF's manpower of 31710 service personnel, there are currently 188 RAF service personnel per actual (combat) aircraft, though after the scrapping of the Typhoons this figure will rise to 230! Obviously, these planes need specialist maintenance and ground control, such as radar etc - but really, 188 personnel per combat aircraft?
To make these numbers even more of a joke the 31 F35B Lightnings are primarily intended as naval aircraft, to operate from the Royal Navy's two white-elephant-gin-palaces aircraft carriers. There is another joke here, in that the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers are not on duty protecting shipping against attack in the Gulf, where they should be, but tied up in port because they are broken down and/or because the navy hasn't actually got enough crew to operate the aircraft carriers and necessary support vessels. Pathetic.
So, all Britain's combat aircraft are actually being operated by the RAF, only because the Royal Navy can't be arsed to actually go to sea.
To add to the RAF's woes, RAF aircrew typically fly just 180 hours per year. In event of war, inadequately trained aircrew will be expected to put their lives on the line after practicing for just 3.5 hour per week
https://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/fut...
Why are we so lame in having such a miserable number of operational combat aircraft? It's not due to our military being underfunded - the RAF's budget is huge: UK defence expenditure was $72bn, third largest in world, in 2022
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f...
Just like all the other Services, the RAF is top heavy, with far too many non operational, high ranking, desk pilots.
There are just 11 Strike/Attack Fast Jet Squadrons, so roughly 15 aircraft per squadron, presumably each lead by a Squadron Leader
Surely, there can be no need for more than a couple of ranks higher than Wing Commander (OF4), the next grade up?
Yet the RAF has 433 Officers of grade Group Captain (OF5) and above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serving_seni...
There are 45 officers ranked as Air Marshall and above; one Air Marshall (or above) for every three operational combat aircraft, once the Tranche 1 Tornados have been retired.
For the inventory of 168 combat aircraft the RAF lists 63 RAF stations!
Despite the dangerously low number of combat aircraft and limited flying time, the RAF must waste millions of pounds on such pomp and ceremony as poncing around with six separate RAF bands playing the Dam Busters March! That will be one RAF band for every 23 aircraft. Some strange priorities here.
Interestingly, the RAF's Music Service has 170 musicians, two more members of staff than the number of actual combat aircraft currently being operated......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Musi... the head of which is a Wing Commander on £80k+ pa.
It's not just the RAF that wastes resources on providing a extravagantly funded, weak and ineffectual actual military capability.
Last week there was the debacle of the failed Trident submarine missile launch
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/21/la...
And the embarrassment of neither of our two £4bn aircraft carriers being operational at a time when we are conducting actual air operations in the Red Sea.
The Royal Navy has a claimed 68 commissioned ships (one of which, HMS Victory is, perhaps, a little too old to be much of a deterrent!).
If you add up actual crew numbers.... making the assumption that all commissioned ships are actually operational.... the numbers are staggering. Assuming ALL RN ships are operational needs a total crew numbers of 7230 The Royal Navy has 32360 active personnel.
For every RN sailor who is potentially at sea, there are three and a half times as many desk sailors.
There are only two British ships commanded by a rank higher than Commander (rank OF4)- HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - which are commanded by Captains (OF5). Yet there are, believe it or not, 416 Officers in the Royal Navy/Royal Marines who hold the rank of Captain or above. If we analyse our 68-vessel navy by capability, we have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels - yet the Royal Navy/Royal Marines has 136 officers of rank OF6 (Commadore) or above. And 38 Admirals...... (OF7 & above). We have seven more Admirals than blue water combat ships.
Frankly, our much vaunted Royal Navy - with it's wonderful history and reputation - will capsize in event of any potential conflict because it is so top heavy!
The army is no better, with it's 80,000 personnel and procurement debacles such as the £5.5bn Ajax fighting vehicle - a program that has run for 13 years without producing a single vehicle.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/25/br...
The army has 14, yes fourteen, bands - with 753 regular musicians. For the record, each Battalion of the Parachute Regiment has, 662 personnel. Our military priorities seemingly are: a few marching bands, whose sole role is to parade around and show us taxpayers where our heard earnt is wasted, rather than an extra battalion of tough, trained and highly respected 'paras'.
Again, the army is top-heavy - Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
Given that around 662 personnel constitutes a British Army battalion, what then should we refer to the 716 Senior Officers (OF5 and above) as?
