Islamic State: Charles de Gaulle carrier triples French firepower
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: 75' from the runway edge and 150' from the threshold
Age: 74
Posts: 247
Received 30 Likes
on
12 Posts
By insisting BAe Systems buils it?
charliegolf, i'm with R O G on this - you gets what you asks for. The MoD is famous for asking for something, usually thought up by a committee, and once the design is finalised and metal has been cut, then along comes Air Vice Marshall this, or Rear Admiral that or General the other and asks "can we have this extra bit please or can we have an extra BFG 2000 or can you make it invisible please" and lo and behold costs go up production times lengthen and by the time the item comes into service, the committee members, AVMs, Admirals and Generals have all retired on pensions much much higher than my pay band three retirement income.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad but true - seems to affect the Navy worst but that's probaly because you can "add" a lot on a warship that weighs in at 8000 tons
tougher to make very big changes on an 11 ton fighter................
tougher to make very big changes on an 11 ton fighter................
Originally Posted by Tengah
French Income Tax
CM & Wanderoo
HMRC told me I have no option as my RAF and MOD Pensions must be taxed in UK. As a retread singlie my French Income Tax plus Social Taxes would be higher!
CM & Wanderoo
HMRC told me I have no option as my RAF and MOD Pensions must be taxed in UK. As a retread singlie my French Income Tax plus Social Taxes would be higher!
It's due to the dual tax agreement, which prevents you from being taxed twice on the same money. Government pensions are takes in the country of origin, not the country of residence.
More relevant, France is increasing its defence budget by €3.9Bn during 2016-19 aiming to bring them close to the NATO 2% of GDP. Given that so much of that is spent in France, it means that a lot of the cash is ploughed back into the economy.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French carrier.
Taking up Evalu8ter's point ; the crabs have about eight times the number of staff officers the Navy has for starters and I hope you are not in denial that to convince those in charge that the F1-11s' coverage of the world's oceans was possible with its radius of action Australia had to be moved - that ruse happened, but was pointed out by an eagle-eyed looker. Nonetheless CVA01 was sunk partly as a result of crabs' skulduggery.
More recently Sir Jock Stirrup as CDS after the decision had been taken jointly to scrap the Tornado and keep the Harrier, bent the Prime Minister's ear privately such that the reverse happened; that was a gross abuse of authority. As a result a bunch of newly updated Harriers were sold for peanuts to the Americans and shortly afterwards Libya blew up. Tornadoes were based in Italy at some ridiculous cost and miles away from the scene of action with all the consequences thereof when a carrier a few miles offshore would have had its aircraft over target in no time and have been able to deliver the same or more ordnance in multiple sorties in a much more timely manner had the original decision not been so unworthily reversed.
At the coalface crabs individually are not all bad; I had a bunch in my Squadron who were very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem, whose company we enjoyed and vice versa and who really enjoyed their exchange time. Mostly bachelors who had volunteered.
The manning of the F35Bs when embarked in future is going to be an interesting situation - how many light blues are going to enjoy the best part of a year at sea away from home and family I wonder should that happen ?
As ever the Senior Service need to watch their six o'clock in all negotiations with and whenever the devious crabs are involved ! Nothing has changed!
More recently Sir Jock Stirrup as CDS after the decision had been taken jointly to scrap the Tornado and keep the Harrier, bent the Prime Minister's ear privately such that the reverse happened; that was a gross abuse of authority. As a result a bunch of newly updated Harriers were sold for peanuts to the Americans and shortly afterwards Libya blew up. Tornadoes were based in Italy at some ridiculous cost and miles away from the scene of action with all the consequences thereof when a carrier a few miles offshore would have had its aircraft over target in no time and have been able to deliver the same or more ordnance in multiple sorties in a much more timely manner had the original decision not been so unworthily reversed.
At the coalface crabs individually are not all bad; I had a bunch in my Squadron who were very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem, whose company we enjoyed and vice versa and who really enjoyed their exchange time. Mostly bachelors who had volunteered.
The manning of the F35Bs when embarked in future is going to be an interesting situation - how many light blues are going to enjoy the best part of a year at sea away from home and family I wonder should that happen ?
As ever the Senior Service need to watch their six o'clock in all negotiations with and whenever the devious crabs are involved ! Nothing has changed!
Wow, that was one hell of a tribal rant, sailor. Well done. I think I missed the point you were trying to make in all the bile and rabid foam, but it was a lovely read all the same.
P.S. I think you may have missed Evalu8tor's sarcasm.
P.P.S. Did they kick you out?
P.S. I think you may have missed Evalu8tor's sarcasm.
P.P.S. Did they kick you out?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 12th Feb 2016 at 19:42.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sailor,
Not entirely sure how we jumped from C de G and its impressive air power to the RAF apparently conspiring to get rid of the Harrier. Perhaps you're an embittered ex-RN ex-Harrier mate who missed what was actually going on from around 1998 onwards and the joint decisions and efforts in which both the RAF and the RN VSOs were fully involved.
I don't think I know any RAF pilots that think (or thought at the time) that losing the Harrier was a good thing and I'm pretty certain that none of the RAF VSOs felt any different.
The choice to lose SHAR to pay for GR upgrades was, surprisingly, eagerly supported by the admirals as was the decision to form JF2000 and its successor. Then when it later came to serious military cuts, the Army was so engaged on the ground they were never going to be touched, but they did want CAS. The choice then between Harrier (great at CAS) or Tornado (CAS, medium bomber, all weather, range, etc) came down to numbers and the list of capabilities.
The Navy Cheifs hardly raised their voices as all this went on; well, not until it was all done.
Your anger is directed the wrong way, sailor.
Not entirely sure how we jumped from C de G and its impressive air power to the RAF apparently conspiring to get rid of the Harrier. Perhaps you're an embittered ex-RN ex-Harrier mate who missed what was actually going on from around 1998 onwards and the joint decisions and efforts in which both the RAF and the RN VSOs were fully involved.
I don't think I know any RAF pilots that think (or thought at the time) that losing the Harrier was a good thing and I'm pretty certain that none of the RAF VSOs felt any different.
The choice to lose SHAR to pay for GR upgrades was, surprisingly, eagerly supported by the admirals as was the decision to form JF2000 and its successor. Then when it later came to serious military cuts, the Army was so engaged on the ground they were never going to be touched, but they did want CAS. The choice then between Harrier (great at CAS) or Tornado (CAS, medium bomber, all weather, range, etc) came down to numbers and the list of capabilities.
The Navy Cheifs hardly raised their voices as all this went on; well, not until it was all done.
Your anger is directed the wrong way, sailor.
Originally Posted by Out Of Trim
I have to say; I would have liked our aircraft carriers to have been nuclear powered, angled deck, cat & trap type proper carriers too!
How come we always end up with second best?
How come we always end up with second best?
The 75+ aircraft-carrying Ford requires a ship's company (the most expensive element of through-life costs) of 4,660 vs 679 for one of our 50 aircraft-carrying QECs.
That's before you begin considering the costs of operating and eventually decommissioning Ford's two reactors and all that entails.
It is therefore no surprise that certain sections of the USN and USMC are looking at our "second best" carriers quite enviously and can't wait for us to start sharing them.
Dear me, sailor, that rant was even more ridiculous than something old Sharkey might have spouted...
Of course it'll be ridiculous if those big grey flat-topped targets go to sea without any fixed-wing Air Group. If the RN hadn't shot itself in the foot by phasing out the excellent Shar F/A2 when it did, keeping only the plastic GR9s with less air defence capability than the Scimitar, there'd be every prospect of some aeroplanes on board when the carriers finally do sail....
Many years ago we looked after an MP down at RAF Mount Pleasant, who was interested to know what we thought of the carrier idea - and whether conventional aircraft or V/STOL was the better option. He didn't seem to understand the logic that a carrier with catapults and arrestor cables could support either, so was the better choice than something which could only support V/STOL....
As for short-range 'stealth' aircraft being flown from carriers, wouldn't any enemy with half a brain be able to track the carrier and suss out the potential targets?
But no - the UK is stuck with the absurdly expensive F-35B and carriers with neither catapults no cables. Whereas, as suggested by old Sharkey (and for once he was 100% correct), instead we should have bought F-18E/F/G (to be flown by the RN) and insisted on carriers with the necessary support capability.....
Rafale could also have complemented the F-18E/F/G.
Of course it'll be ridiculous if those big grey flat-topped targets go to sea without any fixed-wing Air Group. If the RN hadn't shot itself in the foot by phasing out the excellent Shar F/A2 when it did, keeping only the plastic GR9s with less air defence capability than the Scimitar, there'd be every prospect of some aeroplanes on board when the carriers finally do sail....
Many years ago we looked after an MP down at RAF Mount Pleasant, who was interested to know what we thought of the carrier idea - and whether conventional aircraft or V/STOL was the better option. He didn't seem to understand the logic that a carrier with catapults and arrestor cables could support either, so was the better choice than something which could only support V/STOL....
As for short-range 'stealth' aircraft being flown from carriers, wouldn't any enemy with half a brain be able to track the carrier and suss out the potential targets?
But no - the UK is stuck with the absurdly expensive F-35B and carriers with neither catapults no cables. Whereas, as suggested by old Sharkey (and for once he was 100% correct), instead we should have bought F-18E/F/G (to be flown by the RN) and insisted on carriers with the necessary support capability.....
Rafale could also have complemented the F-18E/F/G.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK industrial participation doesn't make it absurdly expensive for us BEagle. With anticipated £3 being returned to the exchequer for every £1 invested in the JSF, it's a pretty alluring deal. You also get a 5th Gen Strike Fighter for that, plus the multitude of perks of being a Level 1 partner.
Ok reality:
The return on investment does depend on the total number bought.
BAe build every aft empennage for the F-35 A,B and C at Samlesbury.
Being Level 1 for a relatively low initial investment of £2Bn was a steal of an entry deal that has often stopped UK having to cough up extras as the Program has delayed.
Things aren't quite the same for our US cousins.
In the F-18E/F/G, if the MoD defence budget could cover it I'd agree with you 100%. I'm sure the RN would love a 4th gen fighter in the last few miles of its spiral development capability, over a platform In the first few miles of its journey.
Ok reality:
The return on investment does depend on the total number bought.
BAe build every aft empennage for the F-35 A,B and C at Samlesbury.
Being Level 1 for a relatively low initial investment of £2Bn was a steal of an entry deal that has often stopped UK having to cough up extras as the Program has delayed.
Things aren't quite the same for our US cousins.
In the F-18E/F/G, if the MoD defence budget could cover it I'd agree with you 100%. I'm sure the RN would love a 4th gen fighter in the last few miles of its spiral development capability, over a platform In the first few miles of its journey.
Last edited by MSOCS; 13th Feb 2016 at 14:13.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rant accusation response.
I refute the accusation of ranting. I have expressed what I believe to be actual factual events which have occurred regarding CVA 01 and the decision to scrap the Harrier and keep the Tornado.
Having served in cat and trap squadrons and ships I do understand their capability, flexibility and mobility all of which leave land and airfield based aircraft at a huge - and I mean huge - disadvantage.
My example of Tornadoes based in Italy, requiring the use of an Italian airfield to mount what were therefore long range strikes on Libya with the consequential delay in arrival time over targets which were often well dispersed when the light blue cavalry eventually appeared over the horizon is but one of many similar instances in the past and will be repeated in the future. Agreement to the use of such foreign fields may not always be relied on - what, pray crabs, are you going to do then ? Mount another thousand tanker fiasco to allow another single Vulcan to inflict minimal damage by missing its target with the majority of its weapons again in another PR stunt ? Sorry must have forgotten that the last remaining Vulcan is now grounded !
Come on, fess up; the aircraft carrier positioned tactically close to the target be it (target!) on land or sea packs a much better punch in and on time than shore based aircraft operating often at the limit of their range. During the Indonesian confrontation of many moons ago two carriers were permanently on station for long periods of time away from the UK. Vulcan crews with their aircraft rotated out and back from the UK every few weeks at vast expense during that period so that the poor luvvies in light blue were not away from their families for too long. I could go on but I rest my case. A blinding glimpse of the obvious is sufficient to speak for itself !
Don't forget " Si vis pacem para bellum " Bring on our 2 new carriers - with, eventually, their embarked aircraft, hopefully manned by dark blue aviators to boot!
FLY NAVY !
Having served in cat and trap squadrons and ships I do understand their capability, flexibility and mobility all of which leave land and airfield based aircraft at a huge - and I mean huge - disadvantage.
My example of Tornadoes based in Italy, requiring the use of an Italian airfield to mount what were therefore long range strikes on Libya with the consequential delay in arrival time over targets which were often well dispersed when the light blue cavalry eventually appeared over the horizon is but one of many similar instances in the past and will be repeated in the future. Agreement to the use of such foreign fields may not always be relied on - what, pray crabs, are you going to do then ? Mount another thousand tanker fiasco to allow another single Vulcan to inflict minimal damage by missing its target with the majority of its weapons again in another PR stunt ? Sorry must have forgotten that the last remaining Vulcan is now grounded !
Come on, fess up; the aircraft carrier positioned tactically close to the target be it (target!) on land or sea packs a much better punch in and on time than shore based aircraft operating often at the limit of their range. During the Indonesian confrontation of many moons ago two carriers were permanently on station for long periods of time away from the UK. Vulcan crews with their aircraft rotated out and back from the UK every few weeks at vast expense during that period so that the poor luvvies in light blue were not away from their families for too long. I could go on but I rest my case. A blinding glimpse of the obvious is sufficient to speak for itself !
Don't forget " Si vis pacem para bellum " Bring on our 2 new carriers - with, eventually, their embarked aircraft, hopefully manned by dark blue aviators to boot!
FLY NAVY !
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear
Sailor,
Such amusing posts. Your obvious dislike for all things light blue destroys and credibility you have. I could spend many a post attacking the weaknessss of the RN both those observed in almost 20 years in service and those that I believe exist. I would not do so as despite those issues I respect the service and it's people immensely. That comes of working with and for so many dark blue people. Whatever perverted ex or serving RN cliche you come from please go back there.
Such amusing posts. Your obvious dislike for all things light blue destroys and credibility you have. I could spend many a post attacking the weaknessss of the RN both those observed in almost 20 years in service and those that I believe exist. I would not do so as despite those issues I respect the service and it's people immensely. That comes of working with and for so many dark blue people. Whatever perverted ex or serving RN cliche you come from please go back there.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I postulate that the "sunshine island" is most probably Grenada and I'll leave it at that.
A documented history of hilarious paranoia, RAF hatred and a self-evident level of tactical knowledge more suited to the Jurassic period. I believe there's a rather self-indulgent book out about Shar-man's experts down in the South Atlantic. If you can stomach the hubris it is a rather entertaining read but naturally one man's story isn't necessarily all truthful.
Seletar. The RN boys and girls I know today are brilliant. Unfortunately it's the dinosaurs that peddle most of the vitriol. I'm just glad more and more of the younger generation do a sideways look at those types and crack on with the job.
A documented history of hilarious paranoia, RAF hatred and a self-evident level of tactical knowledge more suited to the Jurassic period. I believe there's a rather self-indulgent book out about Shar-man's experts down in the South Atlantic. If you can stomach the hubris it is a rather entertaining read but naturally one man's story isn't necessarily all truthful.
Seletar. The RN boys and girls I know today are brilliant. Unfortunately it's the dinosaurs that peddle most of the vitriol. I'm just glad more and more of the younger generation do a sideways look at those types and crack on with the job.
Sailor,
I didn't just accuse you of ranting, sailor, I accused you of writing "a hell of a TRIBAL rant." But if you refute my accusation, that's alright then.
Well, it would have been a refutation had you presented any evidence to support your position that the loss of the Harrier was a result of "a gross abuse of authority" and that, somehow, it was a Royal Air Force conspiracy (sorry, "skulduggery"). Judging by your declared age, assuming that there are facts in your profile, you were retired long before all your "actual factual events" took place; you weren't in the Forces, let alone the Headquarters when all these "events" took place, I was. You didn't see the joint effort that went into forming JF2000 and its successor at all levels. You didn't see the determination from both shades of blue to make it work for the good. There was no subterfuge.
You overlook the part your own 2-Star and other senior Naval Officers played in the Harrier disposal. Shifting the blame to the RAF is cynical and unfounded and is rather typical of your whole position; conveniently ignoring the bits of each "fact" that does not support your position. When the choice was between Harrier (300nm combat radius, 3650kg weapons) and Tornado (870nm combat radius, 9000kg weapons) the military and the politicians went for the obvious choice. The RAF had a lot to lose in the Harrier, so was certainly not what they would have chosen had it not been a "one or the other" choice. Again, the RN did not fight that hard, largely because the choice was that obvious and they had already set their gaze on two new carriers and a new VSTOL airframe.
I don't think anyone would disagree about the advantages of having a carrier with an embarked air wing for out of area ops if there are no land bases available. Your reference to Libya is completely, and I suspect deliberately, cynical. The RAF was not just sitting in Gioia del Colle launching the occasional mission that arrived too late to do any good. The national contribution to the coalition effort included 10 Typhoon and 16 Tornado, Sentinel R1 and Nimrod R1, VC10 Tankers and AWACS. The Royal Navy deployed 2 frigates, two attack submarines, a destroyer and a minesweeper. But all that was a small part of a massive coalition force and assets were tasked by the coalition.
There is no certainty that the UK's carrier with its air wing (had it existed) would have been employed in the manner you suggest. For example, despite the fact that the French deployed Charles de Gaulle, it was l'Armée de l'Air that flew the greatest number of strike missions in the operation - 35% of all the NATO strikes. Your suggestion that if the UK had been able to field a carrier it would have been deployed to the Libyan coast and negated the coalition need to use anything else is, frankly, naive and unfounded. It would have been deployed as the coalition saw fit and would have been tasked accordingly along side the USAF's A-10s, B-2s, Harriers, F-15Es and F-16s. Not an exhaustive list and I certainly don't intend to spend more time attempting to catalogue them all here.
As for the remainder of your two contributions to this thread, I would say only this. I think the first one is a tribal rant because it is clearly dripping with bile and is a disjointed collection of unfounded statements that appear to show how badly the RAF does things - despite describing some RAF Harrier pilots as individually "not all bad... ...very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem". Very magnanimous of you. Your considerable effort to refer to the RAF as "crabs" as many times as possible and the use of other disparaging phrases makes your contribution look more like hate mail than reasoned argument.
One last thing. I don't know what things were like in your old days, but the Forces have moved on a lot in the (what, 25, 26?) years since you left and your idea of fighting the other services more than the enemy is, thankfully, confined to the history books - although I'm sure there will be a few dinosaurs here that will be able to contribute more on that.
I didn't just accuse you of ranting, sailor, I accused you of writing "a hell of a TRIBAL rant." But if you refute my accusation, that's alright then.
Well, it would have been a refutation had you presented any evidence to support your position that the loss of the Harrier was a result of "a gross abuse of authority" and that, somehow, it was a Royal Air Force conspiracy (sorry, "skulduggery"). Judging by your declared age, assuming that there are facts in your profile, you were retired long before all your "actual factual events" took place; you weren't in the Forces, let alone the Headquarters when all these "events" took place, I was. You didn't see the joint effort that went into forming JF2000 and its successor at all levels. You didn't see the determination from both shades of blue to make it work for the good. There was no subterfuge.
You overlook the part your own 2-Star and other senior Naval Officers played in the Harrier disposal. Shifting the blame to the RAF is cynical and unfounded and is rather typical of your whole position; conveniently ignoring the bits of each "fact" that does not support your position. When the choice was between Harrier (300nm combat radius, 3650kg weapons) and Tornado (870nm combat radius, 9000kg weapons) the military and the politicians went for the obvious choice. The RAF had a lot to lose in the Harrier, so was certainly not what they would have chosen had it not been a "one or the other" choice. Again, the RN did not fight that hard, largely because the choice was that obvious and they had already set their gaze on two new carriers and a new VSTOL airframe.
I don't think anyone would disagree about the advantages of having a carrier with an embarked air wing for out of area ops if there are no land bases available. Your reference to Libya is completely, and I suspect deliberately, cynical. The RAF was not just sitting in Gioia del Colle launching the occasional mission that arrived too late to do any good. The national contribution to the coalition effort included 10 Typhoon and 16 Tornado, Sentinel R1 and Nimrod R1, VC10 Tankers and AWACS. The Royal Navy deployed 2 frigates, two attack submarines, a destroyer and a minesweeper. But all that was a small part of a massive coalition force and assets were tasked by the coalition.
There is no certainty that the UK's carrier with its air wing (had it existed) would have been employed in the manner you suggest. For example, despite the fact that the French deployed Charles de Gaulle, it was l'Armée de l'Air that flew the greatest number of strike missions in the operation - 35% of all the NATO strikes. Your suggestion that if the UK had been able to field a carrier it would have been deployed to the Libyan coast and negated the coalition need to use anything else is, frankly, naive and unfounded. It would have been deployed as the coalition saw fit and would have been tasked accordingly along side the USAF's A-10s, B-2s, Harriers, F-15Es and F-16s. Not an exhaustive list and I certainly don't intend to spend more time attempting to catalogue them all here.
As for the remainder of your two contributions to this thread, I would say only this. I think the first one is a tribal rant because it is clearly dripping with bile and is a disjointed collection of unfounded statements that appear to show how badly the RAF does things - despite describing some RAF Harrier pilots as individually "not all bad... ...very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem". Very magnanimous of you. Your considerable effort to refer to the RAF as "crabs" as many times as possible and the use of other disparaging phrases makes your contribution look more like hate mail than reasoned argument.
One last thing. I don't know what things were like in your old days, but the Forces have moved on a lot in the (what, 25, 26?) years since you left and your idea of fighting the other services more than the enemy is, thankfully, confined to the history books - although I'm sure there will be a few dinosaurs here that will be able to contribute more on that.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 13th Feb 2016 at 22:13.
One key and oft forgotten point about GR9 vs GR4 is that had GR4 been scrapped, the GR9 would have gone straight to HERRICK and ELLAMY etc. There would still have been no RN carrier operations because we'd have had to commit pretty much the entire force to land based operations to support existing commitments.
Its also forgotten that Ark Royal was only due to run on for another couple of years, that LUSTY was doing LPH work while OCEAN was in refit and that even if GR9 was kept, we'd have had maybe 2, possibly 3 years worth of an ability to put one carrier to sea occasionally with a few (maybe 6) harriers onboard.
I'm as dark blue as they come having served in the Naval Service, but even I can see that GR4 vs GR9 is a total no brainer.
Its also forgotten that Ark Royal was only due to run on for another couple of years, that LUSTY was doing LPH work while OCEAN was in refit and that even if GR9 was kept, we'd have had maybe 2, possibly 3 years worth of an ability to put one carrier to sea occasionally with a few (maybe 6) harriers onboard.
I'm as dark blue as they come having served in the Naval Service, but even I can see that GR4 vs GR9 is a total no brainer.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find Sailors contribution utterly depressing..
after all these years he still thinks the PRINCIPAL ENEMY of the Royal Nay is the RAF......
sad, sad, sad......................
after all these years he still thinks the PRINCIPAL ENEMY of the Royal Nay is the RAF......
sad, sad, sad......................
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil, I commend your post to the House. As you, Jimlad and MSOCS suggest, sailor's thinking, apart from being unbelievably venomous, is outdated, selectively factual and badly informed. Many of us here will be intrigued to see how he supports his arguments now that they have been put into the context of modern warfare and his use of apocryphal anecdotes exposed.
Perhaps we'll get more vitriol, a complete change of tack or simply an ignore in the hope the facts as you presented them will just go away.
Perhaps we'll get more vitriol, a complete change of tack or simply an ignore in the hope the facts as you presented them will just go away.
Originally Posted by MSOCS
I postulate that the "sunshine island" is most probably Grenada and I'll leave it at that
I note that he hasn't managed to respond to a reasoned argument against his rant. I suspect this is someone trolling.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More facts
Interesting to see the number of responses aimed at the individual as opposed to accepting and acknowledging wrongdoings, cheating and other malpractices exercised by the brethren in light blue; facts cannot be denied whilst opinions may vary.
Naval squadron disembarked to RAF Tengah to support those taking part in the Indonesian confrontation accommodated in a tent close to the runway threshold. Sleep impossible due constant traffic at takeoff power and less so for landings; CO - Lt Cdr - on seeking better accommodation was told that making cabins - rooms perhaps in light blue terminology - available to naval aviators would mean that Pilot Officers would be required to double up and this was not acceptable. CO points to his 2&1/2 stripes and advises that those poor dears were outranked and we were very ungraciously finally accommodated properly.
Javelin outfit from UK demanded a month's day-flying familiarisation with the local Malayan area before undertaking nightflying and were granted it, whilst we Naval aviators straight off the carrier went straight into night operations. Another example of the endearing qualities so frequently evinced by our "brothers in arms".
Ask any pongo in Borneo or its environs at that time for the response they would get to a request for light blue helicopter support on a Wednesday afternoon or weekend. Before long they did not bother but went directly to the Naval choppers available knowing they would turn out for them.
These are just a few more examples at coalface level that might possibly indicate why I and a lot of my contemporaries hold crabs in roughly the same regard as we do politicians.
You want more examples ? There are plenty.
PS. Wrong island by a hemisphere - about as accurate as the crab Hunters' rockets aimed at the Torrey Canyon !!
Naval squadron disembarked to RAF Tengah to support those taking part in the Indonesian confrontation accommodated in a tent close to the runway threshold. Sleep impossible due constant traffic at takeoff power and less so for landings; CO - Lt Cdr - on seeking better accommodation was told that making cabins - rooms perhaps in light blue terminology - available to naval aviators would mean that Pilot Officers would be required to double up and this was not acceptable. CO points to his 2&1/2 stripes and advises that those poor dears were outranked and we were very ungraciously finally accommodated properly.
Javelin outfit from UK demanded a month's day-flying familiarisation with the local Malayan area before undertaking nightflying and were granted it, whilst we Naval aviators straight off the carrier went straight into night operations. Another example of the endearing qualities so frequently evinced by our "brothers in arms".
Ask any pongo in Borneo or its environs at that time for the response they would get to a request for light blue helicopter support on a Wednesday afternoon or weekend. Before long they did not bother but went directly to the Naval choppers available knowing they would turn out for them.
These are just a few more examples at coalface level that might possibly indicate why I and a lot of my contemporaries hold crabs in roughly the same regard as we do politicians.
You want more examples ? There are plenty.
PS. Wrong island by a hemisphere - about as accurate as the crab Hunters' rockets aimed at the Torrey Canyon !!
Last edited by sailor; 28th Feb 2016 at 15:03. Reason: Afterthought