Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs by Lewis Page
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not if they didn't get attracted towards the RAF in the first place because they didn't realise the opportunities that existed or what a good career the RAF offered before their time with the "flying club"
The fact that you have called it a "flying club" shows what derisable outdated diatribe you are spouting. Under the new system more emphasis is placed on personal development and leadership training than anything else.
The fact that you have called it a "flying club" shows what derisable outdated diatribe you are spouting. Under the new system more emphasis is placed on personal development and leadership training than anything else.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to re-cap.
Norman Nimrod read the book and was surprised by/disagreed with some of its assertions.
Not long now does not appear to have read the book, but helped out with some Nimrod facts.
Former flake again does not appear to have read the book, but doesn't disagree with at least one of the assertions.
Jacko bought "this risible piece of utter rubbish" and has cursorily flicked through one section. Fortunately his journalistic impartiallity has made sure he has in no way prejudged the book. This thoroughness twinned with his vast experience of all branches of the military (well he once got to touch the controls of a Bulldog) means that his professional opinion is a very valid input.
Tablet eraser knuckled down and read a whole review about "this tawdry piece of rubbish" before deciding it was "utter, utter bilge"
He also sagely points out that "As I understand it, this guy has done very little research beyond the raw figures, and fails to offer any sustained, intelligent and well-balanced arguments in support of his opinions" It is fortunate for us that Tablet eraser has carried out so much research and offers so many inteligent and well balanced arguments in support of the Times reviewers opinions which he has thoughtfully parroted for us. Just because he has not read the book does not, of course, invalidate his opinion that no others should read it either.
JTIDS disagreed with the comments about RAF helo people, and appears to have read the book.
Tombstone agrees about the Tornado, hasn't read the book, but suspects that the bloke is a To$$er on principle since he is RN (we love you too)
StuartP thinks its cobblers but finds the anti BAE arguments strangely believable.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point.
Those who have actually read the book, including myself, do not necessarily agree with everything in it, but that does not mean there is not some truth in there also. Read it and decide.
For gods sake don't just believe other people's second/third hand opinions. The Times reviewer may be like Jacko and not have had the basic professionalism to actually read it before spouting an ill judged opinion from a position of no military background!
This reminds me of the satanic verses. None of the muslim world actually read it before demanding it's author be Fatwa'd.
Norman Nimrod read the book and was surprised by/disagreed with some of its assertions.
Not long now does not appear to have read the book, but helped out with some Nimrod facts.
Former flake again does not appear to have read the book, but doesn't disagree with at least one of the assertions.
Jacko bought "this risible piece of utter rubbish" and has cursorily flicked through one section. Fortunately his journalistic impartiallity has made sure he has in no way prejudged the book. This thoroughness twinned with his vast experience of all branches of the military (well he once got to touch the controls of a Bulldog) means that his professional opinion is a very valid input.
Tablet eraser knuckled down and read a whole review about "this tawdry piece of rubbish" before deciding it was "utter, utter bilge"
He also sagely points out that "As I understand it, this guy has done very little research beyond the raw figures, and fails to offer any sustained, intelligent and well-balanced arguments in support of his opinions" It is fortunate for us that Tablet eraser has carried out so much research and offers so many inteligent and well balanced arguments in support of the Times reviewers opinions which he has thoughtfully parroted for us. Just because he has not read the book does not, of course, invalidate his opinion that no others should read it either.
JTIDS disagreed with the comments about RAF helo people, and appears to have read the book.
Tombstone agrees about the Tornado, hasn't read the book, but suspects that the bloke is a To$$er on principle since he is RN (we love you too)
StuartP thinks its cobblers but finds the anti BAE arguments strangely believable.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point.
Those who have actually read the book, including myself, do not necessarily agree with everything in it, but that does not mean there is not some truth in there also. Read it and decide.
For gods sake don't just believe other people's second/third hand opinions. The Times reviewer may be like Jacko and not have had the basic professionalism to actually read it before spouting an ill judged opinion from a position of no military background!