The 1st Battalion of Desk Warriors? Regimental Motto: Veni, Vidi, Vici, Sorry - Veni, Vidi, Vici prandeum
Scrap the majority of all officers OF5 and above and the army could probably afford another 2 or 3 airborne battalions.
In 2020/21, these overpaid desk warriors even spent £83m of our taxes subsidising their children's private school fees in 2020/21
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/subsidies_p...
The United Kingdom must prepare itself for (potential) real world threats, such as Russia and China.
But our political and military class have conflated the real and the potential threats to our nation.
For the Army the real threats are the Navy and the AirForce,
For the Navy it's the Army and the AirForce, and
For the AirForce it's the Navy and Army.
The simple and obvious truth is that our armed forces are so focussed on getting 'their' slice of pie that they have lost focus on their actual mission - to defend the UK's interests.
So I've listed some of the issues... and my solution?
Solution Number One
Given the conflicts, over budget and influence, between the three services, my suggestion is to replace the entire command structure. Have two separate and separately funded commands, one concerned (only) with defence of the UK and a small, independent, Expeditionary Force. The Home Office would be in charge of defence of the United Kingdom, the Foreign Office all expeditionary forces.
UK defence. This would be in the form of a National Guard with ground, air and sea arms.
The naval element would use the 33 coastal RN vessels (Offshore Patrol, Mine countermeasures, Coastal and fast patrol) for patrolling and defending both our coast and our Exclusive Economic Zone.
The air element would use the 137 Eurofighter Typhoons for UK only air defence. Being a UK only force I doubt there would be the need for many transport /refuelling etc aircraft.
The ground element would be responsible for UK only defence. The existing tanks / armoured vehicles are I believe perfectly adequate for defence of the UK, so I don't see any short term needs for replacement (given the National Guard would only be fighting on home soil).
Many of the costs and recruitment problems our military currently have would be greatly eased, if only because the job of a National Guardsman would be just that: a job and not a way of life - Being far more family friendly, working close to home although with shift work. National Guards would provide the State with a body of trained, disciplined personnel able to assist - when not at war - with so many matters. For example helping in times of floods, Nightingale hospitals, crowd control etc.
Obviously, National Guards would receive significantly lower emoluments, to reflect the new military covenant.
The military covenant for National Guards could be down graded because National Guards would serve with far less onerous conditions, with very little 'danger' of war or long foreign posting issues. Personnel would only be serving in the UK, so they could have a permanent base etc. No need for housing to be provided; military service would be paid a just another job, albeit one with shifts of 8 hours over a 24 hour day / 7 days a week / 52 weeks a year, much like the fire brigade, police or ambulance/ medical staff. This would save the taxpayer billions and free up money to ensure that our military are bothn well trained and well equipped.
The Expeditionary Force. We should be able to project power, but I'm not sure that needs such limited vessels as aircraft carriers, which because they are capital ships are too vulnerable to sail without a large and expensive support fleet - a Combat Strike Group has 1 Frigate, 1 Destroyer a submarine and a tanker.
Sell the two aircraft carriers and have a number of Global Combat Ships, operating in groups of 4, providing air defence and carrying expeditionary troops.
Solution Number Two
I think we should leave NATO. We could be a NATO Global Partner, providing assistance through GCHQ and possibly our small Expeditionary Force - on a case by case basis, rather than treaty obligation, without the danger of mission creep.
Far from endangering world peace, especially given potential US president Donald Trump's threats to withdraw American support for NATO, our withdrawal would be the catalyst to force our European allies to provide themselves with a real military capability, rather than hanging onto America's coat tails whilst slagging of the American military. Remember, historically the UK was the first country to support the USA in Operation Enduring Freedom and no doubt in event of future conflict we will be the first nation to standby our treaty obligations, to our own detriment. So, if we are 'out' we won't be dragged into another global conflict and we can allocate our resources for our defence - helping allies only if we deem such action to be in our interests.
There are only 11 NATO members, out of 31 (prior to Sweden joining) who meet the 2% defence spending commitment. But this 2% is a purely accounting measure of commitment. The only way to measure the true contribution of individual NATO Members is by studying history.
NATO was formed to provide mutual military aid: An attack on one member is an attack on all. The one and only occasion that Article 5, Collective Defence, has been invoked was in response to the September 11th attack.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.h...
