In terms of air bases the French number includes non flying bases as well. If they need 38 I don't think we need 67. Closing non-flying sites saves money as well as closing flying ones. We might need more bases for USAF personnel but we don't need 29 more bases.
You are also quoting me selectively.
I named maritime patrol capability and upgrades to the Type 45 as capabilities I also value more than Tornado. We need these now so withdrawing Tornado earlier would fund them. Cuts to FRES and base closures would release funds for full cat and trap capability on the second carrier.
The government has decided to take capability gaps to pay for future platforms. If that's where we are as a country (and sadly it is) then I am happy to take a capability gap by withdrawing Tornado early to have other capabilities I value more now and in future.
One would obviously not trash Tornado a week on Tuesday. However, I would advocate an immediate fleet reduction followed by further reductions as later tranches of Typhoon which can carry the weapons you named come into service.
These are real choices. You clearly don't like the consequence of those choices which is fair enough. I don't like destroyers in potentially hostile areas withwea pons gaps, I don't like not having a maritime patrol capability when we are an island and I don't like the idea of only one cat and trap carrier. I prefer the consequences and risks associated with my choices. Only time would prove which one of us was right.
*edited for spelling - again!
You point about 67 RAF bases might have some validity if it was true. But it isn't. There is a list on Wikipedia of 66
stations, but on examination, one discovers that of that total, five have been closed or transferred to other services or the MoD, another is closing, three more are non-flying tri-service establishments, & ten are operated by the USAF. That leaves 48 RAF establishments, of which most don't qualify as 'bases' under any reasonable definition of that term. For example, one is an air traffic control detachment within a civilian ATC centre, & one consists of two buildings & 24 married quarters on a former air base, the rest of which has been sold off. Several of those 'bases' are physically separate housing, stores depots etc attached to real bases. Five are practice ranges. Five are radar stations, some of them part of bases but physically separated. One is a joint US/UK communications monitoring centre.
I think that there are about 17 actual air bases (one scheduled for closure 2014), including joint RAF/RN/AAC flight training establishments, plus several stations used by Volunteer Gliding Squadrons, University Air Squadrons, & Air Experience Flights, which tend to use runways on stations otherwise used for non-flying purposes, sometimes also with civilian uses. Altogether, there are twenty-odd bases with runways, some shared with civilians.
The AdlA counts 35 'bases' on French Wikipedia, of which three have recently closed but are still (for now) maintained, & 11 are non-flying HQs, schools, radar bases, detached sites attached to bases, etc. I think the AdlA actually has
more operational combat & transport aircraft bases than the RAF, not fewer.
This shows the perils of looking at a headline figure & stopping there. Any analysis should always go under the surface. When we do, we find that the headline numbers aren't on the same basis, & don't tell us anything meaningful about the differences in number of bases operated by the RAF & AdlA.
There may well be scope for rationalisation of non-flying RAF stations (at first glance it certainly looks like it), but this is irrelevant to your main argument, which is that with reducing numbers of combat aircraft, we can cut numbers of bases.
BTW, the Scramble pages, which ignore all the off-base housing, etc., show much the same numbers of real bases for the RAF & AdlA.
I think you need to reconsider your numbers, & your capability gaps. We've just cut Tornado numbers, retiring sound airframes to save operating costs. At the same time, we retired the entire Harrier force. The schedule for retiring the remaining Tornadoes worries me, because I fear that it'll leave a major capability gap. What you propose will make that worse - much worse - but won't save much money.
The ability to use the weapons which are currently Tornado only isn't inherent to later tranches of Typhoon. It will be added by making software changes, paying for that & a test programme. & training aircrew. This needs to be done on current tranches. There is only one 'later tranche' currently planned, & that amounts to exactly 16 aircraft. I think even you would agree that won't be enough.
Scrapping FRES is all well & good, but it's not all savings. The army needs money spent on modernising current AFVs, & will need some new ones.
I've always thought of myself as pro-RN, & disliked & distrusted the agenda of the RAF, but now I believe I've met one of the extremists on the other side.
BTW, yes, we need something done about maritime patrol, but not by buying a bunch of P-8s while scrapping most of our ability to drop bombs.
fftopic:
