Royal Air Force

PNK,
It's not a problem of money! Our so-called European Partners are solely about getting the most (subsequent civilian contracts, etc,) out of committing (militarily) the least amount of personnel/money. Our French enemies are past masters at this game.
Make no mistake, our Govt (of whatever colour) has no remit to preserve old airfields. Some, indeed, may have a better future That pastime is a very minority sport! Let it be up to us to preserve the maximum amount of information via the internet such that (in the unlikely event) somebody requires that information in a more affluent future the database is there. We need experts to record (such as yourself) - let that be a sufficeincy in itself.
Resmoroh

we may well see the removal of the words Army , Navy and Air Force to be replaced by the singular Defence ?

God forbid!.

Sad to reflect that, when I was a kid , a Sunday "Spotting " bike ride would probably have enabled one to see more Naval aircraft in one day than the Royal Navy now has in total.

Lived in Southampton - so an easy days ride was Hamble/Lee/Gosport/ cross the ferry to Pompey where you could usually be gauranteed at least one carrier (with aircraft)..., Portsmouth Airport then on down to Thorney then back home calling at Eastleigh just before teatime(3 Civil airports, 2 FAA, one RAF plus the RN dockyard, and Flying boats at Hamble foreshore and So'ton Docks.)

Showing my age.

I reckon big defence cuts are a certainty.

Any UK government exists for a potentially short time - ie - a term in office, thus a short term financial mindset always exists.

The military's big expensive hardware and land always make tempting and easy ways to make savings, particularly when foreign military threats to the UK are perceived as minimal. Options For Change post cold war being a good example.

IMO the trouble with that is - a potential aggressor attacks where your defences are at their weakest, and where they cannot be put in place/ replaced quickly.

So...when the RAF/Army/RN are reduced to a quantity that renders homeland security marginal, the previously non existant risk to UK becomes a greater one, because of the lack of military capability.

Whilst times are very different now, a comparison between the current political attitude to the armed forces, and that of the interwar period seems unavoidable. Politicians beware!

T.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them, therefore the retaliation should be collective.

That's not how the Yanks were thinking during our little war in the Falklands.

Resmoroh;34763 wrote:

As far as airfields are concerned, the only way forward is to have some airfields (most?) as Joint Users (Civvy one side, Military the other).

I'm surprised this hasn't already happened to a greater extend than it already has (I can't think of any, but...). Imagine all those minor airfields that are occupied by only a few aircraft? Imagine if Woodvale was to close and it's aircraft were moved to Liverpool. RAF John Lennon anyone?

SAR, VGS, UAS/AEF units would most likely be moved to nearby civil airports - freeing up more airfields for housing.

On a brighter side, imagine if the Cambridge UAS were to move [back] to Duxford (renamed RAF Duxford)?

The problem (even in civvy street) is that there are too many active airfields and too few aircraft. Then again, why not have civvy aircraft based at RAF bases? Ryanair might end up at Benson - working out of a converted hangar.

Phillip wrote:

On a brighter side, imagine if the Cambridge UAS were to move [back] to Duxford (renamed RAF Duxford)?

Nice idea but Cambridge UAS are based at RAF Wyton and that is one of the few that will remain active for a while yet. They are spending alot of money there (OK manybe it is closing then!!) and with the closue of Brampton in the next year or so, with whats based there being moveing to Wyton as well as other units moving to Wyton I can't see Duxford becoming RAF again sadly!.

Phillip wrote:

SAR, VGS, UAS/AEF units would most likely be moved to nearby civil airports

I couldn't agree with that statement more, I think there would be absolute uproar if the public knew how much of the defence budget went into UAS etc, and especially keeping airfields open just for them. They should be based on existing civil airfields, and I strongly believe privately funded like flying clubs.

As for mixed forces, well that does happen, Harrier force is joint RAF Navy and operated from Cottesmore, Yeovilton, and Carriers, St Athan has a lot of inter service flying with helicopters as does Benson and Odiham.
RAF and Navy Merlins co exist at Culdrose, and Army and RAF fixed wing at Northolt.
As much as I love the tradition thing, I think combined forces, thus camps, will be the way forward, combined messes are already here and seem to work ok.

Also I don't understand the civil contractor argument that is creeping in, if a large base employs a large amount of civilian contractors in good well paid jobs, then that really keeps the local community alive and funded all year round. That is why the closure of St Mawgan was such a body blow to the local community, but the councillors would prefer the seasonal trade of the Ryanair skegs.

AIXadmin, has bought up a very interesting point though, where are the future techies etc going to come from. The younger civilians will be coming in through aeronautical colleges etc and will be ignoring the relative apitence in contract pay and clamering for the well paid jobs elsewhere, and it dosen't appear that the forces do too much training in that department anymore.
When all the fast jet servicing was dragged out of St Athan and from the MoD civilian staff the excuse was to bring all the servicing back under the control of the RAF. Brilliant idea, except that it didn't happen, intead it was fractioned into little bits through various contractors throughout the country.