NATO in Afghanistan
The wisdom of the War on Terror is obviously in doubt, but the principle of members being obliged to provide mutual support for any member that is attacked is unequivocal: America was attacked therefore all NATO members were obliged to fight. There is no possible ambiguity. In the same way that America is obliged to lend support to (say) Germany in event of (say) a Russian invasion, Germany and all other NATO members were legally bound to support the USA. But there were only three NATO members, the USA, the UK and Canada who made any significant contribution to Collective Defence (NATO Article 5)
Below is an interesting paper on the actual support provided by America's NATO allies:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce...
ISAF: International Security Assistance Force - or, as some in the American military put it ISAF: I Saw Americans Fight
(Note casualty figures in this paper differ slightly from the Wikipeda article, mentioned below).
QUOTE
"Top Troop Suppliers to Afghanistan as of February 2011 in numbers and % of population
United States 100,000 .032% United Kingdom 9,500 .015% Germany 4,920 .006% France 4,000 .006% Italy 3,770 .006% Canada 2,905 .008%
As the report makes clear,
"The United Kingdom stands out in that it supplied roughly two to three times the troops of the other top contributing allies when considered relative to its population."
and
"Canadian soldiers suffered the highest risk of dying, with their 158 fatalities accounting for 5.4% of Canada’s peak deployment in 2011. The United Kingdom’s 455 fatalities amounted to 4.7% of its peak deployment in 2011. In comparison, the U.S. incurred 2,316 fatalities, which was 2.3% of its peak deployment in 2011. These numbers demonstrate that British and Canadian troops were not hiding from the fight—they put their lives at risk at twice the rate of American troops, when seen as a percentage of peak deployment"
Killed in Action USA 1928, UK 404, Canada 132
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties... Total 3612
Interestingly, of the 3612 Coalition casualties, 3077 were from the USA, UK and Canada. This is 85% of all ISAF casualties. Or put it another way, all the other ISAF members together suffered just 15% of the total coalition casualties.
To put this in perspective, ISAF suffered 3612 fatalities of which 457 were from the UK.
So, are our European allies, in NATO, expecting the Canada, the UK and above all the USA to fight, provide the bulk of the forces and take 85% of casualties in the event of a European War? No wonder Donald Trump has threatened to walk away, unless they divvy up ....
And it's not just (potential) conventional warfare that our European NATO allies seem to want something for nothing.
Christian Linder - German finance minister - "has suggested that the UK and France could play a larger role in Europe's nuclear shield if Donald Trump wins this year's US presidential election". That we should use our (UK & France) nuclear shield for the protection of our neighbours?
https://www.euronews.com/2024/02/15/german-ministe...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13143557/...
Is It Time To Disband The RAF?
WOW, given all the media talk of potential war in the next decade with Putin's Russia and/or China (over Taiwan), controversial stuff.....
But seriously, the British Armed Forces are no longer fit for purpose, they are not capable of defending the country, let alone helping our NATO allies. Billions of £'s are wasted by the military with overmanning and a top heavy military bureaucracy fighting amongst themselves for limited resources. Should we leave NATO, completely rethink the role of our armed forces, replacing our standing forces with a UK only National Guard and having a small (say) 10,000 strong Expeditionary Force - that 'might' fight outside our own borders?
Before we consider the solution lets examine the problem.
It's not just the RAF that is overstaffed, providing little military capability for the budget
The RAF will have just 138 actual combat aircraft but employs 31000 personnel to fly them. 230 airmen/women per combat plane
The RAF has six military bands, more bandsmen than aircraft
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than a parachute battalion
The Navy Has more Admirals than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
Facts:
The RAF has manpower of 31700.... but how many actual combat planes does it have? 2000? 1000? 500? 250?
Answer: Forget about transport and support planes, such as tankers: it has just 168, yes one-hundred-and-sixty-eight actual combat aircraft, of which 30 are to be retired by next year, leaving an inventory of just 138 actual combat aircraft.
The combat aircraft inventory is currently 137 Eurofighter Typhoons and 31 F35s.
And this is before we take out all the planes that are 'not serviceable', what 20%? But, for the sake of argument, lets assume that all combat aeroplanes in the inventory are actually flying........
Given the RAF's manpower of 31710 service personnel, there are currently 188 RAF service personnel per actual (combat) aircraft, though after the scrapping of the Typhoons this figure will rise to 230! Obviously, these planes need specialist maintenance and ground control, such as radar etc - but really, 188 personnel per combat aircraft?