This reminds me of the satanic verses. None of the muslim world actually read it before demanding it's author be Fatwa'd.
Tourist,
You make a superficially good point, in criticising some of us for not having “the basic professionalism to actually read (this book) before spouting an ill judged opinion from a position of no military background!”
I would say, however, that when one finds so many stark and glaring inaccuracies, flawed arguments, and familiar lies and misunderstandings even on cursory examination of two sections of the book, one is entitled to make a preliminary judgement.
Since you choose to personalise this by commenting on my 'vast experience of all branches of the military (well he once got to touch the controls of a Bulldog)' I'd point out that I make no claims of credibility based on my admittedly limited Bulldog time, but on the basis of having been professionally observing and reporting on defence and aerospace since 1984. While everyone on these boards will have much greater knowledge about their own aircraft type, role and community than I will ever have, few will have been exposed to so many types, roles and communities, nor will they have been lucky enough to have had the access I've had, nor over such an extended period.
I do feel qualified to judge Page's assertions about Tornado, for example, having a number of good friends who've flown the jet in action, and having interviewed a dozen more Tornado aircrew who weren't already friends who flew the type during Granby (including all the Det Commanders), and more who flew it in Desert Fox and yet more who flew it in Telic, and having spoken to numerous people within the IPT, BAE, MBDA, etc. One wouldn't need to do anything like that much preparation to demolish Page's claims, however, as a simple examination of the loss rate, and of the causes of each of the losses, would immediately lead any impartial observer to question his conclusions.
I note with interest that while condemning others who have the decency to state the limitations of their own credentials, you skulk behind the anonymity of the phrase 'Wafu loafer'. How are we to assess the scope and extent of your own “vast experience of all branches of the military”, Admiral?
I would absolutely stand by my judgement that Page reveals a strong anti-RAF prejudice (I'll still bet you a pound to a penny that he was binned off his UAS, or didn't get a third year VR) and that he is parroting exactly the kind of ill-informed, highly partial analysis that you'd expect from the a non-specialist, Euro-sceptic 'defence analyst.' While stressing his experience of all three services, I'd say that Page writes like a complete outsider, just like Max Hastings, Piers Morgan or Andrew Gilligan
I was amused that you seemed to be criticising some people for forming a view based on the Sunday Times piece, which you yourself obviously didn't read, as it's pretty gushing and enthusiastic about this ridiculous book!
I say again, when even a cursory examination of a book reveals a succession of flawed and superficial analyses, clichéd and inaccurate accusations, and a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge, it's entirely fair to make a preliminary judgement. And when it comes to things 'light blue', Page's book is entirely risible.
You make a superficially good point, in criticising some of us for not having “the basic professionalism to actually read (this book) before spouting an ill judged opinion from a position of no military background!”
I would say, however, that when one finds so many stark and glaring inaccuracies, flawed arguments, and familiar lies and misunderstandings even on cursory examination of two sections of the book, one is entitled to make a preliminary judgement.
Since you choose to personalise this by commenting on my 'vast experience of all branches of the military (well he once got to touch the controls of a Bulldog)' I'd point out that I make no claims of credibility based on my admittedly limited Bulldog time, but on the basis of having been professionally observing and reporting on defence and aerospace since 1984. While everyone on these boards will have much greater knowledge about their own aircraft type, role and community than I will ever have, few will have been exposed to so many types, roles and communities, nor will they have been lucky enough to have had the access I've had, nor over such an extended period.
I do feel qualified to judge Page's assertions about Tornado, for example, having a number of good friends who've flown the jet in action, and having interviewed a dozen more Tornado aircrew who weren't already friends who flew the type during Granby (including all the Det Commanders), and more who flew it in Desert Fox and yet more who flew it in Telic, and having spoken to numerous people within the IPT, BAE, MBDA, etc. One wouldn't need to do anything like that much preparation to demolish Page's claims, however, as a simple examination of the loss rate, and of the causes of each of the losses, would immediately lead any impartial observer to question his conclusions.
