The Fleet Air Arm yet again shows it's relevance.

[Widger]

Here is some news just released

Veil lifted on Sea Kings' Afghan role (http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/536-veil-lifted-on-sea-kings-afghan-role.aspx)

The mighty Mk7s are doing a cracking job and have been supported well by their ground crews and the team in the Stan.

Well done also to the RAF's strategic lift organisation that deployed them in the first place. A truly purple effort, that has put in place much needed support for the troops on the ground and in fairly swift order. All done without one of Jackos, precious (NICHE) aircraft in sight!

[Jackonicko]

Typically cheap shot, Widger.

Nice to see 849 demonstrating another area in which land based air contributes to the overall effort!

Or have they moored a carrier in some inland waterway?

[Agaricus bisporus]

It seems to me that the FAA has one critical shortcoming that it has consistently failed to address over many many decades.

It doesn't blow its own trumpet well, or loudly.

It damn well should. It always damn well should have.

How many times have we heard troops say, "Then the Navy arrived, and we knew it was going to be OK" or "We asked for helos but none came. Then someone asked the Junglies and we got the job done. They didn't have to come, they were busy elsewhere too"

Squaddies often talk to me of their days groundpounding in Ulster and elsewhere (cos I wear my Vets badge) - but equally Iraq and the Balkans, and remember the Navy helos as the one to have when things got hot. (perhaps cos they didn't have to rely on air-conditioning or hire cars...)

Versatility and practicality are the words most often heard. Sounds as if that hasn't changed. So what's new?

Bravo Zulu the FAA!

[Jackonicko]

Bravo Zulu indeed, AB.

The FAA are a thoroughly professional bunch, and we're extremely lucky to have them.

Though the claim that the Navy doesn't blow it's own trumpet is risible!

Look at the success they made of Fly Navy 100 - a supposed centenary that (whisper it) celebrated the 100th anniversary of allocating some money to an ultimately unsuccessful airship that never entered service.

Don't they call that 'Chutzpah'?

And isn't it a pity that so few of those who trumpet the FAA's undoubted successes and capabilities seem unable to do so without directly or indirectly running down the light blue? (Air conditioning and hire cars, indeed!)

Come 2012, when Naval Aviation actually earns that birthday telegram, I'll wish the FAA a happy 100th.

[Agaricus bisporus]

JN, I said they don't blow it "well". You're quite right, they got that a bit wrong too.

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

Jacko - please please stop the snide remarks!! :ugh: You really do not do us any favours and come across in a sad and somewhat bigoted fashion on this and several other threads - genuinely, please don't!

To address this thread - may I please offer my sincerest heartiest congratulations to all involved in making this unsung deployment a real success which (trust me) is making a real difference!! Keep up your excellent work - fly safe and take care out there. Thanks and many BZs! H-W :ok::ok::ok:

[Obi Wan Russell]

JN, might help if you checked your facts as well, 849 NOT deployed to the 'Stan. These days 849 is the culdrose based training sqn, front line duties are carried out by 854NAS (currently in theatre) and 857NAS (on their way to relieve 854). If the RAF had had their way, the Sea King AEW2 and ASaC 7 would never have happened. When proposed in the 70s to replace the Gannet, the RAF opposed it saying the Nimrod AEW3 would provide the Navy with all it's early warning needs. How did that work out again? Nimrod 3 I mean?:ok:

[Navaleye]

Indeed. A BZ too to the NSW, the Junglies and the hundreds of personnel doing a great job over there.. The NSW regeneration is going well after 'Stan with plans to have much larger and longer Harrier deployments well in hand. The SKW still shows its amazing versatility at a time when more traditional assets are not available.

As regards press handling, the Navy has come a long way since 82, but their is still a strong feeling that journalists are to be avoided in some senior circles.

[Vie sans frontieres]

The Fleet Air Arm yet again shows it's relevance

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[[email protected]]

And that piece in the Navy News is a virtuoso solo on the RN trumpet:)

[Squirrel 41]

If the FAA are so bad on their trumpet, why do so many of the RN types of my acquaintance refer to "Navy News" as "WAFU Weekly" or "Bootneck Bimonthly"? :confused:

Surely (he says with tongue partially in cheek) if there hadn't been a successful FAA trumpet, we could have quietly scrapped the CVSs and CVF lond ago! :ok:

(Note to editors: The above is called banter. It is used in the hope that some of the outraged-of-Tunbridge Wells retired Lt Cdr lot will go off on one and make themselves look even sillier. We can but hope!:E )

S41

(edited for spolilnk)

[anotherthing]

Jacko,

whilst your support for the RAF is laudable, it gets a bit tedious when you can't see the relevance of other services beyond the light blue.

I suppose that is to be expected when it comes from someone with no actual service experience...

[Jackonicko]

Ooh a cut and paste contribution from Anotherthing........

[BEagle]

And that piece in the Navy News is a virtuoso solo on the RN trumpet

Well, I would certainly agree that the Navy's Jack and Jill certainly trounces the RAF's King and Country - and always has done!