To make these numbers even more of a joke the 31 F35B Lightnings are primarily intended as naval aircraft, to operate from the Royal Navy's two white-elephant-gin-palaces aircraft carriers. There is another joke here, in that the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers are not on duty protecting shipping against attack in the Gulf, where they should be, but tied up in port because they are broken down and/or because the navy hasn't actually got enough crew to operate the aircraft carriers and necessary support vessels. Pathetic.
So, all Britain's combat aircraft are actually being operated by the RAF, only because the Royal Navy can't be arsed to actually go to sea.
To add to the RAF's woes, RAF aircrew typically fly just 180 hours per year. In event of war, inadequately trained aircrew will be expected to put their lives on the line after practicing for just 3.5 hour per week
https://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/fut...
Why are we so lame in having such a miserable number of operational combat aircraft? It's not due to our military being underfunded - the RAF's budget is huge: UK defence expenditure was $72bn, third largest in world, in 2022
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f...
Just like all the other Services, the RAF is top heavy, with far too many non operational, high ranking, desk pilots.
There are just 11 Strike/Attack Fast Jet Squadrons, so roughly 15 aircraft per squadron, presumably each lead by a Squadron Leader
Surely, there can be no need for more than a couple of ranks higher than Wing Commander (OF4), the next grade up?
Yet the RAF has 433 Officers of grade Group Captain (OF5) and above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serving_seni...
There are 45 officers ranked as Air Marshall and above; one Air Marshall (or above) for every three operational combat aircraft, once the Tranche 1 Tornados have been retired.
For the inventory of 168 combat aircraft the RAF lists 63 RAF stations!
Despite the dangerously low number of combat aircraft and limited flying time, the RAF must waste millions of pounds on such pomp and ceremony as poncing around with six separate RAF bands playing the Dam Busters March! That will be one RAF band for every 23 aircraft. Some strange priorities here.
Interestingly, the RAF's Music Service has 170 musicians, two more members of staff than the number of actual combat aircraft currently being operated......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Musi... the head of which is a Wing Commander on £80k+ pa.
It's not just the RAF that wastes resources on providing a extravagantly funded, weak and ineffectual actual military capability.
Last week there was the debacle of the failed Trident submarine missile launch
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/21/la...
And the embarrassment of neither of our two £4bn aircraft carriers being operational at a time when we are conducting actual air operations in the Red Sea.
The Royal Navy has a claimed 68 commissioned ships (one of which, HMS Victory is, perhaps, a little too old to be much of a deterrent!).
If you add up actual crew numbers.... making the assumption that all commissioned ships are actually operational.... the numbers are staggering. Assuming ALL RN ships are operational needs a total crew numbers of 7230 The Royal Navy has 32360 active personnel.
For every RN sailor who is potentially at sea, there are three and a half times as many desk sailors.
There are only two British ships commanded by a rank higher than Commander (rank OF4)- HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - which are commanded by Captains (OF5). Yet there are, believe it or not, 416 Officers in the Royal Navy/Royal Marines who hold the rank of Captain or above. If we analyse our 68-vessel navy by capability, we have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels - yet the Royal Navy/Royal Marines has 136 officers of rank OF6 (Commadore) or above. And 38 Admirals...... (OF7 & above). We have seven more Admirals than blue water combat ships.
Frankly, our much vaunted Royal Navy - with it's wonderful history and reputation - will capsize in event of any potential conflict because it is so top heavy!
The army is no better, with it's 80,000 personnel and procurement debacles such as the £5.5bn Ajax fighting vehicle - a program that has run for 13 years without producing a single vehicle.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/25/br...
The army has 14, yes fourteen, bands - with 753 regular musicians. For the record, each Battalion of the Parachute Regiment has, 662 personnel. Our military priorities seemingly are: a few marching bands, whose sole role is to parade around and show us taxpayers where our heard earnt is wasted, rather than an extra battalion of tough, trained and highly respected 'paras'.
Again, the army is top-heavy - Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
Given that around 662 personnel constitutes a British Army battalion, what then should we refer to the 716 Senior Officers (OF5 and above) as?
The 1st Battalion of Desk Warriors? Regimental Motto: Veni, Vidi, Vici, Sorry - Veni, Vidi, Vici prandeum
Scrap the majority of all officers OF5 and above and the army could probably afford another 2 or 3 airborne battalions.
In 2020/21, these overpaid desk warriors even spent £83m of our taxes subsidising their children's private school fees in 2020/21
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/subsidies_p...
