Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
Has a Harrier ever had to ditch serviceable weapons into the ocean because it was too heavy to land back on a carrier or is this all an urban myth? And can they guarantee that they can get airborne with a useful weapon load (i.e more than one bomb and a rocket pod)? And will Dave B be any better?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the GR9 with the new bigger engine but the old SHAR definitely had to during the Kosovo campaign (or they were telling porkies to us at the CAOC) their standard load was AIM 120 plus a 1000lb bomb which wasn't really needed as the task was air defence but a number were jettisoned inert. To be fair, as I always am, the USN faired no better and often had to dump unexpended weapons as to bring them back to the ship was too risky. Will Dave be better - I'd darn well hope so or we won't have moved forward very far in 20 odd years!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackoniko
Sorry to disappoint you. Just because I am relatively new to this website it does not mean that I am a 12 year old spotter, or that I do not have a wide range of armed forces experience or knowledge.
Not only can you not do maths, you obviously have trouble reading too. (As I have previously mentioned I have worked closely with all of the services.) This has been both pre and post the Falklands. It has also included working at an RAF base where we shared the same hangar and operated virtually the same type of aircraft as the RAF. (A great opportunity to experience for myself the different ways that the RAF and FAA maintained and operated basically the same type of aircraft for exactly the same types of Army/Marines support tasks. It certainly was quite an eye opening experience and it was particularly interesting to discover that the RAF needed two different tradesmen to carry out the same types of work as just one of our FAA combined tradesmen.
During that time our four aircraft were sometimes carrying out not only their own operational tasks, but also those of the RAF aircraft. Particularly during one period when in fact 7 of their 8 aircraft were unserviceable! (So for those who recently commented about Army poor aircraft serviceability rates I can assure you that the same can even happen to the Royal Air Force!)
With regards to your following previous stupid comment about the other UK forces lower levels of training and experience: -
“The RAF has the support and engineering infrastructure required to get the most out of the most complex platforms, and to train their aircrew.”
It is not only the RAF that can get the most out of complex platforms and train their crews. You do not get a much more complex helicopter platform than the FAA version of the EH101, which uses a lot more different avionics and weapon systems. These are even operated and maintained on smaller ships for very long periods of time away from any land based support. They also somehow manage to do that without any need for RAF personnel to be present.
The same can equally be said for the Harrier, including the Sea Harrier which also had very state of the art avionics and weapon systems!
Furthermore, when ‘any’ of the UK armed forces require in-service repairs for very seriously damaged helicopters anywhere in the world (including for serious battle damage), I suspect that the FAA still provides the highly trained and experienced structural repair teams to carry out that work. (Even for the RAF!) If I remember correctly, some AAC technicians also sometimes joined those teams as well! Therefore, the FAA and AAC are not as useless as you often state.
With regards to another one your previous stupid digs at the other UK Forces: -
“The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi”
You must have been seriously drunk when you also made that very blinkered statement. I, like many other people, (including honest RAF personnel) could quote many equally bad (if not worse) examples of the RAF mis-using assets, but I will spare the RAF’s blushes on that subject!
Sorry to disappoint you. Just because I am relatively new to this website it does not mean that I am a 12 year old spotter, or that I do not have a wide range of armed forces experience or knowledge.
Not only can you not do maths, you obviously have trouble reading too. (As I have previously mentioned I have worked closely with all of the services.) This has been both pre and post the Falklands. It has also included working at an RAF base where we shared the same hangar and operated virtually the same type of aircraft as the RAF. (A great opportunity to experience for myself the different ways that the RAF and FAA maintained and operated basically the same type of aircraft for exactly the same types of Army/Marines support tasks. It certainly was quite an eye opening experience and it was particularly interesting to discover that the RAF needed two different tradesmen to carry out the same types of work as just one of our FAA combined tradesmen.
During that time our four aircraft were sometimes carrying out not only their own operational tasks, but also those of the RAF aircraft. Particularly during one period when in fact 7 of their 8 aircraft were unserviceable! (So for those who recently commented about Army poor aircraft serviceability rates I can assure you that the same can even happen to the Royal Air Force!)
