Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Dannat's got everyone thinking he's an ace bloke who speaks up for his brownie pack, we might easily forget how dangerous and divisive he is. He's no idiot and must know that the Carriers are Joint assets and intended primarily for expeditionary warfare. This further reinforces my belief that the Army view of "Joint" is Army with access to other Forces budgets.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF properly reported then Dannat has showed that he is incapable of understanding either the MOD budgets decision re. the new carriers (they are for intervention warfare) nor the MOD budget (his "forgetting" that the MOD budget mainly consists of salary and salary related items).
I would be worried if I was a senior army officer that my leader was so incapable of understanding his job.
Maybe he will be stating that only people who learnt how to ride a horse should be promoted to senior positions !
Seriously, this is merely a very poor piece of lobbying by Dannat and he let his rhetoric get carried away (which will mean that the next time he meets his naval colleagues he will be teased mercilessly). But it also shows how successful the MOD has been at setting the service chiefs against each other instead of joining together to make a concerted case for proper funding.
It is worrying just how bad the service chiefs are at strategic thinking.
.
I would be worried if I was a senior army officer that my leader was so incapable of understanding his job.
Maybe he will be stating that only people who learnt how to ride a horse should be promoted to senior positions !
Seriously, this is merely a very poor piece of lobbying by Dannat and he let his rhetoric get carried away (which will mean that the next time he meets his naval colleagues he will be teased mercilessly). But it also shows how successful the MOD has been at setting the service chiefs against each other instead of joining together to make a concerted case for proper funding.
It is worrying just how bad the service chiefs are at strategic thinking.
.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspicion breeds confidence
100% agree Wader2. Our mandate was to remove Al Queda from Afg. That has been done. We are now fighting the locals in their own country. This is a no-win situation. We should leave. Then the good general won't have to worry about his army being overstretched too much. Also we won't need all this new kit ordered under UORs and we can focus on core defence needs. If the US want to play world policeman and pay for it, then that's their choice.
By the way, when we were fighting insurgents in Northern Ireland, how much help did they provide?
By the way, when we were fighting insurgents in Northern Ireland, how much help did they provide?
If CGS is so concerned about needing more infantry, and doesn't think we need "balanced forces" anymore, perhaps he'd like to tell all his Cavalry chums to lay up their tanks for good and convert to the infantry role. After all, although tanks were used in Iraq, they are not being used in 'Stan & by the General's own logic we should equip to fight the war we are fighting now.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" ....... Our mandate was to remove Al Queda from Afg. ,,,,,,, "
No - stop believing the politicans re-writing history.
Apart from some support for the invasion of Afghanistan (e.g. special forces and re-fuelling) our efforsts have ALWAYS been associated with "Nation Building".
The US RESERVED TO ITSELF the fighting of the Taliban/AQ and did not want NATO associatedwith that fighting (although never spelt out the general reasons repoted in the press was for National Pride (i.e. revenge) and also so that they did not have to have a coalition command with NATO members having a veto on some of the more questionable tactics.
Unfortunately the Taliban/AQ wouldn't go along with the US plan and stay in one place to be bombed to bits and so in 2007 (?) there was a new agreement with NATO, but the main fight against the Taliban/AQ is still meant to be the US's. The US likes to paint Afghanistan as a NATO failure, but unfortunately the actual history is that the US failed to do the task they reserved to themselves (destroying the Taliban/AQ) and also failed to provide sufficient forces themselves thus meaning that they needed to get extra NATO forces involved.
NATO's main role is still officially "Nation Building" - the fact that the un-destroyed Taliban is fighting them is a consequence of previous failures.
Just remember what actually happened - not the spin politicans keep spouting. And when being told which nations "failed" or "are failing" in their mission or in providing sufficient forces, just remember what actually happened.
.
No - stop believing the politicans re-writing history.
Apart from some support for the invasion of Afghanistan (e.g. special forces and re-fuelling) our efforsts have ALWAYS been associated with "Nation Building".
The US RESERVED TO ITSELF the fighting of the Taliban/AQ and did not want NATO associatedwith that fighting (although never spelt out the general reasons repoted in the press was for National Pride (i.e. revenge) and also so that they did not have to have a coalition command with NATO members having a veto on some of the more questionable tactics.
Unfortunately the Taliban/AQ wouldn't go along with the US plan and stay in one place to be bombed to bits and so in 2007 (?) there was a new agreement with NATO, but the main fight against the Taliban/AQ is still meant to be the US's. The US likes to paint Afghanistan as a NATO failure, but unfortunately the actual history is that the US failed to do the task they reserved to themselves (destroying the Taliban/AQ) and also failed to provide sufficient forces themselves thus meaning that they needed to get extra NATO forces involved.
NATO's main role is still officially "Nation Building" - the fact that the un-destroyed Taliban is fighting them is a consequence of previous failures.
Just remember what actually happened - not the spin politicans keep spouting. And when being told which nations "failed" or "are failing" in their mission or in providing sufficient forces, just remember what actually happened.
.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably a MONUMENTAL repost but...
.........YouTube - SAILOR + PINK FLOYD Vieques, Puerto Rico Bombing Range
Q. What do these aircraft all have in common?
Q. What do these aircraft all have in common?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Torpy doing really well in his last month.
Tossing hand grenades and firing torpydoes.
In today's Sunday Telegraph (7 Jun) he says that the JSF will be an RAF asset but doesn't quite say that the FAA will disappear. So while Sir Johnathon is fighting the Army to retain his carriers Torpy is sneaking in and nicking his aircraft.
