When the Task Force set sail in 1982 to recapture the Falkland Islands after the Argentine invasion, there were only 2 Services “on parade” and prepared for action: the Royal Navy (which includes the Royal Marines) and the Army. The Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Michael Beetham, had informed the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher in the War Cabinet that “there was nothing that the RAF could do to retake the Falklands”. And he was quite right: the truth was out at last, debunking the false claims in 1966/7 that our land-based tactical Air Force had global reach with a view to providing air defence for our Fleet at sea.
However, it would be remiss of me not to remember that the 6 RAF Harrier GR 3 aircraft embarked in HMS Hermes in the Carrier Battle Group did give very useful Combat Air Support to our ground forces. I should also compliment the Hercules flights from Ascension Island that air-dropped some important supplies and key Special Force personnel for the Carrier Battle Group. But it was the Fleet Weapon System of Surface Warships, Submarines and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers and Anti-Submarine Warfare helicopters that assured the safe disembarkation of our Royal Marine led Amphibious Group Ground Forces: who then went on to defeat the Argentine invaders. Contrary to the repetitive propaganda emanating from Ministry of Defence/Air, the much-vaunted Vulcan raids failed to interdict Port Stanley airfield and were an expensive and ineffective contribution to the war effort.
Since failing to provide the promised air defence fighters, airborne early warning aircraft and air to air refueling aircraft in 1982, our tactical Air Force has completely failed to demonstrate any land-based tactical fighter support for our Fleet at sea. Instead and in a completely disingenuous manner, the RAF has focused public and government attention on the anachronistic achievements of the Battle of Britain and the Dam Buster raids thereby bamboozling our nation into thinking that there continues to be merit in having a large land-based Air Force.
Misinformation continues to abound, mirroring the Biden Administration’s whimsical claim that the withdrawal from Kabul, Afghanistan was an “extraordinary success”.
Regarding inappropriate propaganda initiatives, perhaps the most egregious and misleading statement to emerge recently was made in a newspaper article quoting the Chief of the Air Staff (CAS). He claimed that despite the Kabul debacle, “the Royal Air Force remains fully capable of conducting effective over the horizon interdiction strikes against terrorist groups in Afghanistan” (not word perfect). All other NATO combat air units/forces have readily admitted that without intelligence and facilities on the ground such air strikes would not be possible – they would be hit-and-miss and prejudice the safety and survival of innocent parties, particularly civilians. The Chief of the Air Staff is therefore being completely disingenuous.
With Afghanistan in mind, a recent report in the Daily Mail on 5 September indicates: “RAF unit’s fury at being left out of Afghan rescue mission” in which 63 Non-Commissioned Officers criticised CAS for his not deploying the RAF Regiment last month. The unnamed author wrote “… It is very clear that we work for a risk-averse organisation. The management from the top is one of self-preservation …”. Perhaps CAS remembered what was reported as the RAF Regiment’s poor performance in defence of Camp Bastion leading to the loss of US Marine Corps lives and aircraft. The propaganda machine was definitely silent about this incident – no public inquiry being recorded.
On a separate subject and despite obvious budget constraints, RAF Typhoons in a new, expensive paint scheme displaying the Union Jack have been cavorting over the white cliffs of Dover celebrating, yet again, the Battle of Britain. Each one-hour flight of this “frontline tactical aircraft”, Typhoon, costs the British taxpayer at least £80,000. Four aircraft boring holes in the sky over Dover with a flight time of 1 ½ hours would therefore have cost the taxpayer £480,000. To what end? Was it just another attempt to move the focus away from the upcoming Falklands War 40th Anniversary in which our land-based Air Force played a minimal part? I understand that the RAF has up to 10 different air display teams and enjoys the services of 56 uniformed regulars for each and every one of its 586 aircraft. I wonder how many of the latter have rapid global deployability and any relevance to our declared Strategic Maritime Policy? Taxpayers and ministers should surely be asking this question and taking appropriate action. The cause of the “black hole” in Defence Budget Funding would appear to have been found.
Further projected and unjustified waste has now been disclosed in the media (and it is difficult to believe this is not some sort of a joke). We have been informed of a cockamamie initiative to provide the Red Arrows with a new trainer/air display aircraft that would appear to be a “Legoland wonder”. Apparently, it is to be designed (initial design cost being given at £200,000) with replaceable parts, such as the wing, thereby enabling the dinky toy jet aircraft to “carry out a variety of missions” including that of a “useful and aggressive fighter aircraft”. The latter description begs the questions, “What possible perceived threat could be engaged by such an aircraft?” Also, “Will the modular design cater for air-to-air intercept radar and beyond visual range air-to-air missiles? Will it have a ground attack capability? Will it enjoy data links with ground forces and maritime forces?” An overriding question springs to mind: “Has the Ministry of Defence/Air crossed the red line of credibility?”
If the expensive and sophisticated Typhoon fighter program, costing as much as £80 billion, cannot even communicate with our new F-35 Lightning II fighter, cannot provide effective air defence of UK airspace against hordes of Russian bombers rounding the North Cape (and it cannot), what will be the military utility of this projected new, RAF flag-waving, dinky toy? Britain’s armed forces need weapon systems with which to deter and overcome perceived global military threats – not a proliferation of land-based air display toys and teams.
Add to the above the announced and extraordinary purchase of E-Scooters (at £30,000) to take personnel around the RAF airfield at Marham and you have to ask, “What on earth is going on?” Why don’t they use bicycles or even some of the Army’s troubled Ajax armoured vehicles that have been paid for and that appear to have no other expected utility on the global stage – perhaps the uncomfortable ride would jog the corporate RAF conscience? Yes, that is a facetious remark but there is much truth buried within it.
Well done Sharkey. As we enter yet another round of Battle of Britain press releases is it time to remind the nation that without sterling efforts by the MN & RN the RAF would not have had a drop of fuel to get “the few” airborne?
Your insights into these areas of air warfare need to be taught at many of the RAF and RN Fleet Air Arm training courses as well as in History courses at school, college and university, not least King`s College. I find that many decisions made, as you rightfully point out, turn out to be badly informed or are careful to sidestep the true issues, due to defence budget concerns or for some other reason of defence procurement, people involved with ulterior motives, usually political or financial related. The truth hurts and cost also but less so in the long run. Paul Davies
Well done Sharkey. As we enter yet another round of Battle of Britain press releases is it time to remind the nation that without sterling efforts by the MN & RN the RAF would not have had a drop of fuel to get “the few” airborne?
Hi Sharkey,
Glad you are back your country and Navy need you. Keep it up.
Your insights into these areas of air warfare need to be taught at many of the RAF and RN Fleet Air Arm training courses as well as in History courses at school, college and university, not least King`s College. I find that many decisions made, as you rightfully point out, turn out to be badly informed or are careful to sidestep the true issues, due to defence budget concerns or for some other reason of defence procurement, people involved with ulterior motives, usually political or financial related. The truth hurts and cost also but less so in the long run. Paul Davies