With regards to your following previous stupid comment about the other UK forces lower levels of training and experience: -
“The RAF has the support and engineering infrastructure required to get the most out of the most complex platforms, and to train their aircrew.”
It is not only the RAF that can get the most out of complex platforms and train their crews. You do not get a much more complex helicopter platform than the FAA version of the EH101, which uses a lot more different avionics and weapon systems. These are even operated and maintained on smaller ships for very long periods of time away from any land based support. They also somehow manage to do that without any need for RAF personnel to be present.
The same can equally be said for the Harrier, including the Sea Harrier which also had very state of the art avionics and weapon systems!
Furthermore, when ‘any’ of the UK armed forces require in-service repairs for very seriously damaged helicopters anywhere in the world (including for serious battle damage), I suspect that the FAA still provides the highly trained and experienced structural repair teams to carry out that work. (Even for the RAF!) If I remember correctly, some AAC technicians also sometimes joined those teams as well! Therefore, the FAA and AAC are not as useless as you often state.
With regards to another one your previous stupid digs at the other UK Forces: -
“The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi”
You must have been seriously drunk when you also made that very blinkered statement. I, like many other people, (including honest RAF personnel) could quote many equally bad (if not worse) examples of the RAF mis-using assets, but I will spare the RAF’s blushes on that subject!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gullwings
Exactly.
Jacko
An RAF squadron has to have a base to operate from, within a useful combat range of a conflict. What if, in a future scenario, we can't get that? But with a Carrier....
Carriers can also carry troops, in a pinch, carry refugees, disaster victims, and do something that the RAF can never-ever do, which if 'fly the flag', sail into ports and show just how impressive and important Britain really is - and why they should continue to trade with us. World politics is just one big willy waving exercise, and we need to show we have a big willy if we ever want to secure lucrative trade deals.
So yes, its expensive, but long term having two big carriers are essential.
Plus, you make it seem that the entire Royal Navy is there simply to supply a carrier. We need all those ships for other things, Jacko, and so what if they'd be deployed with the carrier, they'd just be somewhere else on the oceans using money - so the need for a defensive fleet is really no argument at all.
Also, I've had another thought about you're post about the RAF being so top heavy because the officers fly.... the problem the RAF has, is blatant rank creep, in that you have squadron leaders flying single aircraft and not commanding squadrons. Yes, ok it because training takes so long, but if you have such a situation, it needs changing - so don't give pilots a commission until they finish training! The Army and to a lesser extent the Navy manage it, so why can't you? Is it the need of the RAF to validate itself and give itself a compatitivly high number of senior officers so that they can compete with the Army - despite being much much smaller?
Exactly.
Jacko
An RAF squadron has to have a base to operate from, within a useful combat range of a conflict. What if, in a future scenario, we can't get that? But with a Carrier....
Carriers can also carry troops, in a pinch, carry refugees, disaster victims, and do something that the RAF can never-ever do, which if 'fly the flag', sail into ports and show just how impressive and important Britain really is - and why they should continue to trade with us. World politics is just one big willy waving exercise, and we need to show we have a big willy if we ever want to secure lucrative trade deals.
So yes, its expensive, but long term having two big carriers are essential.
Plus, you make it seem that the entire Royal Navy is there simply to supply a carrier. We need all those ships for other things, Jacko, and so what if they'd be deployed with the carrier, they'd just be somewhere else on the oceans using money - so the need for a defensive fleet is really no argument at all.
Also, I've had another thought about you're post about the RAF being so top heavy because the officers fly.... the problem the RAF has, is blatant rank creep, in that you have squadron leaders flying single aircraft and not commanding squadrons. Yes, ok it because training takes so long, but if you have such a situation, it needs changing - so don't give pilots a commission until they finish training! The Army and to a lesser extent the Navy manage it, so why can't you? Is it the need of the RAF to validate itself and give itself a compatitivly high number of senior officers so that they can compete with the Army - despite being much much smaller?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bristol
Age: 38
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, tradition in this case trumps the need for it imo - but everyhing these days is money driven and there is no current need for carrier-borne aircraft.
