PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aircrew
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23rd Dec 2008, 18:09   #221 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,378
I cannot believe that this government will still be in power when the two year delay on CVF expires. By that time the new government will be desperate to make whatever spending cuts they can get away with and CVF may well end up as the RN's TSR2.

One must hope that in the meantime our leader keeps off the world stage and does not commit our forces to any more theatres we are not funded to fight in.
soddim is offline   Reply
Old 23rd Dec 2008, 19:29   #222 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 44
Posts: 88
The two year delay isn't on the start of the CVF program, it's on the completion dates, and in fact is just an admission that after the order for the ships was delayed by two years to start with the completion date had to be put back to fall into line with reality. Also the Defence Minister John Hutton stated in an interview that the withdrawal dates for the existing carriers would also be put back to match the completion of their replacements.
Obi Wan Russell is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 00:13   #223 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 43
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
How about a Defence Helicopter Command run by just the RN and Army - they are the main users after all?
Have they got a few hundred aircrew and engineers going spare then?

The RAF element is just about coping, and changing services would speed those planning to stay on their way, recession or no recession.

I fail to see how this helps soldiers/marines in Helmand, and quite frankly they deserve better. Argue as much as you like about the Harrier/Naval Aviation, but as long as troops on the ground are relying on SH, lets not f##k around with it.
minigundiplomat is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 09:58   #224 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 32
At last one pro-RAF supporter now understands what it could be like if the RAF were to lose just one of their aircraft types (Chinook) to the Army and what impact that may have on those depending on such resources at the sharp end! This is despite the fact that it would probably have made good sense to give the Army these aircraft in the first place because they are basically mainly used to carry out Army/RM related work! However, if they were now given to the AAC, and RAF crews were then asked to become AAC personnel (rather than RAF) how do you think the RAF crews would feel?)

As previously mentioned, this nation lost a lot of excellent FAA pilots when the pro-RAF brigade and short sighted MoD effectively killed off the Sea Harrier too early and also moved the FAA fixed-wing pilots away from their FAA base to an RAF base many miles away!

Perhaps some of the blinkered pro-RAF ‘One Air Force’ proposers can now begin to understand the true potential serious side effects of their proposal. Just as RAF personnel would no doubt not want to be made to become part of the AAC, neither do the Army/RN personnel want to become part of an enlarged RAF.

Please put the right aircraft and personnel with the right armed forces that need to operate them in their own specialist environments.

For example, if the RAF does not want Harriers anymore, please transfer some of them to the FAA who would gladly continue to operate them in a USMC type of supporting role for our own RM/Army. However, the blinkered pro-RAF supporters would then no doubt say that the RN would therefore need to lose all of its destroyer fleet to help pay for them! (Their usual rather selfish type of trump card that is continually being used to reduce the size, capability and influence of our once great Navy!) If our 'Nations' needs were put first (before the RAF’s aim to try and dominate everything aviation related) then perhaps the current excessive size of its RAF fighter/strike fleet could be reduced to help cover the cost of something that would make great sense for our 'Nations' benefit. The FAA would then also be able to maintain its excellent fixed-wing flying capability and experience until it gets the proper carriers (at long last) that this country and Europe does need. Having just one French catapult equipped aircraft carrier for the whole of Europe is unbelieveable. The world-wide maritime threats and conflict risks are still going to continue and Europe should not have to continue relying on the US to always provide aircraft carrier support.
Gullwings is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 10:10   #225 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 110m overhead
Age: 53
Posts: 1,800
Quote:
How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.
Think you'll be waiting a long time for an answer TBH
glad rag is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 10:27   #226 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 43
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
neither do the Army/RN personnel want to become part of an enlarged RAF.
An element of bolleaux about that statement. We have large numbers of RN aircrew who have transferred, large numbers of AAC who have transferred, and more from both services applying to transfer.

Most of those who have, will tell you that life is no easier in the RAF than the AAC/RN.

I cannot think of a single member of the RAF aircrew fraternity who has left to join the RN.

However, I do take offence at your repeated assertion that the RN/AAC could do the job better.

We work our nads off to ensure Percy/Royal gets to go exactly where he wants to go, when he wants to go there. The fact that we don't love rum, bum and baccy makes no difference to the service the RM receives.

In fact, in 2002 when the O Boat was cruising around the N Arabian sea looking for a port (and none would take her) to deploy Royal to a landlocked country, an airbridge from the coast was seriously considered. I know this because myself and a few of my colleagues were dragged in after the Brigadier had asked how this would be completed, and his planning staff went very, very quiet.

In the end, the RAF deployed the Cdo's headshed in an epic tranist from the international limit across Pakistan and Afghanistan to Bagram. The remaining troops had to be floated to Oman and put onto C130.

You may wish to check with Royal before you tell him what he wants!

