Big decisions looming?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere quite near Brize Norton
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, but couldn't the full 232 RAF Typhoon order be justified in itself by also replacing the Tornado GR4 with Typhoon?
Obviously the full batch 3 swing role version would be required, but this is more than capable of carrying almost all of the Tornado GR4 weapons - Storm Shadow, Brimestone, etc. All that remains is the RAPTOR pod . . . & Alarm ??
Makes sense: Single operating type, centralised pilot training/conversion & lower maintenance costs ...
Isn't the FOA (Tornado GR4 replacement) project deemed to be a JSF / Typhoon platform anyway?? Buy now . . . save later! Well, that's the theory anyway . . .
I'm not blue ... I just make the tea ...
Obviously the full batch 3 swing role version would be required, but this is more than capable of carrying almost all of the Tornado GR4 weapons - Storm Shadow, Brimestone, etc. All that remains is the RAPTOR pod . . . & Alarm ??
Makes sense: Single operating type, centralised pilot training/conversion & lower maintenance costs ...
Isn't the FOA (Tornado GR4 replacement) project deemed to be a JSF / Typhoon platform anyway?? Buy now . . . save later! Well, that's the theory anyway . . .
I'm not blue ... I just make the tea ...
Suspicion breeds confidence
Jacko, I admire your desire to outsource key defence capabilities to other nations. The F-35 is a strike a/c first and a fighter second. Since the design has not yet been finished, to claim that it will be inferior in all roles to a plane originally conceived 20 years before it is something of a sweeping statement. Raptor replaces the F-15 and the F-35 replaces just about everything else. It will be no less good than any of the types it replaces and probably much better. Its BVR capability will be more than adequate, especially with the next block of AMRAAMs that are being designed for it.
The Navy has no need for it to carry Storm Shadow that capability will be provided and exceeded by TacTom from SSNs. Better to have more room for other PGMs.
The Navy has no need for it to carry Storm Shadow that capability will be provided and exceeded by TacTom from SSNs. Better to have more room for other PGMs.
This might interest you:
CVF stuff
There's a lot of stuff there nd it is very comprehensive. I didn't write it, and it goes above my head, so don't ask me difficult questions....
CVF stuff
There's a lot of stuff there nd it is very comprehensive. I didn't write it, and it goes above my head, so don't ask me difficult questions....
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"CVA-01 vs TSR.2/F-111K"
You can blame Earl Mountbottom for that. He was the chief TSR2 assasin.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: portsmouth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha plenty of vitriol as expected.
I dont have the time for a full reply unfortunately - however I will say this:
Until we start to see things in a much more purple fashion we will continue to be targets of cuts as back biting and in-fighting dilute the military message to the Mandarins. We should be shouting, with one voice, if you want a job doing give us the tools and investment to achieve it REGARDLESS OF SERVICE.
If we want a homeland defence force (and i am not denying that may be the most viable option) then Typhoon should take the biggest slice of cake and the carriers should, of course, dissapear. If on the other hand we require the ability to influence world events we need the carriers/JSF combo. Typhoon is a legacy platform - designed for a Cold War scenario, doubt this and show your parochially focussed ignorance.
For those who misquoted me I was not holding up the Falklands as some form of 'how brilliant is the Navy' i merely removed it from the argument by stating that we have had successes in the Amphibious realm SINCE the Falklands.
As for undeveloped capability - that refers exactly to the Typhoon AS employability - and if that role is so important what the hell happened to Sea Eagly, a bloody capable weapon.
I am not a Dark Blue Barmy Gimp. I see the arguments for both, I certainly see the limitations of the current CVS and Fleet structure, I also see the incredible value of having a FJ force that can project power - anywhere in the world. I recognise that HNS is not always required but also know that is is not always available when required. in these circumstances we will need a robust Tanker Fleet to support any long distance action, unless of course we base such power projection assets on a floating airfield off the enemy coast. What a damn shame the Typhoon design would not seem to have the capacity to be adapted for CV operations (Thta would also stop the CTOL/VSTOL argument)
Sick of this argument now, my Gin is getting warm.
"AP3000? Read it, Typhoon all the way!"
Maple 01 - Doctrine should never be platform based, a much thorough reading by you is required!
