PDA

View Full Version : Daily Telegraph Letters


Roland Pulfrew
4th Oct 2006, 07:42
Anyone see the very naive letter in yesterday's DT regarding low level ops? (Sorry can't find a link. Found it.....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/03/nosplit/dt0301.xml) and today's equally naive letter?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0#head8
Interestingly Lt Col Retd Brunt lives.....................................right under the flight path to RAF Waddington. One wonders which one was there first Brunt or the airfield?
And all the more galling in the light of this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/04/nafghan104.xml

spectre150
4th Oct 2006, 07:59
Lt Col (Retd) Brunt " Pilotless future, ill-informed twaddle, blah, blah..."

Spectre150 "You, sir, are a k*ob".

Just my mature, considered $0.02 worth :ok:

FantomZorbin
4th Oct 2006, 08:23
Roland,

T'was ever thus!!

I remember a v. senior officer of the Dark Blue variety moving into the locality of RAF Wyton and causing a fuss - so much so that ATC had to exhort all visiting a/c 'not to overfly the village 1 1/2 miles NE of the 27 threshold' - the phone would surely ring if the pilot went anywhere near the place.

BTW I also remember the Low Level Corridors - weren't they abandoned because the populace under them were shouldering a disproportionate 'burden' of low flying when compared with other parts of the country?

One gets the impression that Mr Warren (see DT Letters) et al would be quite prepared to insist on precedence over treating the Paras in Selly Oak in order to get his 'flu jab:*

Yours disgusted,
FZ

Fg Off Max Stout
4th Oct 2006, 08:39
Typical senior pongo green army understanding of air power. Also has a hint of Duncan Sandys and the 1957 Defence White Paper - 'Manned aircraft are now obsolete' - and we all know how wrong and damaging that was. Lucky for us that Lt Col Blunt is Lt Col (Retd) and therefore just another complainer amid a sea of supporters.

His comments are as well thought out as suggesting that infantry is now obsolete and should be taken up and modernised by the RAF and RN.

Bunch of arse, Sir. Stick to the gardening.:ok:

Skunkerama
4th Oct 2006, 08:43
Methinks that the Lt Colon'el has scored an own goal, his letter is obviously an attempt to wind up the RAF but he has only succeeded in showing his complete ignorance and stupidity on the subject.

doubledolphins
4th Oct 2006, 09:09
Well he seems to have got some of you wound up!

Archimedes
4th Oct 2006, 09:16
More 'sighing deeply at the continuing ignorance of people who perhaps ought to know better', I'd suggest...

dakkg651
4th Oct 2006, 09:16
I have always thought that all these nimbys should have their passports stamped with the words 'NOT TO FLY ABROAD - SHIP ONLY'.

Also, in the event of an accident, they should not be entitled to be picked up by air ambulances flown by ex-military pilots.

Wader2
4th Oct 2006, 09:39
The Colonel was quite right. UAVs were the way to go when we were planning fast manouevre warfare.

UAVs could soften up the battlefield well ahead of the ground units which would then sweep forward at phenomenal speeds, compared with WWII. Unfortunately defensive warfare, or static warfare, last practiced by our cousins, is not like that.

Where the enemy comes to you, and you have danger-close, you have not got the luxury of being able to talk to someone in a warm cosy bunker hundreds or thousands of miles away ensuring that his UAV is looking at your bit of real estate.

The shorter the comms link the better. With the army resorting to direct fire from 105mm guns, I am sure they would prefer a manned aircraft dropping weapons with 100 m of their positions.

ORAC
4th Oct 2006, 10:46
Now what was the name of the chap who bought the house tucked into the intersection of Leuchar´s two runways when they were on bolthole back in the ´80s, then started to complain when they started flying again?

The previous owners/estate agent must have seen "mug" on his forehead in big letters. "That big concrete thing over the back fence? Oh just ignore that, nothing ever happens over there"....

Melchett01
4th Oct 2006, 10:50
high-speed low-level approach procedure when approaching an airfield

Well, assuming that pretty much anything is going to be faster than a horse which is probably all the Colonel was used to using in his day (until those infernal tank contraptions came along), then how else does he expect aircraft to land other than using "high-speed" low level approaches?

