[Cartertonian]

This may be regarded by sub-forum hardcases as being in the wrong forum, but I'll risk it.

Particularly to those from other nations, what justifications might one offer up for the retention of an independent air force?

Here in the UK, there is talk of realising defence savings by re-absorbing the RAF into the Army and the Navy, with fast jet going to the latter, and rotary wing and air transport largely going to the former.

Obviously, those of us who are proud to wear a (light) blue suit are not wildly enamoured of the prospect of being re-assimilated into the khaki 'Borg', so I wondered whether there might be some killer arguments from other countries that I could use to tell the pongoes to f**k off.

[Cookie Monster]

Interesting question.

My guess is that air domination is such an important factor in modern battles, that it requires a branche of armed forces that is only focussed on establishing and keeping this dominance.

So have other extra branches, Russia for example has the Strategic Rocket Forces (ICBM's).

[killim]

Looks like an idea from some consultants who think that you can save a hell lot of money by merging the branches and thereby firing some paper pushing staffranks. Instead to guarantee military capabilities they could extract the paper pushers out of the brnaches and create one paper pushing institution, but that again has its own weaknesses.

[MB.]

My guess is that air domination is such an important factor in modern battles, that it requires a branche of armed forces that is only focussed on establishing and keeping this dominance.

Correct.

The air is a medium possessing distinct features unlike the other biomes where war commonly occurs; such as the oceans, upon the earth, through the air and in space. It is crucial for any power pretending geopolitical super or hyper-power status to operate an independent airforce that can contest the lines of airborne communication existing around the atmosphere.

[Typhoon]

Interesting issue;

As noted the main reason for three service branches is specialisation for a particular role. Unfortunately for the Airforce this specialisation has by the nessecities of modern warfare been duplicated by the Navy (Fleet Air Arm) and Army (Air Corp's). Modern warfare also has an emphasis on joint operations, a close working relationship which blurs the lines between the services. With the exception of the air defence of the mainland this leaves the RAF without a distinct role for itself, especially after responsibility of the UK's deterrent was passed to the Navy and the loss of the bombers. Since no political group seems willing to stand up for the service the UK being the first to have an independant airforce may be one of the first to reverse the decision.

On its own this wouldnt be too big an issue, costs would be cut, efficiencies made and assets could be expected to function as well under Army and Navy command (which already have experiance of operating aviation) as they could on their own. However this is not just an issue of structure but a product of the endless cost cutting and efficiency saving going on within the UK armed forces at a time when they are heavily streached. There is really no further slack in the forces and now in order to meet costs capabilities and safety are becoming second priorities. While this is happening accross the board the weakest service seems to be feeling the pinch the hardest.

With the UK ridden in debt, procurement in a mess, weak political will and costly wars soaking up resources the decaying trend of the UK armed forces is likely to continue into the next decade, the upcoming defence review will probably be a huge blow for the services despite fighting among themselves to do as much damage first before the politicians gut whats left...

[MB.]

The politics of MoD budgeting and organization in the UK is a very interesting issue.

Unfortunately for the Airforce this specialisation has by the nessecities of modern warfare been duplicated by the Navy (Fleet Air Arm) and Army (Air Corp's)

I disagree with this statement. The FAA and the Army's aviation command are not the same as the RAF. The FAA and the Air Corps can generaly be considered specialists who work for their respective parent organizations. Certainly there will be cross-tasking and multi-tasking but this does not mean that any of the respective services are redundant.

costs would be cut, efficiencies made and assets could be expected to function as well under Army and Navy command (which already have experiance of operating aviation) as they could on their own.

If the example of the RAF's 'integration' of the FAA (RNAS) in 1918 is any indication of things to come we can expect to witness increasing force degradation. The case of the Canadian Forces integration in 1968 is another classic example.

weak political will and costly wars soaking up resources the decaying trend of the UK armed forces is likely to continue into the next decade

Sounds like that's the sum of it. Excuse my ignorance, but when is the MoD review issued?

[noemon]

The cost would be facilities I assume, which facilities, do you know?

Will they physically move equiment and staff?

Or is it just going be in command structure?

Are there more information on this subject?

[Typhoon]

The FAA and the Army's aviation command are not the same as the RAF.

Your correct but what I mean to say is that out of all of the services the airforce is the one that has the least going in terms of unique responsibilities, the navy and army together already do fast jets and helicopters yet the airforce does not do ships, submarines or armour. Already many aviation assets are already pooled between the forces like Joint Force Harrier and Joint Helicopter Command, it wouldnt take much to consider folding one or all of the services into the others, as has been rumoured.

when is the MoD review issued?

The green paper is out now, review will follow after the election I believe.

The cost would be facilities I assume, which facilities, do you know?

Not very many details are avaliable at the moment but I imagine that any current consolidation and closures will continue and may go further once the review is released.

[Zerogouki]

Personally, I'd prefer that all military forces be merged into a single branch. There's just that much interdependence between them now.

[Texpat]

space
missiles (silo)
cyberspace
what about tankers, awacs,

Air domination isn't only about CAS -- which is what it would become.

Rapid global mobility gets shuffled off the table. I could envision air superiority fighters being sacrificed for subs and guns.

Dividing an air force into respective army and navy departments would only result in maintaining unique organizations, skill sets, policies and careers within those departments.

Why not consider the air force subsuming army and navy aviation (as if the navy would give up a carrier wing)

These same discussions are going on in the usaf. After years of coin conflict, the air forces seem like the elephant in the room (eating a lot, shitting all over the place, and not doing much else -- relatively)

[MB.]

I'd prefer that all military forces be merged into a single branch

Nothing says your country really needs no military like a unitary force structure.

[Cookie Monster]

Indeed.

It's not about unitary force structure but unitary force projection. The former does not merit the latter.

[MB.]

You mean unilateral force projection?

[killim]

Then you can close the thread, because this requires a carrier group. But wait a minute, aren't there countries with a need for defense instead of force projection? Or worse both?

[Cookie Monster]

unilateral

Not necessarily. Force projection can also be multilateral (having many sides). But all the sides (specialised units, specific goals) must cohesively serve one purpose.

[Wolfman]

I may be late, but such a policy of a consolidated Air Force is only acceptable is the whole military is consolidated into a MAGTF like structure. However, for a complete military to be organized in such a manner, there would have to be a naval unit included at some higher level. Unless such a thing happens, there needs to a specialized ground, air, and naval force, as well as a force which is able to go between any those.

[Thunderhawk]

^ seems rather specific mission (type) focused. On the larger scale, I dont see how it is any different from other single branch ideas.

[Figlio di Moros]

I'd prefer that all military forces be merged into a single branch

Nothing says your country really needs no military like a unitary force structure.

How so? As it's already been pointed out, all our branches are highly interdependant; where's the flaw in establishing them distinct division of a uniform branch?

[MB.]

Nothing says your country really needs no military like a unitary force structure.

How so?

A unitary force structure indicates that the military in question is inherently specialized. It would be impossible, for example, for the United States Department of Defense to effectively project military power on every continent and ocean, in the air, space, and cyberspace, with a unitary force structure.

[Figlio di Moros]

I'm not sure we have the same thing in mind, then. Any military will obviously have subdivision, but I'm not sure the "branch" method is necessary with a highly interdependent military.