The Royal Air Force is 100 years young today - what if it had not been formed?

[Cryhavoc101]

Happy Birthday RAF

100 years young today

But what if the RAF was never formed and the RFC and Naval Air Service had continued as Army and Navy controlled airforces.

How different would British and by extension other forces and their aircraft have developed in the face of similair challenges?

 

[Dalriadan Archangel 21]

Happy Birthday RAF

100 years young today

But what if the RAF was never formed and the RFC and Naval Air Service had continued as Army and Navy controlled airforces.

How different would British and by extension other forces and their aircraft have developed in the face of similair challenges?

I think you would struggle to never form a standalone Air Force. You could delay it maybe even as far as the end of WW2 as with the US but at some point it becomes unwieldy.

 

[Lalli]

United Kingdom wouldn't have any believeable if it would hasn't Air Forces as independent military branch.

 

[flasheart]

I think the absolute closest you could have would be if the Royal Flying Corps still existed. While for all intents and purposes they would have been effectively an independent service since at least the second world war they by now might still retain army style uniforms and traditions and for ceremonial and theoretical purposes still be a part of the army.
This would of course butterfly away the Army Air Corps as we know it.

 

[Tovarich]

This would of course butterfly away the Army Air Corps as we know it.

Ah, but imagine the possibilities.

TTL RFC becomes the RAF in all but initials, the Army would probably still keep a separately organised unit aside for Artillery spotting (as per OTL).

Now if even just a couple of butterflies are kind, maybe the Autogyro doesn't get rejected out of hand, replacing the Austers & Lysanders in the role (and possibly dropping off SOE agents to France too?)

A dedicated squadron of Autogyros would be almost as cool as one of Airships (indeed, if the SOE use is taken up then James Bond just became real and 20 years early!)

 

[Driftless]

What might have happened with Coastal Command?

 

[MichaelWest]

The issue of independent Air Force versus separate and more dependent air "forces" under Army and Navy is a fascinating topic and one I think tied as much to vision as politics. Since I am currently toying with a Britain not active in the Great War I need to scrap much of the lessons of that war, including the RAF, an innovation that has both good and bad points. With the Royal Navy the senior, as well as dominant, branch one assumes the naval air arm and RFC continue on separate paths without any strong advocate to unify them. Obviously a boon to fleet support as well as tactical air for the army but potentially stalling strategic air defense and bombing, both not obvious missions either want. My thought would be the "Coastal Command" will be a naval domain but just as overlooked compared to a much better funded fleet air arm here. The Coastal Command here might pursue long range aircraft and slip into the strategic bombing mission, in effect continuing the projection of power familiar to the Navy while the Army claws out the air defense (Fighter Command) mission merged with Anti-aircraft Artillery, sort of how the Soviets created a dedicated Air Defense "Air" Force. This is how I generically evolve any post-war Air Force(s), Navies tend to be offensive with Armies defensive and niches taking up the gaps. For example the Navy might find shore based fighters a great idea but the Army will claim the mission, the Navy will want bigger transports while the Army wants them too, the Army wants artillery spotters but so does the fleet, just with floats.

The struggle by the pilots to get recognition will go unabated, first as a separate Corps and always with an eye on becoming a separate service, but would the fleet's aviators defect? That to me should be the stumbling block, the Navy can offer enough prestige to sate its aviators but a separate Air Force will look like a place they get sidelined as just another type of flying. I would not predict the same animosity as one saw in Japan, but I think the rivalry between bigger Navy and smaller Army might get a similar role reversal, the RFC (RAF) is less funded and less coherent while the Fleet Air Arm is the better service flying the better aircraft. And it should put carrier aviation at the forefront. One idea I have is that carrier launched bombing gets more attention as opposed to heavy bombers, sort of how the USN tried to derail the USAF strategic bomber monopoly, and for Britain it might be more attractive given the flexibility.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

TTL RFC becomes the RAF in all but initials, the Army would probably still keep a separately organised unit aside for Artillery spotting (as per OTL).

The big difference TTL is that the RNAS survives. This will have a large effect on British naval aircraft. Britain's carriers will be equipped with aircraft the equal of US and Japanese carrier planes. Flying boats will be little different to OTL and I think it probable that the RNAS will continue with Blimps for patrol work.

 

[general]

Well, there would be less Crab jokes/stories.

 

[Locke01]

Happy Birthday RAF

100 years young today

But what if the RAF was never formed and the RFC and Naval Air Service had continued as Army and Navy controlled airforces.

How different would British and by extension other forces and their aircraft have developed in the face of similair challenges?

Assuming my aging memory hasn't completely betrayed me, isn't April 1, 1918 like, the actual birthday of the Royal Air Force?

 

[Errolwi]

I think the RAF did 100 days of events, starting April 1st. Coincidentally, chances of decent weather for a flypast are much better in July!

