Ivor,
You are attacking the person here not the argument. My brief Bio was not to get some form of perverse praise but to emphasise, quite openly, that unlike some armchair strategists on this forum, I know what I am talking about, from experience. You are clearly of the type that requires a very high level of proof before you will ever be convinced of someone else's argument. I am also very much aware of some within the RN, that also don't get it!
With regard to you question about safety, I am sure the Wing Commander that planted his aircraft in the drink whilst trying to do visual circuits at night, in defiance of the advice of the 'naval' element speak volumes. Thankfully, in the latter stages of JFH, such bravado had gone and anyway, I am not here to knock the RAF, who I have much professional respect for and count many amongst my friends. The faults of JFH also lie at the feet of some in the RN as well. Credit should go to those at Squadron level of both cloths who tried their damnedest to make things work in the face of the awful politics of two Services publicly trying to tear each other apart. That is not to say that Naval Aviators are not immune from mistakes at sea, as they are not and are equally at the mercy of the elements and poorly trained crew as anyone else. We could start a whole new thread on safety at sea and pour over the stats for months and months in order to try and prove one service was better than the other but it would be of no merit.
You have clearly lost the point of my post in the noise. The aviation that took place during the days of JFH was not what I would call 'operational'. It largely consisted of visual and radar circuits with the occasional trip to a bombing range. The last time the RN operated fixed wing from the sea in anger, was over Bosnia, where they provided a significant capability in CAP, CAS and RECCE with the FA2 , often filling in for the F3 and others when Italy was clamped. The French also operated in the same space both ashore and afloat. The reason the CVS did not get involved in wider events was because the platform itself was/is compromised. It could not carry the required amount of aircraft and the method of launch plus the deck available limited weapon load, fuel and bring back capability. Were Ark Royal with Cats and Traps (what this whole thread is about) available over the last 30 years I am sure the 'maritime' contribution to both Gulf events, Afghanistan and the Balkan conflict would have been much greater. This is where QEC needs to get to, with an aircraft that has the potential to match the capability of the F4 and Buccaneer even in the Dave B model. A large platform with capable aircraft will provide the UK with a significant piece of mobile territory, that will be able to cover several military tasks in one platform. I care not, the colour of the uniform of those who will fly off QEC, just that those who do, spend a lot more time onboard than JFH did, becuase if they don't, the full capability potential of QEC will never be realised. Both Services need to understand that the other is not a threat. That there is a place for both land based and sea based air and that they are complimentary, not exclusive.
Now, with nearly 1000 posts, it is quite easy to work out who I am, so how about you being a bit more clear on who you are and what your credentials are, so we can put your riposte (see I can use big words too) into context....with only 4 posts to your name, it is a bit more difficult for someone like me, who could never tell the difference between obtuse and acute (SL shag) to work it out you see!..........or were you once my boss? In which case...it all comes clear!
Last edited by Widger; 24th Jun 2012 at 18:10.