Harriers are being replaced by the jca anyway - and the typhoon is being scraped soon cos the spanish are useless And the aircraft doesn't live up to what it says on the tin.
Harriers are being replaced by the jca anyway - and the typhoon is being scraped soon cos the spanish are useless And the aircraft doesn't live up to what it says on the tin.
)
Jacko
As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.
But Granby didn't involve an amphibious assault by UK Forces. Telic did, and Ark Royal and Ocean were key to British operations, particularly the assault on the Al Faw peninsula. You may find this link to be of interest.
The performance of Royal Navy (RN) forces in successfully accomplishing their objectives confirmed the development of the RN’s joint and expeditionary capabilities since the SDR.
The operation underlined the strategic value of the sea for the application of combat power, early theatre entry and power projection. This took the form of amphibious forces, sea-based helicopters, cruise missiles, and the use of naval fire support and logistics during the Al Faw operation.
As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.
But Granby didn't involve an amphibious assault by UK Forces. Telic did, and Ark Royal and Ocean were key to British operations, particularly the assault on the Al Faw peninsula. You may find this link to be of interest.
The performance of Royal Navy (RN) forces in successfully accomplishing their objectives confirmed the development of the RN’s joint and expeditionary capabilities since the SDR.
The operation underlined the strategic value of the sea for the application of combat power, early theatre entry and power projection. This took the form of amphibious forces, sea-based helicopters, cruise missiles, and the use of naval fire support and logistics during the Al Faw operation.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Projecting Power
My career within the Fleet Air Arm involved Wessex Vs, which was great fun, and I wouldn't have missed it. The reason I never even got the opportunity to try and fly jets was thanks to a combination of Healey and the Air Farce. Healey was trying to cut the Defence budget, (and largely succeeding), the Air Farce moved Australia on the world map to show that a squadron of F111s could cover all of the globe at any time, from anywhere.
Not much changed except that at least Healey wasn't Scottish!
There's not much that can project power like a carrier.....(unless it's an SSBN!)....of course the V force proved itself at Stanley, didn't it...
Not much changed except that at least Healey wasn't Scottish!
There's not much that can project power like a carrier.....(unless it's an SSBN!)....of course the V force proved itself at Stanley, didn't it...
WEBF,
Technically Al Faw was not an amphib assault. The assault waves were all flown from a TAA in the Kuwaiti desert. Why? Because the carriers were kept outside seersucker range and that prevented the Sk4s from completing a round trip with a viable load. Therefore, only once the possible launch areas had been over-run did the carriers approach and make the logs ripple work. About 90% of the men/materiel on the first 3 waves were flown by RAF Chinooks, carried (and occasionally dropped...) over Kuwait. The Junglies worked their butts off (as ever) but were struggling to carry an effective payload. The RM hovercraft/landing craft had real problems with mined beaches, and this delayed the build up of combat pwr (esp in anti-tank weapons) which caused panic on day 2 when Int reported T-72s leaving Basrah! Curiously, these issues receive scant attention in RN histories...
NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.
There is a risk of "Black Bucking" Al Faw. The RN were in danger of a peripheral part in OIF as it was going to be a Land & Air focussed campaign. Al Faw gave them a piece of the action - but people must be careful not to overplay the card as, arguably, the RAF did with the Vulcan in the Falklands.
Al Faw could have been done totally from the land; Carriers were NOT necessary. However, as mentioned in other posts, it was nice to go back to an air-conditioned bed and not a tent...
Technically Al Faw was not an amphib assault. The assault waves were all flown from a TAA in the Kuwaiti desert. Why? Because the carriers were kept outside seersucker range and that prevented the Sk4s from completing a round trip with a viable load. Therefore, only once the possible launch areas had been over-run did the carriers approach and make the logs ripple work. About 90% of the men/materiel on the first 3 waves were flown by RAF Chinooks, carried (and occasionally dropped...) over Kuwait. The Junglies worked their butts off (as ever) but were struggling to carry an effective payload. The RM hovercraft/landing craft had real problems with mined beaches, and this delayed the build up of combat pwr (esp in anti-tank weapons) which caused panic on day 2 when Int reported T-72s leaving Basrah! Curiously, these issues receive scant attention in RN histories...
NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.
There is a risk of "Black Bucking" Al Faw. The RN were in danger of a peripheral part in OIF as it was going to be a Land & Air focussed campaign. Al Faw gave them a piece of the action - but people must be careful not to overplay the card as, arguably, the RAF did with the Vulcan in the Falklands.
Al Faw could have been done totally from the land; Carriers were NOT necessary. However, as mentioned in other posts, it was nice to go back to an air-conditioned bed and not a tent...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A long time reader of Pprune threads, this debate is the first to prompt my twopence worth.
I have to say that apart from DBTW and Wrathmonk, I don't agree with much here.
The Fleet Air Arm will only lose fixed wing if Navy wants it to.
Others, bigger and badder than anyone in current lofty political, bureaucratic and defence circles, have tried that caper before, and the net result was Sea Harriers ruling the air over Port Stanley.
As for the RAF, the lobbies and bars of Wesminister are now home to a creeping discussion by MPs of both parties as to why the Navy, Marines and Army are always ready to go and unleash grief on the bad guys, but the RAF has a Peking telephone directory of excuses as to why its aircraft are so rarely available.
Lastly, someone here claims to work as journalist. I have considerable experience of the media, and have yet to so much as hear an unsubstantiated rumour of a hack writing anything when off-duty, let alone when there's no pay cheque involved
I have to say that apart from DBTW and Wrathmonk, I don't agree with much here.
The Fleet Air Arm will only lose fixed wing if Navy wants it to.
Others, bigger and badder than anyone in current lofty political, bureaucratic and defence circles, have tried that caper before, and the net result was Sea Harriers ruling the air over Port Stanley.
As for the RAF, the lobbies and bars of Wesminister are now home to a creeping discussion by MPs of both parties as to why the Navy, Marines and Army are always ready to go and unleash grief on the bad guys, but the RAF has a Peking telephone directory of excuses as to why its aircraft are so rarely available.
Lastly, someone here claims to work as journalist. I have considerable experience of the media, and have yet to so much as hear an unsubstantiated rumour of a hack writing anything when off-duty, let alone when there's no pay cheque involved
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lastly, someone here claims to work as journalist. I have considerable experience of the media, and have yet to so much as hear an unsubstantiated rumour of a hack writing anything when off-duty, let alone when there's no pay cheque involved
Stitchbitch,
Indeed, esp after the -46 crash when the AAS Puma/CH47s picked up the slack at a moments notice.
All the more evidence that Al Faw did not NEED carriers. The expense of sailing a 10-ship flotilla all the way to the NAG to invade a country with 20-odd miles of coastline could be seen as a bit excessive. The Helos and troops could have been sea or air freighted to Kuwait and moved to TAA Viking a lot easier!!
Indeed, esp after the -46 crash when the AAS Puma/CH47s picked up the slack at a moments notice.
All the more evidence that Al Faw did not NEED carriers. The expense of sailing a 10-ship flotilla all the way to the NAG to invade a country with 20-odd miles of coastline could be seen as a bit excessive. The Helos and troops could have been sea or air freighted to Kuwait and moved to TAA Viking a lot easier!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stitchbird
You are correct. That is a fair cop! I hope however that most people understood the point that I was trying to highlight.
Evaluator
Perhaps on that particular occasion in Al Faw the RAF may have been able to manage themselves, but as in most conflicts/wars since WW2 I am sure that our other UK forces (and perhaps even some RAF personnel) will have appreciated the very experienced, capable and willing support that the FAA provided. (As always, the FAA tries to do its best with whatever equipment it has available to use.)
With regards to your previous Statement: -
"NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.”