From an engineering and logisitics aspect it perhaps makes sense to concentrate on one organisation. The various contracted flying trainng systems are an example. At an operations or manning level it is quite different. I only want to comment on manning and operations is already well covered.
How do you recruit and retain personnel?
At a very basic level people join the Services for very simple reasons. Soliders join to fight; airmen to fly; the navy to see the world. Soliders expect to deploy; they often expect only to serve for a few years. Airmen expect to be largely static and serve to pension age; Sailors expect to serve on ships and be away on extended operations.
Suddenly your established recruiting concepts are thrown overboard.
Tossing hand grenades and firing torpydoes.
In today's Sunday Telegraph (7 Jun) he says that the JSF will be an RAF asset but doesn't quite say that the FAA will disappear. So while Sir Johnathon is fighting the Army to retain his carriers Torpy is sneaking in and nicking his aircraft.
From an engineering and logisitics aspect it perhaps makes sense to concentrate on one organisation. The various contracted flying trainng systems are an example. At an operations or manning level it is quite different. I only want to comment on manning and operations is already well covered.
How do you recruit and retain personnel?
At a very basic level people join the Services for very simple reasons. Soliders join to fight; airmen to fly; the navy to see the world. Soliders expect to deploy; they often expect only to serve for a few years. Airmen expect to be largely static and serve to pension age; Sailors expect to serve on ships and be away on extended operations.
Suddenly your established recruiting concepts are thrown overboard.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torpy
Threw in my tuppenceworth under a new heading of "Fixed wing " in this forum this day.
Looks like this soon-to-retire plonker is trying to make his mark at others' expense before he goes.
Agree entirely with Pontius' views;chances are that Torpytwit has never been aboard a proper floating runway, let alone experienced a night decklanding in lumpy seas with no diversion in range or spare deck available. In the 70's some of his ilk spent time with the Fleet Air Arm frontline squadrons gaining and enjoying their embarked carrier flying doing just that and did a grand job of which they were rightly proud when they returned to their own outfits. They would talk much more sense after their experience than he does.
Wonder if he has ever heard of Eric "Winkle" Brown or his achievements.
And he is probably browned off -or should that be light-blued off ? - with the present Fly Navy 100 celebrations!
He is helping this useless government in their "divide and rule" strategy between the services and should be required to take a long walk off a short plank ASAP. With a reduced pension.
Looks like this soon-to-retire plonker is trying to make his mark at others' expense before he goes.
Agree entirely with Pontius' views;chances are that Torpytwit has never been aboard a proper floating runway, let alone experienced a night decklanding in lumpy seas with no diversion in range or spare deck available. In the 70's some of his ilk spent time with the Fleet Air Arm frontline squadrons gaining and enjoying their embarked carrier flying doing just that and did a grand job of which they were rightly proud when they returned to their own outfits. They would talk much more sense after their experience than he does.
Wonder if he has ever heard of Eric "Winkle" Brown or his achievements.
And he is probably browned off -or should that be light-blued off ? - with the present Fly Navy 100 celebrations!
He is helping this useless government in their "divide and rule" strategy between the services and should be required to take a long walk off a short plank ASAP. With a reduced pension.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winkle Brown was asked - or chose in the case of the Me163 - to do a lot of daft things, a true research pilot.
He's very against VSTOL / STOVL aircraft though, which surprised me; ' stop then land ' always appealed to me, ( not a pilot, just a test team type ) as well as the Harrier's load carrying abilities - you can stick virtually anything on the pylons, and it will still go on its' fuel guzzling way.
I also asked Winkle why the hell didn't the WW11 Navy use the Hurricane more ? He answered that he wanted something copable to deal with the 190.
My Father was a leading engine mechanic on Seafires at Salerno, with no Wind Over Deck; after 2 days there were 6 aircraft left out of 36 on Unicorn, with no enemy involvment - with it's feeble narrow track gear,
the Spitfire seems a poor choice for use on small carriers.
I'd have thought having a possibly cannon armed & very manourable fighter ( Hurricane ) available to fly, rather than a mangled heap on the foredeck would be an advantage, even against FW 190's...
The last I heard recently on the CVF is we'll be lucky to get one.
He's very against VSTOL / STOVL aircraft though, which surprised me; ' stop then land ' always appealed to me, ( not a pilot, just a test team type ) as well as the Harrier's load carrying abilities - you can stick virtually anything on the pylons, and it will still go on its' fuel guzzling way.
I also asked Winkle why the hell didn't the WW11 Navy use the Hurricane more ? He answered that he wanted something copable to deal with the 190.
My Father was a leading engine mechanic on Seafires at Salerno, with no Wind Over Deck; after 2 days there were 6 aircraft left out of 36 on Unicorn, with no enemy involvment - with it's feeble narrow track gear,
the Spitfire seems a poor choice for use on small carriers.
I'd have thought having a possibly cannon armed & very manourable fighter ( Hurricane ) available to fly, rather than a mangled heap on the foredeck would be an advantage, even against FW 190's...
The last I heard recently on the CVF is we'll be lucky to get one.
If CVF gets canned, the impact on the TOBA that BVT insisted upon prior to signing anything may be instructive......never mind the payment clauses.
Oh, who's that chap popped up again at MoD now the racing seasons over? Is it time for MIS/DIS the New Chapter?
Oh, who's that chap popped up again at MoD now the racing seasons over? Is it time for MIS/DIS the New Chapter?
Personally I am shocked, staggered, cosmically gobsmacked and in a state of utter disbelief. However, since they haven't started to spend the money yet, this has to be a projection on someone's part, and the question is whose.