The United Kingdom must prepare itself for (potential) real world threats, such as Russia and China.
But our political and military class have conflated the real and the potential threats to our nation.
For the Army the real threats are the Navy and the AirForce,
For the Navy it's the Army and the AirForce, and
For the AirForce it's the Navy and Army.
The simple and obvious truth is that our armed forces are so focussed on getting 'their' slice of pie that they have lost focus on their actual mission - to defend the UK's interests.
So I've listed some of the issues... and my solution?
Solution Number One
Given the conflicts, over budget and influence, between the three services, my suggestion is to replace the entire command structure. Have two separate and separately funded commands, one concerned (only) with defence of the UK and a small, independent, Expeditionary Force. The Home Office would be in charge of defence of the United Kingdom, the Foreign Office all expeditionary forces.
UK defence. This would be in the form of a National Guard with ground, air and sea arms.
The naval element would use the 33 coastal RN vessels (Offshore Patrol, Mine countermeasures, Coastal and fast patrol) for patrolling and defending both our coast and our Exclusive Economic Zone.
The air element would use the 137 Eurofighter Typhoons for UK only air defence. Being a UK only force I doubt there would be the need for many transport /refuelling etc aircraft.
The ground element would be responsible for UK only defence. The existing tanks / armoured vehicles are I believe perfectly adequate for defence of the UK, so I don't see any short term needs for replacement (given the National Guard would only be fighting on home soil).
Many of the costs and recruitment problems our military currently have would be greatly eased, if only because the job of a National Guardsman would be just that: a job and not a way of life - Being far more family friendly, working close to home although with shift work. National Guards would provide the State with a body of trained, disciplined personnel able to assist - when not at war - with so many matters. For example helping in times of floods, Nightingale hospitals, crowd control etc.
Obviously, National Guards would receive significantly lower emoluments, to reflect the new military covenant.
The military covenant for National Guards could be down graded because National Guards would serve with far less onerous conditions, with very little 'danger' of war or long foreign posting issues. Personnel would only be serving in the UK, so they could have a permanent base etc. No need for housing to be provided; military service would be paid a just another job, albeit one with shifts of 8 hours over a 24 hour day / 7 days a week / 52 weeks a year, much like the fire brigade, police or ambulance/ medical staff. This would save the taxpayer billions and free up money to ensure that our military are bothn well trained and well equipped.
The Expeditionary Force. We should be able to project power, but I'm not sure that needs such limited vessels as aircraft carriers, which because they are capital ships are too vulnerable to sail without a large and expensive support fleet - a Combat Strike Group has 1 Frigate, 1 Destroyer a submarine and a tanker.
Sell the two aircraft carriers and have a number of Global Combat Ships, operating in groups of 4, providing air defence and carrying expeditionary troops.
Solution Number Two
I think we should leave NATO. We could be a NATO Global Partner, providing assistance through GCHQ and possibly our small Expeditionary Force - on a case by case basis, rather than treaty obligation, without the danger of mission creep.
Far from endangering world peace, especially given potential US president Donald Trump's threats to withdraw American support for NATO, our withdrawal would be the catalyst to force our European allies to provide themselves with a real military capability, rather than hanging onto America's coat tails whilst slagging of the American military. Remember, historically the UK was the first country to support the USA in Operation Enduring Freedom and no doubt in event of future conflict we will be the first nation to standby our treaty obligations, to our own detriment. So, if we are 'out' we won't be dragged into another global conflict and we can allocate our resources for our defence - helping allies only if we deem such action to be in our interests.
There are only 11 NATO members, out of 31 (prior to Sweden joining) who meet the 2% defence spending commitment. But this 2% is a purely accounting measure of commitment. The only way to measure the true contribution of individual NATO Members is by studying history.
NATO was formed to provide mutual military aid: An attack on one member is an attack on all. The one and only occasion that Article 5, Collective Defence, has been invoked was in response to the September 11th attack.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.h...
NATO in Afghanistan
The wisdom of the War on Terror is obviously in doubt, but the principle of members being obliged to provide mutual support for any member that is attacked is unequivocal: America was attacked therefore all NATO members were obliged to fight. There is no possible ambiguity. In the same way that America is obliged to lend support to (say) Germany in event of (say) a Russian invasion, Germany and all other NATO members were legally bound to support the USA. But there were only three NATO members, the USA, the UK and Canada who made any significant contribution to Collective Defence (NATO Article 5)
Below is an interesting paper on the actual support provided by America's NATO allies:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce...