"Current policy may be based on Expeditionary Warfare, but more importantly it\'s based on coalition warfare, and since we never do anything without Uncle Sam or NATO (or both) plenty of other people can fill the carrier gap, if it\'s required."
Jackonicko - over 1500 posts and such a doofus! Those same people fill the gap that Typhoon might (if all goes really well) be able to fulfil)
"If we can afford it without unacceptable reductions to more useful, more cost effective elements in the force structure, I\'d welcome the carriers as a useful, if specialised club for the Golf Bag, but if it\'s either/or, you\'d have to be mad, blinkered or blind to select carriers over bought and paid for Typhoons."
Jackonicko again. Just because something is bought and paid for does not, in any way, mean it is useful. I could draw a parallel with Betamax!
Anyway Gin now refilled with a healthy dose of ice!!!!
I dont have the time for a full reply unfortunately - however I will say this:
Until we start to see things in a much more purple fashion we will continue to be targets of cuts as back biting and in-fighting dilute the military message to the Mandarins. We should be shouting, with one voice, if you want a job doing give us the tools and investment to achieve it REGARDLESS OF SERVICE.
If we want a homeland defence force (and i am not denying that may be the most viable option) then Typhoon should take the biggest slice of cake and the carriers should, of course, dissapear. If on the other hand we require the ability to influence world events we need the carriers/JSF combo. Typhoon is a legacy platform - designed for a Cold War scenario, doubt this and show your parochially focussed ignorance.
For those who misquoted me I was not holding up the Falklands as some form of 'how brilliant is the Navy' i merely removed it from the argument by stating that we have had successes in the Amphibious realm SINCE the Falklands.
As for undeveloped capability - that refers exactly to the Typhoon AS employability - and if that role is so important what the hell happened to Sea Eagly, a bloody capable weapon.
I am not a Dark Blue Barmy Gimp. I see the arguments for both, I certainly see the limitations of the current CVS and Fleet structure, I also see the incredible value of having a FJ force that can project power - anywhere in the world. I recognise that HNS is not always required but also know that is is not always available when required. in these circumstances we will need a robust Tanker Fleet to support any long distance action, unless of course we base such power projection assets on a floating airfield off the enemy coast. What a damn shame the Typhoon design would not seem to have the capacity to be adapted for CV operations (Thta would also stop the CTOL/VSTOL argument)
Sick of this argument now, my Gin is getting warm.
"AP3000? Read it, Typhoon all the way!"
Maple 01 - Doctrine should never be platform based, a much thorough reading by you is required!
"Current policy may be based on Expeditionary Warfare, but more importantly it\'s based on coalition warfare, and since we never do anything without Uncle Sam or NATO (or both) plenty of other people can fill the carrier gap, if it\'s required."
Jackonicko - over 1500 posts and such a doofus! Those same people fill the gap that Typhoon might (if all goes really well) be able to fulfil)
"If we can afford it without unacceptable reductions to more useful, more cost effective elements in the force structure, I\'d welcome the carriers as a useful, if specialised club for the Golf Bag, but if it\'s either/or, you\'d have to be mad, blinkered or blind to select carriers over bought and paid for Typhoons."
Jackonicko again. Just because something is bought and paid for does not, in any way, mean it is useful. I could draw a parallel with Betamax!
Anyway Gin now refilled with a healthy dose of ice!!!!
"Typhoon is a legacy platform - designed for a Cold War scenario, doubt this and show your parochially focussed ignorance."
And what was the Cold War requirement?
To defeat 'son of Su-27' with a favourable enough exchange rate to counter enemy numbers. Which means that the aircraft can defeat the same threat (developed Su-27 assuming parity in radar and missiles) with a favourable enough exchange rate not to generate body bags in large enough numbers to alienate public confidence.
To be a multi-role air-to-air and air-to-mud fighter. Which means that it's still a multi-role air-to-air and air-to-mud fighter.
To be deployable, maintainable and supportable, and to be suitable for rapid reinforcement of the NATO Northern and Southern flanks with minimal support. Do I really have to explain the relevance of this in the post Cold War World.
To deliver capability in a timely and cost effective manner.
Fast Jets like Typhoon were NEEDED in Granby, Telic, and all the various post Cold War ops in the Balkans. We used carriers a couple of times, but they were never NEEDED. Which is supposed to be the white elephant again?