Or is he an advocate of the AQ school of flying - take offs and landings not a requirement ? :E

Farmer 1
4th Oct 2006, 11:00
Come on, chaps, he's having a joke, and you all fell for it. Nobody could be as out of touch as he professes to be.

Mind you, he's remarkably like a number of Lt Cols I used to know.

ORAC
4th Oct 2006, 11:05
To be fair to him, run-in and breaks may be an efficient means of recovering aircraft, but aren´t always essential. Leuchars seems to manage well enough when they´re restricted to straight in approaches to land during an Open.

mutleyfour
4th Oct 2006, 11:08
Obviously Lt Col Brunt wasn't around during the battle Of Britain or indeed the years leading up to it. Those very years where the sceptics like him called for reducions on aircraft as they were simply unecessary!

To be blunt Col Brunt what is your field of expertise when it comes to the Typhoon and its Role in todays Modern Armed Forces?

Vidal
4th Oct 2006, 11:25
C'mon fellas - it's life in a blue suit and we're used to it. Just have to bear the 'brunt'.....geddit?:}

I'll get me coat.

vecvechookattack
4th Oct 2006, 19:36
You have all had a good go at slating the afore mentioned gentleman but not one of you has formed an argument to counter his claims...

Is he right? should we return to the LL corridors of the 70's and 80's ?

Pontius Navigator
4th Oct 2006, 21:19
The Main Route Low Level Corridor was established to replace the 3 Bomber Command low level routes. The route ran from near Dover clockwise round the UK to Wainfleet and Holbeach. It was about 3 miles wide and was essentially formed so that the V-bombers, with relatively poor cockpit visibility, could fly a deconflicted route. The route had a number of entry and exit points and also link routes to allow a short cut across country.

You would book in to an EP and there would then be a 10 minute interval until the next aircraft could book in. Around the route crews would try and track within 1.5 miles of the centreline and maintain timing to +/- 3 minutes. The more heavily used portions were those terminating at a bombplot. Entering in Wales would pass through Jurby for a practice attack or West Freugh for a simulated one. Further north, Gernish, near Benbecula, then Ouston, Lindholme and finally Tumby. The south coast route in to Devon bombplot was less popular.

With the demise of the Vulcan this strict regulation was not needed. For tactical aircraft it was particularly limiting.

To return to the UK LL Motorway would both annoy the people under the corridor and reduce the training value to practically nil.

Stuff
4th Oct 2006, 21:57
Introduction of the pilotless aircraft is not popular in the RAF (it is rumoured that they are already submitting modifications to the contracted designs to enable seats to be fitted and faster mobility)

Who is going to be the first one to log P1 in a Predator then?

Since this man is clearly a buffoon - absit iniuria verbis.

Low Flier
5th Oct 2006, 09:48
Is Colonel Brunt some kind of rhyming slang?

Captain Kirk
5th Oct 2006, 11:38
Er... is the author not a certain David Warren, Berkhamsted, Herts?

Who is Col Brunt? Since when is Herts near Waddo? I must be missing something.

Shame we do not have an OS Grid for the author's house though - we always need new target sets.

Twonston Pickle
5th Oct 2006, 11:45
I'm about the right size to fit into a Predator but why would I want to? Col Brunt clearly has no concept of how UAVs are designed or his argument is just taken to ridiculous extremes to suggest we're not moving with the times. UAVs/UCAVs should compliment the battlefield, not be the only weapon platform.

Another single service has-been without any knowledge; at least I bothered to do a few foot patrols with the guys in Umm Qasr before taking the mick. Maybe Col Brunt could be offered a flight in a FJ to show him what we can really do; you know, links with the community and all that jazz.

Fire 'n' Forget
5th Oct 2006, 11:48
Er... is the author not a certain David Warren, Berkhamsted, Herts?
Who is Col Brunt? Since when is Herts near Waddo? I must be missing something.
Shame we do not have an OS Grid for the author's house though - we always need new target sets.



I think you will find Heighington in Col Brunts letter is in fact on Waddo's approach.