ISAF: International Security Assistance Force - or, as some in the American military put it ISAF: I Saw Americans Fight
(Note casualty figures in this paper differ slightly from the Wikipeda article, mentioned below).
QUOTE
"Top Troop Suppliers to Afghanistan as of February 2011 in numbers and % of population
United States 100,000 .032% United Kingdom 9,500 .015% Germany 4,920 .006% France 4,000 .006% Italy 3,770 .006% Canada 2,905 .008%
As the report makes clear,
"The United Kingdom stands out in that it supplied roughly two to three times the troops of the other top contributing allies when considered relative to its population."
and
"Canadian soldiers suffered the highest risk of dying, with their 158 fatalities accounting for 5.4% of Canada’s peak deployment in 2011. The United Kingdom’s 455 fatalities amounted to 4.7% of its peak deployment in 2011. In comparison, the U.S. incurred 2,316 fatalities, which was 2.3% of its peak deployment in 2011. These numbers demonstrate that British and Canadian troops were not hiding from the fight—they put their lives at risk at twice the rate of American troops, when seen as a percentage of peak deployment"
Killed in Action USA 1928, UK 404, Canada 132
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties... Total 3612
Interestingly, of the 3612 Coalition casualties, 3077 were from the USA, UK and Canada. This is 85% of all ISAF casualties. Or put it another way, all the other ISAF members together suffered just 15% of the total coalition casualties.
To put this in perspective, ISAF suffered 3612 fatalities of which 457 were from the UK.
So, are our European allies, in NATO, expecting the Canada, the UK and above all the USA to fight, provide the bulk of the forces and take 85% of casualties in the event of a European War? No wonder Donald Trump has threatened to walk away, unless they divvy up ....
And it's not just (potential) conventional warfare that our European NATO allies seem to want something for nothing.
Christian Linder - German finance minister - "has suggested that the UK and France could play a larger role in Europe's nuclear shield if Donald Trump wins this year's US presidential election". That we should use our (UK & France) nuclear shield for the protection of our neighbours?
https://www.euronews.com/2024/02/15/german-ministe...
Edited by alfaspecial on Friday 1st March 12:35
No one's reading that. Some of it seems copied twice as well.
As our forces continue to shrink, I think a fully purple organisation should at least be considered - and be called the UK home defence force (slightly tongue in cheek).
It certainly feels like we're living the mid to late 1930s timeline again, so rearmament and expansion of our armed forces will be a big topic for the next few years.
As our forces continue to shrink, I think a fully purple organisation should at least be considered - and be called the UK home defence force (slightly tongue in cheek).
It certainly feels like we're living the mid to late 1930s timeline again, so rearmament and expansion of our armed forces will be a big topic for the next few years.
ks.Summary:
The RAF will only have 138 combat planes but has 37000 service personnel to fly them.
The Royal Navy has more Admirals than ships.
We are the 6th largest military spenders, with not much to show for it.
Opinion: NPE is about debate, not just soundbites. If you are interested in the subject matter, namely over manning / under performance of our military then offer an opinion. Why slag off a post, if you haven't actually read it?
The RAF will only have 138 combat planes but has 37000 service personnel to fly them.
The Royal Navy has more Admirals than ships.
We are the 6th largest military spenders, with not much to show for it.
Opinion: NPE is about debate, not just soundbites. If you are interested in the subject matter, namely over manning / under performance of our military then offer an opinion. Why slag off a post, if you haven't actually read it?
Reads like it was written by someone who'd like to see the UK completely disintegrated as a military power. .
Solution 1 is to sell QE and PoW, disband the MoD, and give the Foriegn office a few troops to play act as an "expeditionary force".
Solution 2 is to leave NATO because "potential President Trump" may take USA out of NATO, and the Europeans need to learn to defend themselves. Not clear what problem this solves for the UK?
Solution 1 is to sell QE and PoW, disband the MoD, and give the Foriegn office a few troops to play act as an "expeditionary force".
Solution 2 is to leave NATO because "potential President Trump" may take USA out of NATO, and the Europeans need to learn to defend themselves. Not clear what problem this solves for the UK?
188 personnel per aircraft is hardly relevant, not everyone at Google is a software engineer. I spent 10 years in the RAF and was based at 5 units only one had aircraft based there and back then there was 95,000 personnel.