You say: "Until we start to see things in a much more purple fashion we will continue to be targets of cuts as back biting and in-fighting dilute the military message to the Mandarins. We should be shouting, with one voice, if you want a job doing give us the tools and investment to achieve it REGARDLESS OF SERVICE." But you only want that if the 'purple' solution floats and is painted an ugly shade of grey.
If we "require the ability to influence world events" we need the capabilities that make us the most valued contributors to a coalition, every time, providing the assets that are needed most often, and in the greatest numbers, or that other partners can't provide. Being able to supply a small carrier, with a skinny air wing doesn't really offer that when the US can deploy any number of bigger, harder hitting Air Wings. But being able to provide tankers, recce, SEAD and multi-role FJs is useful, and does allow us the influence you crave.
If we "require the ability to influence world events" we need assets that will get there on time, and that's seldom likely to be a carrier, especially if you only have two of them. Except in the Falklands, the carriers have never got there before land based air power did, or could have done.
You call me a 'doofus' and claim not to be a 'a Dark Blue Barmy Gimp'. Wrong on both counts!
You ask: "What the hell happened to Sea Eagly, a bloody capable weapon." My understanding is that it was not felt to be a good post Cold War, 'Littoral' weapon, and that any replacement that was (eg Kormoran) would be unaffordable.
You say: "What a damn shame the Typhoon design would not seem to have the capacity to be adapted for CV operations (Thta would also stop the CTOL/VSTOL argument)." It's actually easily adaptable, and a 'Marinised Eurofighter' was studied for FCBA. It required relatively minor alterations (including a podded main gear, a new nose gear, a periscope for high incidence approaches) and imposing a surprisingly small weight penalty (+340 kg for Ski-jump ops, +460 kg for Catapault ops).
And what was the Cold War requirement?
To defeat 'son of Su-27' with a favourable enough exchange rate to counter enemy numbers. Which means that the aircraft can defeat the same threat (developed Su-27 assuming parity in radar and missiles) with a favourable enough exchange rate not to generate body bags in large enough numbers to alienate public confidence.
To be a multi-role air-to-air and air-to-mud fighter. Which means that it's still a multi-role air-to-air and air-to-mud fighter.
To be deployable, maintainable and supportable, and to be suitable for rapid reinforcement of the NATO Northern and Southern flanks with minimal support. Do I really have to explain the relevance of this in the post Cold War World.
To deliver capability in a timely and cost effective manner.
Fast Jets like Typhoon were NEEDED in Granby, Telic, and all the various post Cold War ops in the Balkans. We used carriers a couple of times, but they were never NEEDED. Which is supposed to be the white elephant again?
You say: "Until we start to see things in a much more purple fashion we will continue to be targets of cuts as back biting and in-fighting dilute the military message to the Mandarins. We should be shouting, with one voice, if you want a job doing give us the tools and investment to achieve it REGARDLESS OF SERVICE." But you only want that if the 'purple' solution floats and is painted an ugly shade of grey.
If we "require the ability to influence world events" we need the capabilities that make us the most valued contributors to a coalition, every time, providing the assets that are needed most often, and in the greatest numbers, or that other partners can't provide. Being able to supply a small carrier, with a skinny air wing doesn't really offer that when the US can deploy any number of bigger, harder hitting Air Wings. But being able to provide tankers, recce, SEAD and multi-role FJs is useful, and does allow us the influence you crave.
If we "require the ability to influence world events" we need assets that will get there on time, and that's seldom likely to be a carrier, especially if you only have two of them. Except in the Falklands, the carriers have never got there before land based air power did, or could have done.
You call me a 'doofus' and claim not to be a 'a Dark Blue Barmy Gimp'. Wrong on both counts!
You ask: "What the hell happened to Sea Eagly, a bloody capable weapon." My understanding is that it was not felt to be a good post Cold War, 'Littoral' weapon, and that any replacement that was (eg Kormoran) would be unaffordable.
You say: "What a damn shame the Typhoon design would not seem to have the capacity to be adapted for CV operations (Thta would also stop the CTOL/VSTOL argument)." It's actually easily adaptable, and a 'Marinised Eurofighter' was studied for FCBA. It required relatively minor alterations (including a podded main gear, a new nose gear, a periscope for high incidence approaches) and imposing a surprisingly small weight penalty (+340 kg for Ski-jump ops, +460 kg for Catapault ops).
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the light blue contingent are arguing that the Typhoon is more important and the dark blue are arguing that the carrier capability is important, then if we consider the expertise of the two sets of professionals (bearing in mind single-service bias) we can assume that both are vitally important.
The problem is therefore not at this level but higher up. Both programmes are necessary and it is up to HMG to ensure that appropriate defence capabilites are provided. The Army have succumbed to regimental divide-and-conquer; it is counterproductive to have an inter-service slanging match on kit capability.
The fault lies firmly with HMG, specifically MoD and Treasury. We need commanders with the b@lls to say "we need this kit; if we don't get it we are incapable of meeting the full potential range of threats to our security or national interest; I will therefore popping round shortly to tender my resignation on the way to the Channel 4 News studio in this election year."
The problem is therefore not at this level but higher up. Both programmes are necessary and it is up to HMG to ensure that appropriate defence capabilites are provided. The Army have succumbed to regimental divide-and-conquer; it is counterproductive to have an inter-service slanging match on kit capability.
The fault lies firmly with HMG, specifically MoD and Treasury. We need commanders with the b@lls to say "we need this kit; if we don't get it we are incapable of meeting the full potential range of threats to our security or national interest; I will therefore popping round shortly to tender my resignation on the way to the Channel 4 News studio in this election year."
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, if a senior officer, of, say 3-star rank were to make such a threat and carry it through, what would be their financial position? Do they retire on full pay? Remain on the active list?
I am talking about in military terms here rather than what impact such an action might have on any subsequent sinecures, directorships etc.
I would suspect that the line taken by most of those with an opportunity to make a statement by resigning would be along the lines of 'better to fight from within'. However, I can't help thinking that most of our stars are pretty quiet about things which must really be p*ssing them off!
I am talking about in military terms here rather than what impact such an action might have on any subsequent sinecures, directorships etc.
I would suspect that the line taken by most of those with an opportunity to make a statement by resigning would be along the lines of 'better to fight from within'. However, I can't help thinking that most of our stars are pretty quiet about things which must really be p*ssing them off!
Useful kit is being sacrificed in all three services in order to avoid the slaughter of particular sacred cows. This is not conducive to intelligent procurement decisions.
The in service and support costs of Trident are huge, yet nobody is prepared to look at whether the system has any real relevance in the post Cold War world. Regardless of their military utility, some defend the Carriers for their tokenistic importance, and for the Blue Water navy delusions they represent.
Despite cuts, we still have large amounts of armour and large numbers of old fashioned, relatively heavy, non-mobile infantry batallions, as well as a hugely expensive Household Division expensively barracked in London, of all places.
Regardless of their usefulness and utility some support Typhoon, A400M and MRA4 because they are glamorous and high tech, and because they want to go down as the CAS/AOC/whatever on whose watch the RAF received the ******.
Cost effectively extending the life of in service systems to maximise the return on the taxpayer's investment, maintaining force structure to minimise overstretch, and 'telling it like it is' are obviously just not career and reputation enhancing for some of our senior officers. Thus no-one bats an eye when a Tornado with only 3,000 FH 'on the clock' becomes a gate guard (or pots and pans).....
The argument shouldn't be about carriers or Typhoon, it should be about whether we should be quite so sanguine in accepting a reduction to 12 or fewer FJ squadrons as being a price worth paying to modernise the type holding. I don't recall a time when the FJ force was deployed more often, yet it has never been smaller than it is now. How many FJ units did the RAF have on the eve of Granby? Was the force too big then? How big is it now? Is there, or is there not overstretch.
And I can't understand why this is still happening, since I can't remember when we had such high calibre, honourable, decent and intelligent men at CAS, C-in-C and Group AOC level. Is the culture too badly broken for individuals (even at these exalted levels) to make a difference.
The problem is that defence spending is just too easy to cut or limit, and no-one is willing to vote for the higher taxes that would be required to fund it properly.
The in service and support costs of Trident are huge, yet nobody is prepared to look at whether the system has any real relevance in the post Cold War world. Regardless of their military utility, some defend the Carriers for their tokenistic importance, and for the Blue Water navy delusions they represent.
Despite cuts, we still have large amounts of armour and large numbers of old fashioned, relatively heavy, non-mobile infantry batallions, as well as a hugely expensive Household Division expensively barracked in London, of all places.
Regardless of their usefulness and utility some support Typhoon, A400M and MRA4 because they are glamorous and high tech, and because they want to go down as the CAS/AOC/whatever on whose watch the RAF received the ******.
Cost effectively extending the life of in service systems to maximise the return on the taxpayer's investment, maintaining force structure to minimise overstretch, and 'telling it like it is' are obviously just not career and reputation enhancing for some of our senior officers. Thus no-one bats an eye when a Tornado with only 3,000 FH 'on the clock' becomes a gate guard (or pots and pans).....
The argument shouldn't be about carriers or Typhoon, it should be about whether we should be quite so sanguine in accepting a reduction to 12 or fewer FJ squadrons as being a price worth paying to modernise the type holding. I don't recall a time when the FJ force was deployed more often, yet it has never been smaller than it is now. How many FJ units did the RAF have on the eve of Granby? Was the force too big then? How big is it now? Is there, or is there not overstretch.
And I can't understand why this is still happening, since I can't remember when we had such high calibre, honourable, decent and intelligent men at CAS, C-in-C and Group AOC level. Is the culture too badly broken for individuals (even at these exalted levels) to make a difference.
The problem is that defence spending is just too easy to cut or limit, and no-one is willing to vote for the higher taxes that would be required to fund it properly.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this picture thought it might be of interest! 
"Navalised Eurofighter Typhoon of 899NAS with tail hook down doing a slow pass by a CVF. A sight now unlikely to ever be seen!"
Enjoy!
"Navalised Eurofighter Typhoon of 899NAS with tail hook down doing a slow pass by a CVF. A sight now unlikely to ever be seen!"
Enjoy!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
But being able to provide tankers, recce, SEAD and multi-role FJs is useful, and does allow us the influence you crave.
And the PR9s are not being replaced when they retire...
And the PR9s are not being replaced when they retire...
.....and FSTA is still years away!
The UAV protaganists doubtless think that their little roboplanes are the way ahead. But not for quite a while, if ever...
Capability gap anyone?
The UAV protaganists doubtless think that their little roboplanes are the way ahead. But not for quite a while, if ever...
Capability gap anyone?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I have reviewed the proposed weapons fit for the F-35 and its very comprehensive. I have also re-read the recent changes from the NAQ and they do not affect external carriage of Storm Shadow. It will be cleared for the following US and UK weapons.
* BSU-33
* BSU-49 Ballute
* BSU-85 Ballute (1000 lbs)
* BSU-86/B (mine)
* CBU-103/104/105 (WCDM)
* CBU-78/B Gator
* CBU-87/89/97
* GBU-12 Paveway II
* GBU-31 JDAM (907 kg) and GBU-31 JDAM PIP (F-35A/C only)
* GBU-32 JDAM (450 kg) and GBU-32 JDAM PIP
* Mk.20 Rockeye (Cluster Bomb, 250 kg)
* Mk.62 Quickstrike mine
* Mk.63 Quickstrike (mine)
* Mk.82 bomb (500 lbs)
* Mk.83 bomb (1000 lbs)
* UK 1000 lbs bomb )
* UK 540 lbs LDGB
* UK AIM-132 ASRAAM
* UK Brimstone
* AIM-120 AMRAAM
On the external stations, the following missiles, bombs and tanks can be carried:
* 1815 litre-tank, 2270 litre-tank
* AGM-158 JASSM
* AGM-65 Maverick
* AGM-84D-1 Harpoon
* AGM-84H SLAM-ER
* AGM-88 HARM
* AIM-9X Sidewinder
* BDU-57/58/60 laser-guided training round
* BSU50 Ballute (bomb)
* 20 mm M61belly gun pod (F-35B/C only)
* LAU-10 Rocket Pod
* LAU-61 Rocket Pod
* MXU-648 Cargo Pod
* SUU-20/SUU-5003 practice bomb and rocket dispenser
* UK Paveway IV
* Storm Shadow
* BSU-33
* BSU-49 Ballute
* BSU-85 Ballute (1000 lbs)
* BSU-86/B (mine)
* CBU-103/104/105 (WCDM)
* CBU-78/B Gator
* CBU-87/89/97
* GBU-12 Paveway II
* GBU-31 JDAM (907 kg) and GBU-31 JDAM PIP (F-35A/C only)
* GBU-32 JDAM (450 kg) and GBU-32 JDAM PIP
* Mk.20 Rockeye (Cluster Bomb, 250 kg)
* Mk.62 Quickstrike mine
* Mk.63 Quickstrike (mine)
* Mk.82 bomb (500 lbs)
* Mk.83 bomb (1000 lbs)
* UK 1000 lbs bomb )
* UK 540 lbs LDGB
* UK AIM-132 ASRAAM
* UK Brimstone
* AIM-120 AMRAAM
On the external stations, the following missiles, bombs and tanks can be carried:
* 1815 litre-tank, 2270 litre-tank
* AGM-158 JASSM
* AGM-65 Maverick
* AGM-84D-1 Harpoon
* AGM-84H SLAM-ER
* AGM-88 HARM
* AIM-9X Sidewinder
* BDU-57/58/60 laser-guided training round
* BSU50 Ballute (bomb)
* 20 mm M61belly gun pod (F-35B/C only)
* LAU-10 Rocket Pod
* LAU-61 Rocket Pod
* MXU-648 Cargo Pod
* SUU-20/SUU-5003 practice bomb and rocket dispenser
* UK Paveway IV
* Storm Shadow
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jucky
Good bit of trick photography
Is that the old HMS Albion, now with the Indain Navy?
Beags my bonny lad
Eyebrows Healy was responsible for the demise of the TSR2 (What a silly billy!)
He was the Defence Minister of the only (Labour) Government that ever broke up the jigs and stocks of a British aircraft production line.
Mind you, the MOD didn't help by changing the spec every 5 minutes.
We then went ahead with procurring the F111. which was later cancelled, with a penalty clause of £400m.
As an aside - Healy, Benn and a few other tw*ts were paid up Communist card carrying B*st*rds at the time.
Then that devious sod Wilson resigned overnight without a whiff of whatever from the press?
Not seen any of this released under the 30 years rule yet ?? Ha!
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!
Good bit of trick photography
Is that the old HMS Albion, now with the Indain Navy?
Beags my bonny lad
Eyebrows Healy was responsible for the demise of the TSR2 (What a silly billy!)
He was the Defence Minister of the only (Labour) Government that ever broke up the jigs and stocks of a British aircraft production line.
Mind you, the MOD didn't help by changing the spec every 5 minutes.
We then went ahead with procurring the F111. which was later cancelled, with a penalty clause of £400m.
As an aside - Healy, Benn and a few other tw*ts were paid up Communist card carrying B*st*rds at the time.
Then that devious sod Wilson resigned overnight without a whiff of whatever from the press?
Not seen any of this released under the 30 years rule yet ?? Ha!
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!
buoy15, whilst the announcement was indeed included in that infamous Budget Speech (traditionally delivered without interruption from HM Opposition), the CDS at the time, Earl Mountbottom, undermined the TSR2 at every opportunity in order to further the case for his beloved navy.
Any CDS who acted in such a manner played right into the hands of the politicians - and would certainly have known that.
Mind you, I was able to tell Mountbottom to his face, when I was flying Buccs (or rather struggling with the Bucc OCU course!), that it was a shame that the world-beating TSR2 had been cancelled by people who didn't understand its capability.....
Any CDS who acted in such a manner played right into the hands of the politicians - and would certainly have known that.
Mind you, I was able to tell Mountbottom to his face, when I was flying Buccs (or rather struggling with the Bucc OCU course!), that it was a shame that the world-beating TSR2 had been cancelled by people who didn't understand its capability.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jucky and Beags
Good spot on both accounts!
Just checking
Did the Teabag RTB?
And was that the same speech that stopped the Rum, Bum and Baccy for the RN?
Beags, if you flew the "Brick ****-house" Well done mate!
" Low level is only when your port wing is slicing through a sea state 4 " - Ha!
Good spot on both accounts!
Just checking
Did the Teabag RTB?
And was that the same speech that stopped the Rum, Bum and Baccy for the RN?
Beags, if you flew the "Brick ****-house" Well done mate!
" Low level is only when your port wing is slicing through a sea state 4 " - Ha!