Low Flier
5th Oct 2006, 12:10
502246E 369959N
53° 13.013'N 30 28.213'W
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=53.216877&lon=-0.470213&z=18.5&r=0&src=2

Beware collateral damage 'cos the silly sod lives right next to a railway!!

Roland Pulfrew
5th Oct 2006, 12:41
Er... is the author not a certain David Warren, Berkhamsted, Herts?
Who is Col Brunt? Since when is Herts near Waddo? I must be missing something.
Shame we do not have an OS Grid for the author's house though - we always need new target sets.

Yep, you are missing something. 2 links - one for Warren's first letter and one for Blunt's letter of "support". Warren lives in Berkhamsted (appropriately) and Brunt lives near Waddo. However both are listed on BT.com:E :E :E :suspect:

A2QFI
5th Oct 2006, 13:04
One of the most vociferous complainers near a not very secret base in Rutland is an ex-RAF Air rank pilot! Has a name that rhymes with that of a well known, low achieving, British racing driver!

Cyclone733
5th Oct 2006, 13:19
Col Brunt appears on the 4th, for those getting a link to the 5th try this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/04/nosplit/dt0401.xml

Captain Kirk
5th Oct 2006, 14:59
Roland - thank you.

Low Flier - that will do nicely!:E

DownloadDog
5th Oct 2006, 18:04
It's a shame he hasn't painted Pi$$ off Biggles on his roof.....:}

vecvechookattack
5th Oct 2006, 21:14
We are now well into page 2 of this threead and not yet is there 1 argument to counter his claims.... all post so far are making fun of him, pointing out where he lives....but not one post is countering his argument.... Is that because he is correct and we are too ashamed to admit it ?

Pontius Navigator
5th Oct 2006, 21:26
We are now well into page 2 of this threead and not yet is there 1 argument to counter his claims.... all post so far are making fun of him, pointing out where he lives....but not one post is countering his argument.... Is that because he is correct and we are too ashamed to admit it ?

I refer to my post of this time last night.

I would add the further detail that CAS may be delivered using LGB/GPS guidance from high level but there are difficulties. If the guidance fails the weapon can miss by miles, literally. If the troops as danger-close you cannot take the risk that the coordinates may be inaccurate or weapons unserviceable.

A big bomb may not deliver the weapons effect that you want. HE or KE cannon or rocket may well be less dangerous to own troops and apply the correct level of force to the target.

To deliver HE or KE rounds involves getting down in to the weeds. Rolling in from 45 degrees and at high speed does not avoid the delivery aircraft getting down in the weeds. A high approach may be safe but a low departure may be needed. Either way low flying skills are needed.

AD aircraft also need to practise low level intercepts against the whole range of aircraft types for obvious reasons - Mathius Rust for example.

How's that?

Archimedes
5th Oct 2006, 21:36
I think it's more because it's such utter tosh that it's hardly worth trying to rebut, vecvec, although I note that PN, twonston and Stuff have all commented on why he's talking rubbish.

The letter is either a fishing expedition or (more worryingly), he genuinely thinks he's right.

The Torygraph will have printed it largely because it is nasty about the Typhoon, which the Torygraph hates with a passion, largely because of the word 'Euro' in the manufacturer's name.

They will not, however, have bothered to ask why, if Lt Col Brunt (rtd) is correct 1115 Flight was set up by the UAV-hating RAF hierarchy; or why the RAF, if so anti-UAV, is trying to persuade that nice Mr Brown (no 'e') to part with the cash for a couple more Predators. The possibility of finding out whether there are any operations where low flying (particularly by SH) might benefit from LL training will not have been investigated. And that's just the simple stuff they've missed.

Brunt hasn't asked those questions, and wouldn't want to even if he thought about it. Unless he was in full banter mode, his letter suggests that he probably lacks the flexibility of mind to bother to find out whether his assumptions are correct, since it might challenge the comfy little stereotypes he holds so dear.

This of course, presupposes that this isn't another of those massively entertaing fake letters by some sad walt with a onanistic techno-geek fixation with UAVs that the letters editor has failed to check out properly (I think it was the Times that fell victim to the last one where a Sea Cadet wrote in claiming to be a Lt Cdr??).

