RAF fights for life as finest hour marked

LONDON - The official start of commemorations of the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain yesterday was an occasion of poignancy and pride, with Prime Minister David Cameron meeting the pilots who saved Britain in her darkest hour.

But even as the celebrations got under way the Royal Air Force (RAF) faces a struggle for survival in the face of savage military cuts.

As the Strategic Defence and Security Review plans to implement huge economies demanded by the Government, and the fierce competition for dwindling resources heats up, there are calls for the RAF to be disbanded and its role subsumed by the Army and the Navy.

The Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, has said the RAF will continue as a service and defence analysts point out Air Force personnel and warplanes are playing a key role in the conflict in Afghanistan.

But there is also a feeling in defence circles that the service should be in the front line when the axe starts to fall, as savings of 20 per cent are demanded from the £38 billion ($80.2 billion) Defence budget over the next four years.

The Army and the Navy, while also fighting each other for resources, both say Britain does not need so many highly expensive fast jets now Soviet and Warsaw Pact air power is no longer a threat.

The Army also claims the counter-insurgency mission being undertaken in Afghanistan, with soldiers fighting lightly armed enemies, represents the shape of wars to come, and that there is no need to spend millions of pounds on state-of-the-art warplanes.

The RAF has already endured the biggest staffing cuts of the three services in recent times, with its forces now standing at 40,000 - less than half the strength at the end of the Cold War. The numbers of its warplanes have also fallen drastically, as its role has changed. (It is, for example, no longer needed to deliver nuclear bombs or expected to take part in air-to-air combat.)

At the same time, the RAF also has new commitments, including the air defence of Britain since the terrorist attacks of September 2001 and continuous deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq and before that the Balkans.

But former senior officers from rival services are now insisting the role the RAF used to play in the past no longer exists, and there is thus no need to have a separate Air Force.

Major General Julian Thompson, who used to lead the Royal Marines, maintained: "There is no reason why the RAF cannot merge with the other two services, with the [Navy's] Fleet Air Arm taking over maritime duties and the Army Air Corps providing other operational roles. The fact is that the only enemy aircraft shot down since the end of World War II has been by the Fleet Arm and not the RAF.

"There will be huge savings in headquarters and you can have three services for the price of two.

"We are not advocating that all RAF personnel should be sacked. There is no reason for example why a senior RAF officer should not one day run the Army or the Navy."

Commodore Steven Jermy, of the Fleet Air Arm, who had also served with the RAF, said: "I would certainly like to see the maritime role being done by the Navy. We know how to fly out of aircraft carriers; the RAF do not.

"I do not think what is being provided on aircraft carriers now is satisfactory.

"We must also recognise that the RAF does not deploy abroad on its own, unlike the Navy and the Army, so in that sense it is not an independent force."

Other senior defence figures disagreed.

General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the Army, said: "There are some roles which only the RAF can undertake and the three services operate in very different environments. "I have given it some thought and I don't think the case for a merger is made.

"On the other hand, far too much had been spent on fast jets when with the end of the Cold War the focus should have been on things like air surveillance, intelligence and airlift including rotary wings [helicopters]. These things need to be looked at."

Supporters of the RAF say critics ignore what aircraft can provide by their very presence.

United States military estimates show present Nato troop strength in Afghanistan of about 100,000 - of which Britain provides 10,000 - would have had to be raised to 400,000 to attempt to carry out operations without air power.

- INDEPENDENT