Merry Xmas to you.
minigundiplomat is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 10:42   #227 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,752
Gullwings,

Your arguments are tired and witless. MiniGun (an experienced SH practitioner) is being uncharacteristically tolerant and kind in referring to an "element of bolleaux" in your posts, as they're way worse than that.

Please stop for Christmas, this inane nonsense is getting on my tits.
Jackonicko is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 11:05   #228 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 2,139
minigun

"I cannot think of a single member of the RAF aircrew fraternity who has left to join the RN."

Gosh what a surprise that the high command don't keep you informed

For your info, we have taken a lot of RAF harrier boys recently including some A2 QFIs, and have closed the door to other FW boys wishing to transfer from tornado etc because we are full.

Jacko.

"MiniGun (an experienced SH practitioner) "

Don't make me laugh. He is a jumped up 19yr old door gunner.
Tourist is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 11:33   #229 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 43
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
He is a jumped up 19yr old door gunner
Ah, if only! Nice thought though Tourist.

Can't comment on Harrier mates, only Rotary. Perhaps I should of caveated my post.

As for the High Command consulting me, there is no need. Small fleet, news travels quickly. I would have thought you understood that?

Merry Xmas
minigundiplomat is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 12:05   #230 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 32
Minigun

Of course the RAF should be able to take troops/equipment to places that are a ‘very’ long way from the sea!! Nobody is trying to take your large transport aircraft away from you! Please keep up such epic work! You are fantastic!

By the way, I have worked very closely with all of the forces so I do know what they like and dislike. (Including the Royals!)

Also if you and your RAF colleagues do not want to transfer to FAA roles then please tell your bosses ASAP to forget the ‘One Air Force’ super dream and stop progressively reducing the RN/FAA capability and morale. Let those who can (and who are willing) to carry out such specialist and difficult work get on with it without the RAF wanting to try and take them over.

Jackonico

Please do not use this website if you do not like to hear the other side of a discussion. You equally often drive people crazy but most of us try to politely tolerate the rubbish that you sometimes say.

Have a nice relaxing Christmas.
Gullwings is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 12:35   #231 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of the Border.
Posts: 62
Quote:
By that time the new government will be desperate to make whatever spending cuts they can get away with and CVF may well end up as the RN's TSR2.
Erm, wasn't CVA-01 the "RN's TSR2"?
XR219 is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 13:34   #232 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,752
The one-sided, blinkered, dark blue biased horse manure that you endlessly repeat is hardly 'discussion', Gullwings, old chap.
Jackonicko is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 14:11   #233 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 32
Jackonico,

Another nice convenient 'cop out' response that offers nothing at all to this thread and shows your true colours!

Please do not waste everyones time by continuing to make such silly pointless comments.
Gullwings is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 14:21   #234 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 27
Posts: 168
Jacko, please go away, i'm no aviaition expert but you're even annoying me, christ knows what the rest of the more aviation-savvy readers are thinking.

And abusing someone then saying 'merry christmas' doesn't work, its not big and its not clever and its ruining christmas for me! And as so many of you have pointed out (for some reason) i'm 'young' so it has a deep effect on me

On that line... this is a great discussion, exceptionally amusing, but lets not let it degenerate into a slagging match? Keep the informed debate alive....granted, that means kicking jacko off the thread but oh well
Yeoman_dai is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 14:23   #235 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 27
Posts: 168
juging by tht im no spellin expart eithar
Yeoman_dai is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 14:31   #236 (permalink)
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 2,198
Actually it's Jacko's alternative, devils advocate views which makes the debate interesting. Keep it up.
Navaleye is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 14:33   #237 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 43
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Actually it's Jacko's alternative, devils advocate views which makes the debate interesting. Keep it up.
Seconded. If we just had a unified homogenous opinion then none of us would log on.
minigundiplomat is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 14:55   #238 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 43
Posts: 1,533
Thank you for pointing that out.I am forever indebted to you AIDU!
minigundiplomat is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 16:30   #239 (permalink)

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 40
Posts: 2,797
not only that but combining unified and homogeneous is redundant.
MarkD is offline   Reply
Old 24th Dec 2008, 16:47   #240 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 27
Posts: 168
HA!

Ok fair point, it all adds to the debate. However, I maintain abuse is not relaly informed discussion is it? You &*^% &&£((" "^^^&($)$*!!!

As it is however.... I have to point out Gullwing, that the RAF doesn't want to get rid of their Harrriers, their just offering them up to try save themselves in the current 'we've lost £2billion and need to find it somewhere.

It's still a stupid place to find the money, when you have units like the RAF regiment (designed to defend airfields against Spetanaz deep-penetration raids in the Cold War) and an oversized F3 fleet, or even the ridiculously top-heavy officer corps of all three services (athough it has to be admitted, especially the RAF)




Hows that for devils advocate Awaiting incoming from minigun and jacko
Yeoman_dai is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network