Roland Pulfrew
6th Oct 2006, 08:40
We are now well into page 2 of this threead and not yet is there 1 argument to counter his claims.... all post so far are making fun of him, pointing out where he lives....but not one post is countering his argument.... Is that because he is correct and we are too ashamed to admit it ?

VVHA

I think the final link on my original post (which may not work now) answered the points more than satisfactorily. In case you didn't read it, it was about Chinook ops in Afg. When Chinny crews are getting routinely hit by small arms fire then the lower you can fly the safer you are. QED Low flying skills remain a vital part of training. Furthermore oven if the 3 Para Major didn't like the support he was getting from GR7s he did think A10 CAS was excellent. Excellent because it is delivered at low level and with lots of bullet bombs and rockets. Still requires low level practice. Both of these letter writers are exceptionally naive, and obviously out to promote their own agendas. Mr Warren doesn't like low level flying and Lt Col Blunt doesn't like the fact he bought a house under the approach to one of the largest RAF airfields in the country.:E

BleepBleep
6th Oct 2006, 09:14
Unfortunately there will always be short-sighted bumbling old fools like Blunt who have little better to do than think of different ways to complain as they no longer have poor soldiers to shout and bawl at!!

It doesn;t matter where you are there are always this sort of individuals that know what happens at a given location, then buys a house right next to it and then complains loudly (with there full retired title on display) and makes themselves look like complete idiots. A very good csae in point - a retired Army officer bought a house very close to Porton Down, and specifically the exercise area. Now I don't know how many people are aware of this but there is a part of the exercise area called the battle run. The purpose of this part of the area is to enable platoon level tactics in a simulated NBC environment - this entails the large scale use of CS gas, from canisters, baton round/grenade launchers and the like (plus batsims). The run is only used on a very few number of days a year and the odd weekend for certain TA units. Guess what? Yes, first phone call of the morning or even on the day of the training within minutes of the first canister goes "pop", there is Colonel Blimp complaining loudly about the cloud drifting over his property!!! I am sure there are loads more examples similar to this.

Maybe part of the resettlement brief should be to remind retirees is that just because you retire from proffessional life you don't retire from the world of common sense or reason.:ugh:

vecvechookattack
6th Oct 2006, 16:40
When Chinny crews are getting routinely hit by small arms fire then the lower you can fly the safer you are

If you want to avoid SA fire then surely you should fly higher?


Still requires low level practice I Couldn't agree more.... But LL Practice in Berkshire? Why ?

Why don't we return to the procedures for LL training we had in the 70's and 80's ?

vecvechookattack
6th Oct 2006, 16:51
Exactly, So bin the UKLFS as it is and produce a LF System which has a training benefit to our crews. Train our crews properly and we may see the bend of letters from Colonel Blunt.

lancs
6th Oct 2006, 17:10
Am I missing something here... would the person with the remote control for the UAV still not need to practice flying it low anyway?

Roland Pulfrew
6th Oct 2006, 17:20
If you want to avoid SA fire then surely you should fly higher?


I Couldn't agree more.... But LL Practice in Berkshire? Why ?

Why don't we return to the procedures for LL training we had in the 70's and 80's ?

Fly higher become a manpads target. Stay low avoid both!!:ugh:

BErkshire is not routinely used for low flying except by helos. See above!!:ugh: :ugh:

Farmer 1
6th Oct 2006, 17:20
I'm not sure I want to see the bend of letters from Colonel Blunt.

Fg Off Max Stout
6th Oct 2006, 18:21
Dear God, not the Low Flying thread again. It has been covered ad nauseam and the bottom line is that low flying must be practiced. By way of justifying my dismissal of Brunts' ridiculous letter, anyone who claims that the RAF is trying to install seats in UAVs, must have graduated from the same Staff College as General Melchett and is best ignored. Baaaaaaaaaaahh!

Melchett01
6th Oct 2006, 19:17
A while ago I wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph. They foreshortened it by two thirds and completely re-wrote what they published.

Did you write a letter of complaint about misrepresentation? And did they publish it?

Or was it the usual never let the truth get in the way of a good story?