I am surprised to learn that our ships may have just been randomly firing their guns all over the place for no good reason. I doubt whether it was just to annoy the RAF and perhaps their own FAA pilots? Are you sure that the troops on the ground were not requiring and directing such gun fire support where they needed it to carry out their attacks and minimise their own casualties, etc? When directed by skilled spotters on the land those guns are usually known to be extremely accurate and very valued by our troops. Apologies for any inconvenience caused if this was not the case.
You are correct. That is a fair cop! I hope however that most people understood the point that I was trying to highlight.
Evaluator
Perhaps on that particular occasion in Al Faw the RAF may have been able to manage themselves, but as in most conflicts/wars since WW2 I am sure that our other UK forces (and perhaps even some RAF personnel) will have appreciated the very experienced, capable and willing support that the FAA provided. (As always, the FAA tries to do its best with whatever equipment it has available to use.)
With regards to your previous Statement: -
"NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.”
I am surprised to learn that our ships may have just been randomly firing their guns all over the place for no good reason. I doubt whether it was just to annoy the RAF and perhaps their own FAA pilots? Are you sure that the troops on the ground were not requiring and directing such gun fire support where they needed it to carry out their attacks and minimise their own casualties, etc? When directed by skilled spotters on the land those guns are usually known to be extremely accurate and very valued by our troops. Apologies for any inconvenience caused if this was not the case.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stepping carefully into this thread:
Military campaigns, especially the more recent US led ones, have been characterized by a (very understandable) desire for overwhelming force to reduce casualties. That seems to translate to throwing all available assets at the problem. Looking at Al-Faw and other engagements, perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised that 10 ships were sent, NGS was used, and a mix of RAF, FAA and AAC assets were used. Perhaps we ought to be mighty proud that the UK has the skill and professional aviators, soldiers and sailors to execute an true 'all-arms' assault like this one.
This thread, like many others, has at times dropped into the 'black/white' type of argument where opposing views are presented as sole choices - 'RAF or FAA' is a prime example. That's unfortunate, in my view. I've spent my professional life working with all three Services and it's my view that we have, through accident or design, developed a military skill set that is nearly unmatched anywhere else. We have an outstandingly professional Air Force, a capable and flexible FAA and an extremely effective AAC - and you could swap those adjectives around in any combination. Are they big enough? No. Are they starved of funds? Yes. Are they all good? Hell, yes.
And that's the crux of this thread. One Service (the RAF) has, via CAS, decided to openly attack ownership of air capability by the RN and the Army. This is being denied by the MoD, but it's happened, and happened at the highest levels. It's a crying shame, because a) he is going to lose, b) he is damaging the reputation of his service in the process and c) our lords and masters probably have better things to do than chew over these old bones. 'One nation, one air force' is possibly one of the most inane sound bites masquerading as a policy that I've ever heard.
Engines solution? Not sure I have one,, but a good start would be to look at using all three Services' skill and equipment sets to try to build a UK equivalent of a US Marine Corps (MEU) type capability, with a fully engaged air component, and exploiting CVF to the full. Flexible, deployable, and with plenty of punch. It would be a real shame if inter-service rivalries got in the way, but I fear that they already have.
Best Regards to all as ever,
Engines
Military campaigns, especially the more recent US led ones, have been characterized by a (very understandable) desire for overwhelming force to reduce casualties. That seems to translate to throwing all available assets at the problem. Looking at Al-Faw and other engagements, perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised that 10 ships were sent, NGS was used, and a mix of RAF, FAA and AAC assets were used. Perhaps we ought to be mighty proud that the UK has the skill and professional aviators, soldiers and sailors to execute an true 'all-arms' assault like this one.
This thread, like many others, has at times dropped into the 'black/white' type of argument where opposing views are presented as sole choices - 'RAF or FAA' is a prime example. That's unfortunate, in my view. I've spent my professional life working with all three Services and it's my view that we have, through accident or design, developed a military skill set that is nearly unmatched anywhere else. We have an outstandingly professional Air Force, a capable and flexible FAA and an extremely effective AAC - and you could swap those adjectives around in any combination. Are they big enough? No. Are they starved of funds? Yes. Are they all good? Hell, yes.