Re. the FAA, I think that having only Purple bombers as the FW element of the Invincible class is an utter disgrace. The Sea Harrier F/A 2 was an excellent BVR platform with good head sector kill probability and should never have been scrapped.

It will be decades before there is a capable, embarked fleet defence fighter in service with the RN. I simply don't know whether that's something the UK can afford to wait for.

[colonel cluster]

No, no, my toy/shed/dad's car is bigger/better/faster/shinier than yours!(delete as applicable).

I do wish some people on here would let their testicles descend, stubble appear and zip up their damned man-suits! We all need each other if we are to do the best job possible for Queen and Country (not those weasel politicians). Every single asset/capability out in theatre (of every colour) is adding something valuable, helping the guys on the ground get on with their jobs as best as possible!

God, you guys/girls make me want to scream sometimes! Whinge, whinge, its all you ever do! (now look at me, you have made me sound like her indoors, damn you!)

El Colonel!

[Vie sans frontieres]

CC

You're quite right but what a ridiculous thread to start in the first place. "We're great because the Navy News says so."

[Widger]

Life without frontiers,

Why is it a ridiculous thread? By that same argument, the Typhoon to the Falklands is equally ridiculous (which is not my view BTW). The post is their to publicise a successful deployment of airborne capability to the stan (with the help of the light blue) against much of the rhetoric that abounds on forums such as this and elsewhere, that the FAA is irrelevant. This rhetoric goes along the lines that the current campaign in the stan is an Army operation supported only by the RAF. Intelligent punters will of course know the truth but many others do not.

Also, with a SDR on the horizon, it is essential that ALL areas of Defence trumpet their capabilities so that Jo public and the politicians understand what each area brings to the party. If this is not done, we will have a force of Infantry, driving around in Mastiffs, supported by Virgin Atlantic.

I read in Janes today, that the Army are storing their Challenger 2 tanks rather than placing them in deep maintenance. Just because they are not being used in the Stan, is that a reason to scrap the capability? Is Challenger 2 "niche".

Well done 854 and well done 99 for getting them out there.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Widger

If you could have, would you have edited the thread title as well as the first post? Now you're just causing confusion!

[The Helpful Stacker]

Well done FAA. To those though having a p!ssing contest, I'm sure the folk on the ground aren't interested in the colour of the beret the aicrew wear, nor the fact the Sea Kings managed to get all the way to Afghanistan without requiring a carrier, just the fact there is somone else out there to give support to the hard worked Chinook crews. When all is said and done though, SH ops in Afghanistan are proof that JHC can come up with the goods and the petty single service mentality can be overcome.

[Jackonicko]

Widger,

Do, please, bear in mind the fact that the arguments that carriers are irrelevent (or rather too niche to be affordable) are quite separate from arguments as to the relevance of the FAA as a whole, most of whom never go anywhere near a CVS.

The FAA is also about Junglies, small ships flights, and SAR, and even ASW Sea Kings and AEW Sea Kings have a relevance beyond deploying on board fixed wing carriers.

You will find that the sternest critics of one may well be the biggest admirers of the other.

[Biggus]

THS

The Sea Kings in question are baggers. They are not conducting SH ops, to the best of my knowledge are not part of JHC, and are there as an ISTAR type asset rather than providing direct support for Chinooks.

[Triple Matched TQ]

Thought the Sea Kings in question were 'ASaC'ers not baggers or freaks or window lickers etc etc now

Anyway well done the FAA! Just another thing that is quietly being done in the background.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Biggus - So they are assets designed for the sea but operating many miles from the ocean? My god man, take the lead set by many other blue/green jobs with reference to light blue assets operating in support of LAND and demand they are given over to the AAC forthwith.

[orca]

Gadzooks! Bagmen? In the desert?

Who will provide 'airborne retrospect' on JMC? Who will tell the chaps where those damned mustardians came from - two minutes after it would have been handy to know?

[Biggus]

First of all, I am not having a go at the baggers in the article, but how about this general point?

We all take what we read in the general press with a large pinch of salt, saying journos get it wrong, poor research, etc. However, we seem to take everything written in the MOD press, RAF News, Navy News, etc as gospel.

When was the last time you read an article saying X/Y Sqn RAF/FAA/AAC deploys on exercise and Boss says...."we made a right cock up of it, embarrassed everyone and didn't achieve anything..."? Or "Army/RAF/RN charity event ends in fiasco with minimal money raised".

Of course if a Boss is quoted in an article he is going to say that things went well. However, I happen to believe that MOD in general, and Senior military officers, are perfectly capable of spinning a story on occasion, putting a good slant on it, etc. Therefore all articles, from whatever source, should be treated with a degree of scepticism. But that is my personal opinion.

[the funky munky]

I think you will find that these assets are designed to find things.

It just so happens that they can find really, really small things on land as well as finding big things on the ogging and in the air!

They would appear to be doing it just as well (if not better!) as ASTOR did on it's proof detachment last year.

As an ISTAR cab it is second to none and well done to all those hard working guy & gals at Culdrose/MASU/Sherborne.

Medals for the bag community fleet anyone?