[BITList] Fwd: Letters to the Editor Daily Telegraph, London. Is IAF under a similar threat?

[John Feltham]

Did you spot this?


Abolish the Royal Air Force to make the Services more efficient

Letters, June 14: Abolish the RAF -

Published: 12:01AM BST 14 Jun 2009
SIR – Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy (report, June 7) says that  
finance must drive the defence establishment towards rationalisation.

If sacred cows must be killed for the sake of efficiency, would not  
the disbandment of the RAF and the transfer of its air defence  
responsibilities to the Royal Navy deliver greater savings and far  
greater efficiency than his suggested assimilation of Royal Navy  
aircraft into the RAF?

This country brought the world's first independent air force into  
being. Let it be the first to accept that the single-function service  
has had its day and to return military flying to its roots in the Army  
and the Royal Navy.

G. C. A. Pitts
Hatherleigh, Devon

SIR – During my Royal Navy service I trained and flew with the RAF on  
many occasions. At squadron level, their expertise, commitment and  
bravery was as impressive as any of their contemporaries in the other  
services.

But it remains the view of many RAF aircrew that, despite the rigorous  
scrutiny of annual efficiency reviews, the bloated higher command  
structures and stultifying bureaucracy – especially when compared to  
the Royal Navy and Army –remain intact and hinder the achievement of  
their aircrews' potential.

Sir Glenn's proposal neglects other equally radical and potentially  
cost-effective solutions in a naive and transparent attempt to forward  
the interests of the RAF.

He is soon to be put out to grass and I hope that his successor will  
take a more balanced view. Absorbing the roles of the RAF, its  
aircraft, and the people required to fly and service them, into the  
Royal Navy and the Army would bring huge cost-savings while offering  
much improved co-operation and integration.

The resulting two armed services, with their embedded air-power  
expertise, would allow a reduction of around 20,000 people, and  
provide the 10 per cent savings in defence, which I believe are to be  
expected throughout the public sector.

Rear Admiral Scott Lidbetter RN (retd)
London SW1

SIR – The last reason for the continued existence of the RAF  
disappeared in the late 1950s when it was decided that strategic  
bombing would be undertaken by nuclear submarines.

The RAF's response was to create its absurd "island bases" scheme in  
which the global map was altered to convince the politicians of its  
importance. The result of this chicanery was that the Government  
abandoned the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers. This, in turn, led to  
many of the losses in the Falklands conflict.

We should thank the many brave men and women who fought in the RAF's  
ranks for their service, and then consign it to history.

E. C. Coleman
Bishop Norton, Lincolnshire

SIR – Since the Second World War the Royal Navy has led the world in  
the development of aircraft carrier aviation – the first jet deck  
landing, the angled deck, the steam catapult, the mirror landing sight  
and the Sea Harrier ski-jump. Its technical expertise in seaborne  
aviation is irreplaceable.

This year the Royal Navy is celebrating 100 years of naval aviation  
through the Royal Naval Air Service and the Fleet Air Arm in two world  
wars and subsequent outstanding contributions in numerous conflicts  
worldwide.

The period in the 1920s and 1930s when the RAF was given  
responsibility for Royal Navy aviation was an unmitigated disaster. It  
should not be tried again.

Capt Keith Leppard RN (retd)
Haslemere, Surrey

SIR – Naval aviators are naval officers and seamen first, specialising  
in flying just as other naval officers specialise in warfare,  
submarines or hydrographic surveying.

This arrangement provides the Royal Navy with a balanced officer corps  
and provides its higher ranks with wide experience of naval warfare  
and the sea.

This is essential for all aspects of naval air warfare and especially  
for service in aircraft carriers. The Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm today  
is run with rather fewer people per aircraft than the RAF and has had  
remarkable operational success in its century of service.

The Fleet Air Arm's aviators multi-task and this seems thoroughly in  
keeping with the modern way of doing business – and they do so  
proficiently and cost-effectively and without detriment to their  
flying and warfare skills.

Lester May
London NW1

SIR – Sir Glenn is surely right in saying that "we have to kill some  
sacred cows" in the defence industry.

I have long held the view that the building of two new aircraft  
carriers is ridiculous, dangerous, prohibitively expensive and  
unaffordable; after all, Britain is broke.

What little money we can afford should be allocated to the RAF to fly  
and operate all aircraft as Sir Glenn quite rightly suggests: it is  
worth mentioning that we already have the largest aircraft carrier in  
the world and by that I mean the UK with its numerous airfields and  
flexibility.

D. G. Rouse
Shrewsbury, Shropshire
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20090616/1e5a310c/attachment.shtml