Some of the senior management need their heads read but it's probably true that defence cuts have ensured our armed services are no longer fit for purpose . NATO is a double edged sword it no longer has its reason to exist based on why it was originally formed and I genuinely believe that the US are much more likely to get us all killed than anyone else is
Some of the senior management need their heads read but it's probably true that defence cuts have ensured our armed services are no longer fit for purpose . NATO is a double edged sword it no longer has its reason to exist based on why it was originally formed and I genuinely believe that the US are much more likely to get us all killed than anyone else is
Edited by liner33 on Friday 1st March 12:22
eharding said:
alfaspecial said:
Why slag off a post, if you haven't actually read it?
Why slag off people criticising your post, when you didn't actually write the content? Still I'm sure he feels better now for the rant
alfaspecial said:
Summary:
The RAF will only have 138 combat planes but has 37000 service personnel to fly them.
The Royal Navy has more Admirals than ships.
We are the 6th largest military spenders, with not much to show for it.
Opinion: NPE is about debate, not just soundbites. If you are interested in the subject matter, namely over manning / under performance of our military then offer an opinion. Why slag off a post, if you haven't actually read it?
I have read it, and it's mostly just a pointless rant.The RAF will only have 138 combat planes but has 37000 service personnel to fly them.
The Royal Navy has more Admirals than ships.
We are the 6th largest military spenders, with not much to show for it.
Opinion: NPE is about debate, not just soundbites. If you are interested in the subject matter, namely over manning / under performance of our military then offer an opinion. Why slag off a post, if you haven't actually read it?
More admirals than ships for example is meaningless. Admirals don't generally serve on ships, they are the senior management of the Royal Navy.
Same with captains and ships. Captain is a rank and a position. They are not the same thing. The army has captains, and no ships.
Same with "desk sailors". The Navy isn't just manning ships. There are plenty of shore bases and roles. I've served and shore roles that included a testing/trials team, and another as part of a maintenance team that assisted in refits and long maintenance periods. Then there is all the training requirements like basic training, branch specialisation, fire and damage control etc. All shore based.
The post is as dumb as asking why Red Bull have 2 drivers and 2 cars, so what is everyone else doing on the team?
eharding said:
alfaspecial said:
Why slag off a post, if you haven't actually read it?
Why slag off people criticising your post, when you didn't actually write the content? 
Not going the OPs way is it?The RAF does a lot more than just fly aeroplanes, so focussing on just one aspect of the service and declaring "it's broken, we must change things!" is rather silly. I'm sure it could do with more money to purchase shiny-shiny new airframes, but it's not fundamentally broken.
As combat aircraft become more advanced, they do, or should do, the job of a greater number of earlier aircraft. As an example, the F-111, introduced during Vietnam, was intended to replace both the 'Wild Weasel' jamming and anti-radar aircraft, the air superiority aircraft and the bombers that would have been required on a conventional strike mission. By flying precision strike missions, less sorties were required to take out a single target than conventional aircraft with dumb bombs. To some extent it is what Mosquitos did in the Second World War.
More complex aircraft need more people to maintain them and ensure they are kept supplied with spare parts. Clearly if the aircraft is unserviceable it does leave a bigger hole in our defence.
What the RAF are doing equates to grounding the Spitfires with the fixed pitch propellers they had before the war, so they could be replaced with new ones with the variable pitch propeller which offered shorter takeoffs, better climb rates and a higher top speed. The early Typhoons were less capable, so the RAF could either replace them with new-build aircraft with all the latest improvements in a new airframe, or rebuild the already 40% used aircraft up to the current standard. Given the shortage of technicians and engineers, the decision the RAF took is probably the right one.
More complex aircraft need more people to maintain them and ensure they are kept supplied with spare parts. Clearly if the aircraft is unserviceable it does leave a bigger hole in our defence.
What the RAF are doing equates to grounding the Spitfires with the fixed pitch propellers they had before the war, so they could be replaced with new ones with the variable pitch propeller which offered shorter takeoffs, better climb rates and a higher top speed. The early Typhoons were less capable, so the RAF could either replace them with new-build aircraft with all the latest improvements in a new airframe, or rebuild the already 40% used aircraft up to the current standard. Given the shortage of technicians and engineers, the decision the RAF took is probably the right one.
Edited by GliderRider on Friday 1st March 12:55
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff