PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in
Old 5th Feb 2009, 21:52
  #39 (permalink)  
Norman Stanley Fletcher
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am a former member of HM Forces who flew in the first Gulf War in the same unit as the then Wg Cdr Torpy (a top bloke much loved by his guys I should say). I was a junior officer while Messrs Torpy and Stirrup where advancing up the system! The slight snag is they are both old recce mates who have done a lot of mutual back scratching along the way. The problem with that is yer man Jock will back his mate Glenn to the hilt in any dispute with the Navy - or indeed anyone else. All very touching as that is, it does not mean the best interests of the UK are met.

Having long retired, I have become acutely aware of the alarmingly parochial and 'small picture' view of the world taken by nearly all senior officers in our Armed Forces. Loathe as I am to admit it, there is an infinitely greater chance of a politician taking the right decision than high ranking officers who will invariably make bad decisions based on local interests. How did decisions ever get made, for example, to leave a cannon out of the Typhoon (since recinded I believe), guns off a ground-attack Harrier or ECM off a Tornado F3? These were all decisions taken by senior RAF Officers which anyone with a brain in their head could see were incredibly foolish. It is equally foolish to remove carrier-based fast jets off our inventory. No one knows where the next conflict will be, but we can say with absolute certainty that we will have the wrong equipment to fight it. It would be good to see that trend reversed if at all possible. Let Torps resign but keep the carrier-based capability.
Norman Stanley Fletcher is offline