- Howard Wheeldon has recently distributed a newsletter, the contents of which reveal in part the true status of our Royal Air Force. He sums up that status as follows:
“No amount of damage limitation exercise from the MOD can alter the prevailing view that something is wrong internally within the Royal Air Force and that change is needed.”
- I say “in part” because he does not address nearly 6 decades of unfulfilled promise and malfeasance on the part of the Junior Service that has led to the precipitous decline in U.K.’s ability to project Global Military and Political Power in support of our National Interests, whether Sovereign or Commercial.
- His newsletter begins by revealing the public’s view of the RAF. He conducted “a ‘straw poll’ of the public in order to find out how they saw the modern-day Royal Air Force. The conclusions drawn from this were nothing less than spectacular on one hand but alarming on the other as it appeared that back in 2012 the public view of the RAF centred predominantly on just two things that they did so well – the Royal Air Force Red Arrows Aerobatic Team and the Yellow Search and Rescue ‘Sea King’ Helicopters.”
- He should not be surprised by this public viewpoint because the lack of any positive or cost-effective military achievement by the RAF in recent decades has been alarming and this has been camouflaged by their intense efforts to publicise the Red Arrows as the “face of the Royal Air Force”.
- He goes on to say as follows. “That the main business of the Royal Air Force, that of defending the skies and playing the vital role that they do in defence and that of our Nato allies received precious little mention came as something of a shock and in the years that followed this has, I hope, been addressed through improved PR.”
- The “vital role” that he refers to is, de facto, a fine example of the misinformation that has been fed to the public as part of the RAF PR campaign. There is little for them to celebrate. What are some of the key events/issues of recent decades which demonstrate the lack of cost-effective strategic accomplishment by the RAF?
- Underwriting them all was the appalling Lie told to Ministers in 1967 that the UK did not need aircraft carriers and that the RAF could provide air power over the fleet throughout the Global Commons. The Belize intervention by the Royal Navy in 1972, followed on by the total lack of land-based fighter support for the Falklands Air-to-Air War completely disproved this claim. But the Lie led to enormous and nugatory investment in land-based tactical aircraft: thereby denying more effective investment in U.K.’s agreed Strategic Maritime Policy.
- The land-based air defence of the United Kingdom homeland base during the Cold War depended upon the capability of the Tornado ADV which could not provide this air defence thanks to its defective weapon system. MOD/Air successfully hid this disgraceful fact from the government through repetitive lies to Parliament, informing the latter that the aircraft was fully operational.
- This was firmly disproved during Desert Storm in 1992. The Tornado ADV could not be used by General ‘Stormin’ Norman against Saddam Hussein because of its ineffective weapon system. The Tornado GR1 proved equally ineffective, especially regarding the low-level delivery of the £10 billion JP 233 Runway Denial Weapon System.
- Later, in the Libyan affair, the UK’s land-based air effort cost the British taxpayer up to £1.8 billion – without any recordable military gain.
- Over Syria, the RAF’s offensive air operations launched from Cyprus cost the taxpayer in excess of £4 billion whilst contributing to just 5% of the coalition’s war effort.
- This alarming history of failure is not referred to by Mr Wheeldon. It is not surprising therefore that the RAF PR machine also contrived to keep this history from the British public. He goes on to criticise and question the utility and viability of the Red Arrows and of the generally poor state of the RAF and states that:
“In the meantime, I sincerely hope that both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff will now look more deeply into how the Royal Air Force is currently run.”
- But, at the end of his newsletter, he can’t prevent himself from contributing to decades of misguided RAF propaganda with this misleading and inaccurate statement:
“We need a strong and vibrant Royal Air Force and one that, as it had been for so many years past, is looked up to by the public, the international community and our allies alike, one that is again seen as the one to beat and the leader in its field.”
- The international community and our allies do not look up to and consider the RAF as the one to beat and the leader in its field. Quite the contrary. For most it is a laughingstock and our principal Ally, the United States, is mystified by decades of huge investment in land-based combat aircraft that have little relevance to U.K.’s fundamental global, Island Nation security and defence interests.
