I fail to see what is so controversial regarding the lack of
PR and the Royal Navy, I am in FULL agreement with that sentiment. This has always been the way of the Navy and I guess always will be. Am I criticising the Royal Air Force? Most certainly
NOT, I am the first to look up at the sky and watch in awe as those brilliant men in their flying machines roar by. Three cheers for the RAF and I wish them ever success in their relationships with those that dictate our future. Air displays, lobbying, and any other means of getting our service into the limelight are all excellent ways to sell yourself to one and all including those that control the purse strings. My gripe is NOT with the RAF but more toward the out dated silent service mentality and hoping reputation speaks louder than the lobbying that is clearly what makes the clock tick.
What I do object to in the post submitted by WEBF is the immature urethra flexing that has no place on this forum. Those RAF harrier pilots that took part in the Falklands conflict showed the World how professional all our fast jet pilots were. To suggest, hint or imply one service was better than the other is an insult to all those that served. The grey funnel line proved to its bootneck guardians that it was more than a taxi service, the RAF showed it could do more than be an advert for hair gel… We went, we fought, we kicked butt and we did it as a team.
The Royal Navy is now in danger of becoming a Third world force and the ships we have, no matter how professional the crew can only be in one place at any specific time period. I was reading somewhere that we have just NINETEEN frigates\destroyers to carry out all the commitments HM government throws at us. An aircraft carrier without aircraft is as much use as a gun without bullets but what an expensive gun!!
I served during a period when we had four fixed wing real aircraft carriers, but I guess that was before North Sea oil was not worth as much as it is now
Where has all the money gone?