And that's the crux of this thread. One Service (the RAF) has, via CAS, decided to openly attack ownership of air capability by the RN and the Army. This is being denied by the MoD, but it's happened, and happened at the highest levels. It's a crying shame, because a) he is going to lose, b) he is damaging the reputation of his service in the process and c) our lords and masters probably have better things to do than chew over these old bones. 'One nation, one air force' is possibly one of the most inane sound bites masquerading as a policy that I've ever heard.
Engines solution? Not sure I have one,, but a good start would be to look at using all three Services' skill and equipment sets to try to build a UK equivalent of a US Marine Corps (MEU) type capability, with a fully engaged air component, and exploiting CVF to the full. Flexible, deployable, and with plenty of punch. It would be a real shame if inter-service rivalries got in the way, but I fear that they already have.
Best Regards to all as ever,
Engines
Gullwings,
I was not trying to "big up" the RAF with my last post. Despite being a crab, a quick check through my posts should convince you that I am a proponent of maritime based aviation (in all forms). As I said, the Junglies worked their socks off (as they always do) but it is utter tripe to claim that Al Faw could not have been done without carriers. From a planning point of view it would have been much, much simpler to run the whole show from the northern Kuwaiti desert. My point is that with a plethora of HNS, carriers were not essential. Who is to say that the next time we won't need them, badly? Just don't try and dress OIF up as a "carrier essential" campaign -it wasn't. NGS was important to start with, but got increasingly unnecessary and inconvenient as all viable targets were removed - don't forget we had a pet AC-130 plus A10s and F18s over the top for the important initial phases. My impression was that a lot of the shells that the DD/FFs fired were in order to make the post-war statistics more compelling in support of NGS, rather than the efficient prosecution of targets.
Engines,
Erudite as ever my friend. As you well know, the thought of a UK MEU based around CVF to be a favourite of mine. We just need to stop the zoomies thinking only of Carrier Strike and to start thinking of "Carrier Flexibility".
Oh, and not all crabs think like our glorious "the answer is typhoon, now what's the question" leader and desire anschluss with the AAC/FAA. Most of us are RW pilots and we have a good idea what would happen if he got away with it....
PS-Seasons greetings Engines. Best wishes for the new year to you, Mrs E and the APUs.....
I was not trying to "big up" the RAF with my last post. Despite being a crab, a quick check through my posts should convince you that I am a proponent of maritime based aviation (in all forms). As I said, the Junglies worked their socks off (as they always do) but it is utter tripe to claim that Al Faw could not have been done without carriers. From a planning point of view it would have been much, much simpler to run the whole show from the northern Kuwaiti desert. My point is that with a plethora of HNS, carriers were not essential. Who is to say that the next time we won't need them, badly? Just don't try and dress OIF up as a "carrier essential" campaign -it wasn't. NGS was important to start with, but got increasingly unnecessary and inconvenient as all viable targets were removed - don't forget we had a pet AC-130 plus A10s and F18s over the top for the important initial phases. My impression was that a lot of the shells that the DD/FFs fired were in order to make the post-war statistics more compelling in support of NGS, rather than the efficient prosecution of targets.
Engines,
Erudite as ever my friend. As you well know, the thought of a UK MEU based around CVF to be a favourite of mine. We just need to stop the zoomies thinking only of Carrier Strike and to start thinking of "Carrier Flexibility".
Oh, and not all crabs think like our glorious "the answer is typhoon, now what's the question" leader and desire anschluss with the AAC/FAA. Most of us are RW pilots and we have a good idea what would happen if he got away with it....
PS-Seasons greetings Engines. Best wishes for the new year to you, Mrs E and the APUs.....
It's funny,
the man who wants to take on the air assets of all 3 services (CAS) visited HERRICK last year. He visited all the RAF detachments with the exception of one....1310 Flt.
It shows how far up his list of priorities RW is. I'm not in favour of a single air entity, the AAC adds a great deal to the party and I would hate to see them disbanded, absorbed or watered down.