- Mr Wheeldon is correct to say that the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff should review how the RAF is run and, more particularly, question the justification for more investment in land-based tactical combat aircraft.
- The Junior Service has a very loud voice but has not backed it up with much-needed operational utility and effectiveness.
Well said. I go further. Why do we need an independent and ineffective Air Force? We need to focus our scarce assets into Overseas Intervention as our global contribution to world peace and Homeland Defence as the pivot of our national security in an increasingly dangerous and unstable world. An enhanced all arms Royal Navy and a paired down horseless Army would cut the mustard and save billions; Think big. Think radical. Just do it.
As the economic downturn continues in the United Kingdom, it makes me wonder why we commit to sending forces to areas of conflict or policing, all over the World, which have no benefit to us as a nation, financially or politically. When looking 40 years back to the Falklands War of 1982 and the preceding years of declining strength we then had in military assets, whether Fleet Air Arm, Royal Navy or RAF, with cancelled projects, the scrapping of carriers and warships and the reduction of aircraft numbers for both the senior and junior force, it surprised us and the World, how the miracle of victory was delivered, despite all the odds being against the men involved in fighting, such as you, “Sharky” Ward. The Fleet Air Arm was looked up to and there was a surge in pride for being British, or in the Forces at that time which lasted for a while and made America and other countries not look at Britain as a laughing stock or a spent force, but one, at that time, to be reckoned with and taken seriously. Now 40 years on, as your books and various blogs state, we have reverted back to a parlous state with none of the hard learned lessons adhered to. We saw the cancellation of the very effective and more economic Harrier and Sea Harrier projects, for UK use, the scrapping of many carriers, the huge investment in far fewer military aircraft of far too technical and complex nature, with features probably not needed and at huge financial cost, compared to having, as many countries in Europe have, far more but less complicated waepons systems in cheaper, lighter fighter and strike aircraft. Looking at cost and capabilities, the Harrier had upgrades and extended life long after the cancellation for use in British service, with countries abroad such as in America. The JSF Lightning II is far too complex, too costly and we have so few and, it will be seen in the long term, possibly cost a lot more operationally with all factors of losses, servicing, upgrades to avionics and weapons and I am convinced that the role it plays on Carriers will never match that of the Harrier/SHAR force, either in UK or American service. Whilst I love the Typhoon, again, we have so few and these are far too costly compared to other nation`s effective defence and strike jets, who can afford more aircraft due to going for very effective proven designs. The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales Carriers replacing many very effective earlier types again have cost billions to the taxpayer with the joke beong that for such a long time there was no aircraft available to operate from these carrier. The ongoing costs of the modern JSF, the Carriers and the Typhoon, together with the Tempest unmanned, Manned project with swarming drones will prove prohibitive. We need to look back, as your books and articles state, as to the REAL requirements, the financial total cost of maintaining, upgrading and purchasing the lighter, very effective platforms of the types we have seen very effectively used in the past including: Sea Harrier, Jaguar, Harrier, Gripen, Raphael, Viggen, F16, F-5E, and many others. Whilst these are dated designs, there are many modern, lighter, less complex aircraft of these types we could build or be supplied with at far less cost than the spiralling investment we see before us as we get ever more technical with fighter and strike capabilities we really have no need for. When looking at the role of the RN and RAF, we need to re-evaluate what we need, how much the cost and can we sustain and justify the cost to the British Tax Payer and ignore any commitments to our Allies. Lastly, on a personal note, “Sharky”, I have watched you land a Harrier live at Pebble Mill at One studio car park, seen you during the 1982 period showing what superior intensive training for pilots- and what the SHAR was capable of, despite the doubts from many in authority. I have read your books and wish you were a Government Defence Advisor and one the Powers that be would listen to, for the sake of all that you say. Paul Davies (Aviation Historian)