 

[Ak-84]

The "British style organisation", which the RAF represents is pretty poor actually. The Air Forces become a seperate, co-equal service. This is a good idea for Air Arms in the late WW1 era not so much for later.
We see a concentration of air assets under one service, despite the role and function of the assets being very different, and demanding seprerate logistical support.

Note the long standing fights between Armies and Air Forces world over on the issue like control of Helicopters, SAMS and long range missiles. Not to mention Armies long standing annoyances at AF neglecting the CAS role.

If we butterfly away the RAF (Smuts has a heart attack while with a particularly good socialite; no committee report), then the RFC eventually gets split into multiple other Arms each with a different role. So along with Infantry, Arty, Armour, Engineers, RFC, you get Air Defence, Air Support, Air Transport etc. Eventually probably they settle on dividing the Army into two "branches" each with Arms under administrative control,so lets say that you have a "Land HQ" and a "Air HQ", with operational deployment being given to formatuions.

This in all honestly is a better organisation. The resemblance with Naval services is striking? Naval Aviation generally is still part of a countrys Navy, but farily distinct.

 

[Nick P]

I think the RAF did 100 days of events, starting April 1st. Coincidentally, chances of decent weather for a flypast are much better in July!

But it was still the only overcast day for three weeks!

What might have happened with Coastal Command?

There would be an argument between the Navy and the Army, probably resulting in some 'Key West' type agreement that pleases nobody such as the RFC do the actual flying but under RN command.
The Navy would argue that Coastal Command is for shipping protection and as it's all done over water it's a Naval issue.
The Army would argue that as these combat aircraft are permanently land based and defending the UK then they should fall under the Royal Flying Corps.

 

[Ak-84]

Coastal Command happened only because the RAF had a”it flies it’s ours” attitude. Chiefly because of the fact it as a new service and jealous in guarding its jurisdiction. The Army would have no such issues and maritime patrol would be the undisputedly the RN’s responsibility.!

 

[Catsmate]

What might have happened with Coastal Command?

Part of the RNAS?

 

[Dorknought]

The RFC would continue to be army cooperation. Ironically, the RFC hated 'army cooperation' as attrition rates were too high when attacking ground targets. Innovation will stay with the RNAS. It will be the RNAS that develops the Heavy Bomber into a Strategic attack service as hitting production centres is an extension of naval policy of economic blockade (the original memo was written by an Admiral).

Growth of RNAS:
1911 first 4 pilots trained
1912 Air Battalion had 11 pilots (French Army Air Service had 263)
Jun 1913 44 Officers and 105 other ranks trained as pilots
August 1914 RNAS had 93 land and seaplanes (52 seaplanes - 26 serviceable), 6 airships, 2 balloons, 727 personnel (217 pilots)
In the last pre-war estimates was the provision for 5 Seaplane Bases at a cost of £75,000 per base
Pre war projections to 1918 were for a 5 year life 60 per year production to reach force level of 300 aircraft - a 6 fold increase from 1914.

May 1915 the RFC has 166 aircraft and by Jul 1916 RFC 421 aircraft in 27 squadrons across 4 Brigades - 1 for each army and 14 kite balloons. The main expansion didn't occur till 1917-18.

In RL 1918 the RNAS had 55,000 officers and men, 2,949 aircraft, 103 airships and 126 coastal stations - a 20 fold increase from 1914. 40 fold increase in officers, 84 fold increase in men.

 

[merlin]

It's an interesting question. By having a separate service, it ensured that money for aircraft was spent on aircraft and not syphoned off elsewhere. Yet, the RAF takeover meant many senior RNAS officers were lost to the RN, along with their vision with how the RNAS could progress.
The problem is that the way seniority happened in both the Army and RN experience in aviation wouldn't have counted for much. Progress in the Navy, led to being in charge of a ship, as you get better your ship got bigger!
A continued RNAS which involved aircraft on ships, and a Coastal Command equivalent, might have led to protection of Naval Bases - e.g. Malta.
The RAF OTL descended from 'Air Defence (Gotha Raids), and the Independent Bomber Force (Trenchard's 'baby') - while the original requirement of supporting the Army was ignored as being too dangerous.

I can see with the RN, Light Carriers making an earlier appearance - giving officers an early experience of what it's like to handle a carrier. Torpedo, design would be improved i.e. able to be dropped from a faster aircraft.
With Army Air - I think 'Air Control' in the ME can still happen, but serious planning for a BEF and its Air Component starts earlier, with 'Attack' focused aviation. Heavy long-range bombers may still exist, but on a much smaller scale.
How different could WWW2 go, well the RAF raid on German Naval Bases would be different. Raid carried out by RNAS aircraft - pre-dawn wouldn't have been the fiasco of OTL. While on the Continent, the BEF's aircraft would still be overwhelmed by the Lw - but IMO the timetable of German success would be extended.
What then, after Britain is alone, any 'Bombing campaign' against Germany would take place with a smaller force than OTl, so either have to be more focused and more accurate, or else irrelevant!
Britain has greater success in North Africa, but Germany is freer to wage war against Russia - little interference on the home front.