The FAA also adds a great deal, but their survival instinct (possibly well tuned) has lead them down a path of endless PR and Spin which culminates in the kind of claims made about Al Faw, which Evalu8tor and Stitch Bitch have addressed well.
If you want a fight, keep your powder dry. The 'typhoon in a teacup' caused by CAS will quickly blow itself out. The 'dark forces' in government who have caused this backbiting through starvation of funds will still be there.
They, it seems, are the supreme justification of NGS.
the man who wants to take on the air assets of all 3 services (CAS) visited HERRICK last year. He visited all the RAF detachments with the exception of one....1310 Flt.
It shows how far up his list of priorities RW is. I'm not in favour of a single air entity, the AAC adds a great deal to the party and I would hate to see them disbanded, absorbed or watered down.
The FAA also adds a great deal, but their survival instinct (possibly well tuned) has lead them down a path of endless PR and Spin which culminates in the kind of claims made about Al Faw, which Evalu8tor and Stitch Bitch have addressed well.
If you want a fight, keep your powder dry. The 'typhoon in a teacup' caused by CAS will quickly blow itself out. The 'dark forces' in government who have caused this backbiting through starvation of funds will still be there.
They, it seems, are the supreme justification of NGS.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter,
And best wishes to you and the brood, mate. I fully agree that trying to make too much out of any 'all arms' campaign is fraught with danger. I can't agree that shells will have been fired by DD/FF to make the post war stats look good. Given the economics of firing NGS (those barrels ain't cheap), and the dire consequences of a ship running out of rounds or barrel life while on the gun line, every round will have been called for.
MGD,
The FAA has not, and never has, gone down a path of 'endless spin and PR'. In the past, the traditions of the 'Silent Service' kept such facts as 'all enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat since the end of WW2 were shot down by the FAA' well below the radar. It's not always been reciprocated. I once sat at a major RAeS event in London and heard a previous CAS inform the audience that 'the RAF had supplied all the helicopters that were based in Split' - no mention of the FAA's SK4s whatsoever. A straight lie.
These days, where their people have done a good job, (e.g. the good job done by the SK7s in the Gulf) the RN has made sure the public know about it. That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.
The point here is that the FAA (and the Army) do not want a fight. CAS does, and has started a highly damaging one. It's not 'blowing itself out', either - I agree that it will subside, but at some cost in loss of mutual trust and tons of extra work for hard pressed MoD staffs (and unnecessary expenditure of dry powder). The 'dark force' behind this round of backbiting is one person, and one alone.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
And best wishes to you and the brood, mate. I fully agree that trying to make too much out of any 'all arms' campaign is fraught with danger. I can't agree that shells will have been fired by DD/FF to make the post war stats look good. Given the economics of firing NGS (those barrels ain't cheap), and the dire consequences of a ship running out of rounds or barrel life while on the gun line, every round will have been called for.
MGD,
The FAA has not, and never has, gone down a path of 'endless spin and PR'. In the past, the traditions of the 'Silent Service' kept such facts as 'all enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat since the end of WW2 were shot down by the FAA' well below the radar. It's not always been reciprocated. I once sat at a major RAeS event in London and heard a previous CAS inform the audience that 'the RAF had supplied all the helicopters that were based in Split' - no mention of the FAA's SK4s whatsoever. A straight lie.
These days, where their people have done a good job, (e.g. the good job done by the SK7s in the Gulf) the RN has made sure the public know about it. That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.
The point here is that the FAA (and the Army) do not want a fight. CAS does, and has started a highly damaging one. It's not 'blowing itself out', either - I agree that it will subside, but at some cost in loss of mutual trust and tons of extra work for hard pressed MoD staffs (and unnecessary expenditure of dry powder). The 'dark force' behind this round of backbiting is one person, and one alone.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
...That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF....
How many times were pictures of RAF SHF (as well as FAA SK a/c) operating in Ulster labelled as 'Army Helicopters' by even some of the more respected media organisations?