Future For The RAF ??!!

[Titan Locked]

Interesting letter in the Times on the future of the RAF !!!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,59-2001221532,00.html

TL

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Ah, bless 'im. Retired as a whole Lt, and still puts it on his letterhead, eh? Nearly stopped reading there, but went on in hope of something with a spot of matelot wit, originality and insight. Reached the point where I had to look for page 2 then realised there wasn't going to be any.

Never mind - can always scan John E's and Arkroyal's contributions just to remind myself that not all fishheads (or WAFUs) are utter ostriches. And I didn't even stoop so low as to point out that the RN have shot down more Army helis than the RAF since the start of the 80s... That's what comes from relying on missiles with no vis-ident backup - a bit like those things the boat people fire. OK, I stooped - sorry.

Shall I remove the fishhook now, Titan? http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/fish.gif

[jet jones]

Is this guy serious or was that some kind of joke??? Well excessive exposure to sea water does contaminate......umm

------------------
live to fly

[Low and Slow]

What drugs is this Neddy on? I want £50 worth, please!

Opinion stated as fact always smacks of agendas. I really can't believe that this man seriously believes what he is saying.

If I was defending him, which I am not, I would suggest that he pleas, "Unbalanced while tired and emotional." :)

Nuff said.

Edytted fur lotas typoffs


[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 28 June 2001).]

[Archimedes]

Mmmmmm. VERY interesting....

The 'FAA have shot down more aircraft than the RAF' line is frequently used - but of course, the point here is that the only air-air shooting war the UK has been in without the USAF was the Falklands. And the top-scoring pilot was the then Flt Lt David Morgan, RAF.

As for Korea, no RAF fighters were sent - but, off the top of my head, I think that several RAF chaps on exchange did get in amongst the MiGs with success. The RAF can hardly be blamed for lack of success when it was a political decision not to deploy fighter units.

I feel a letter coming on....

[sprucemoose]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,

This Charlie obviously slept through 'Allied Force', if his "while air power is a vital supporting asset to armies and navies, it cannot win wars by itself" comment is anything to go by. Didn't see much ass-kicking by the US Army's Apaches there.

Nor that many Tomahawks loosed off by the RN, for that matter. It might be a nice idea to say that sub-launched missiles are all you need, but when you don't have many of them how can you match the, say 1,011 weapons released (however accurately or effectively that might have been) by UK aircraft in '99?

Muppet!

[StiffNose]

Michael must be Paddy McGinty's goat's first name!

[Four 8's]

And the Army had no confirmed kills with Rapier during the Falklands conflict. If Rapier performed so well why did so many vessels receive bomb damage/sink in San Carlos water?

[Scorpius]

It's pretty amazing that Mr McGinty actually got his letter printed in the first place! Any one who has an incling of how the 3 services operate and integrate know how ludicrous his statements are. Ufortunately Mr McGinty there is 1 tiny flaw in your plan - it's b*ll*cks!!!

[Ham Phisted]

Obviously promoted one level above his ability.

[swashplate]

WIND UP ALERT!!!....WIND UP ALERT!!!.... :rolleyes:

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....

[Al Titude]

"it is time to move on..." !!!!!

Has this guy ever visited the planet earth? Bl##dy Navy, never let progress get in the way of tradition.

[UnderPowered]

"Aircraft carriers offer a more rapid.....means of establishing and sustaining an in-theatre airborne capability than land-based squadrons."

So how long does it take for Invincible to get to the Gulf? Last Jag Sqn to go took 3 days (with a day off) to deploy 10 jets with attack, recce and PW II + PW III/TIALD capability. Oh, and they could take off with the stuff on and bring the whole lot back all year round.

[fobotcso]

There's no future in blustering and spluttering here, Guys; write to The Times with your rebuttal.

[herbie3000]

And the jags required a 15,000ft runway to get airborne..oh yes and when the fog rolls in like in Italy hummmm!! Please boys can the carrier cover us. Looking to the future a JSF with 39,000 lbs of thrust will be able to do anything the airforce has now or will have. There USAF and RAF have much in common trying to justify its existance. With the USAF its pretty easy, however, me thinks the RAF is somewhat struggling hence GR7's on the boat. All food for thought, Purple isa the way to go its just a case of everyone accepting it.
Fly Navy

[Audax]

I just feel sorry that the Times saw fit to publish such drivel.

[Alf Aworna]

Hey Herbie 3k, how come if the grey funnel line "carriers" are the way ahead, every time the land harriers worked in the Adriatic they flew from........LAND!!! Go on, tease us with that shipborne hoverjet combat radius, weapons load and loiter time again. Still airfields probably are vastly overrated, I would always advocate go by sea for those rapid deployments, you arrive so much more relaxed and rested :)

[Wholigan]

herbie3000,

No, of course none of us are saying that the JSF will not be more capable than anything we in the RAF have now (if we can afford it and we ever get it!). However, who says it MUST operate from a "boat"? It could operate from anything - it's called the "flexibility of air power" mate! Can't remember if any Navy Doctrine Manuals (now where are they kept again?) talk about the "flexibility of Sea Power" - long time since I read 'em!! In fact. long time since anybody read 'em! :)

Oh yes, the new carriers! When the USN sends a Carrier task force to an area of trouble, I rather think they believe it to be such a valuable asset that they send as many surface and sub-surface vessels in support/protection as the RN owns!! Not that these RN assets are always servicable of course. So what do we do? Do we cancel everything else that is due for the RAF and the Army so that we can afford to build enough sea-going kit to defend the carriers? Or do we use the measly, meagre, penny-piching, soddin' defence budget to try to maintain an all-round capability? Tough decision!

Edited 'cos I missed a word out - it IS early for me! :)

[This message has been edited by Wholigan (edited 29 June 2001).]

[Chinese Vic]

Isn't it more correct that actually the RN were in need of a attack capability the SHAR couldn't give them, so came up with the JFH concept to ensure they had a future? (and of course, two shiny new boats?)
You have to admit that the senior RN chappies were extremely clever in getting the concept in place before SDR so that it dovetailed nicely with the budget restrictions. (Sorry - that supposed to be 'capability requirements'.....!)

[Flatus Veteranus]

The only intriguing thing about the letter is why The Times published it. They normally only print letters from people who are eminent in their field or have special experience. An officer who retired in the rank of Lieutenant from a service that promotes officers on time, rather than merit, to Lieutenant Commander seems unlikely to have met The Times's criteria.

Probably best to ignore the letter. Alternatively reply in equally outrageous vein - eg, the RAF destroyed more U-Boats than the RN in WW2, so perhaps HM warships ought to be sailing under the light blue ensign with roundel.

------------------
presto digitate

[Dead Loss]

While I agree that the content of of McGinty's letter is crass and ill-informed, I have it on reasonable authority that the man is not an unpromotable imbecile (although I can understand why it might seem that way). Apparently he retired from the RN as a Lt on medical grounds. My point - he is just stirring it up and it must have been a slow letter day at The Times.

[Oggin Aviator]

A point to note - Naval aviators have only ever been promoted on merit, not on time. Its the ship drivers that get promoted on time. Promotion is now judged across the board resulting in the FAA being seen off. That way the Navy gets to keep the cockpits manned by junior officers (Lt and below), irrespective how old they are !!

Thats the way I see it anyway.

BTW, I agree with most of what has been said here, not all. In a littoral situation with no host nation support it is unlikely that the tanker support required for FW FJ a/c would be available at a sustainable rate hence the need for Carrier based assets.

Thats the way I saw bits of SDR anyway !!

Any warship sitting off a nation's coast is going to cause it to think of its actions. With a carrier the airfield can move a long way overnight making it stealthy and less vulnerable to attack, unlike shore based airfields. Also you couldn't really dig up GDC or Aviano and transport it ready for flying ops the next day.

Any thoughts ??

------------------

The OA

[RATBOY]

Sorry to burst your bubble but I've had letters published in the Times about things I know NOTHING about.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Thank you , Ratboy, you've just admitted being an ace bullshi**er!

------------------
presto digitate