I note with interest that while condemning others who have the decency to state the limitations of their own credentials, you skulk behind the anonymity of the phrase 'Wafu loafer'. How are we to assess the scope and extent of your own “vast experience of all branches of the military”, Admiral?
I would absolutely stand by my judgement that Page reveals a strong anti-RAF prejudice (I'll still bet you a pound to a penny that he was binned off his UAS, or didn't get a third year VR) and that he is parroting exactly the kind of ill-informed, highly partial analysis that you'd expect from the a non-specialist, Euro-sceptic 'defence analyst.' While stressing his experience of all three services, I'd say that Page writes like a complete outsider, just like Max Hastings, Piers Morgan or Andrew Gilligan
I was amused that you seemed to be criticising some people for forming a view based on the Sunday Times piece, which you yourself obviously didn't read, as it's pretty gushing and enthusiastic about this ridiculous book!
I say again, when even a cursory examination of a book reveals a succession of flawed and superficial analyses, clichéd and inaccurate accusations, and a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge, it's entirely fair to make a preliminary judgement. And when it comes to things 'light blue', Page's book is entirely risible.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The book, amongst other things, criticises Senior Officers and Civil Servants within the DLO and DPA for not paying any concern to the views or opinions of their immediate subordinates and Junior Officers. When this point was raised with the DCDL (in open forum) his response was:
The DCDL effectively points out that he regards the VC’s and C-in-C Fleet’s views and opinions to be more accurate and far more valid and those of a Junior Officer. By saying this though, is he not proving at least one of Mr Page’s criticisms to be accurate? Although I am not defending the claims made in the book, I do feel that the DCDL's dismissive 'well, what would he know, he's just a Junior Officer' opinion does little counter Mr Page’s arguments.
I was aware of the book but, not having read it, not of the colourful quotes about the DLO…I am also confident that the dismissive views of the then Junior Naval Officer who wrote the book are not shared by those officers in the armed forces who are responsible for delivering operations around the world. And for evidence of that, consult the articles written by the former Vice Chief in the June 05 DLO News and former Commander in Chief Fleet in the November 05 DLO News.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist
StuartP thinks its cobblers but finds the anti BAE arguments strangely believable..
Originally Posted by Tourist
Those who have actually read the book, including myself, do not necessarily agree with everything in it, but that does not mean there is not some truth in there also. Read it and decide...
Stuart.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuartp.
Fair enough, at least you read it before criticising it. I don't agree with all of it myself by any means.
Jacko, touche on reading the Times article.
I am not an admiral but anonymity unfortunately is fairly important on this forum as you are no doubt well aware, and my credentials would be a bit of a give away.
Fair enough, at least you read it before criticising it. I don't agree with all of it myself by any means.
Jacko, touche on reading the Times article.
I am not an admiral but anonymity unfortunately is fairly important on this forum as you are no doubt well aware, and my credentials would be a bit of a give away.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Michael Edic
Not if they didn't get attracted towards the RAF in the first place because they didn't realise the opportunities that existed or what a good career the RAF offered before their time with the "flying club"
The fact that you have called it a "flying club" shows what derisable outdated diatribe you are spouting. Under the new system more emphasis is placed on personal development and leadership training than anything else.
The fact that you have called it a "flying club" shows what derisable outdated diatribe you are spouting. Under the new system more emphasis is placed on personal development and leadership training than anything else.
Having friends who are ex UAS as well as having worked with a fair number of ex UAS my views are not outdated. On average former UAS students are no better than direct entrants. If the RAF does not get any noticeable gains from the money spent on the UAS it is just a 'flying club'.
Far more ex air cadets join the RAF than UAS, so there are other ways to attract people. What is more the ATC/CCF pay to be members of their organistation, not get paid.
Toursit,
I wont claim to have read the book. I would image that any book like this will be a mixture of getting it spot on, and missing by a mile. The misses and hit will no doubt be the opposite to what most people think.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless your friends are ex UAS who left no more than 3 months ago then I'm afraid your views are outdated as that was when the emphasis changed from predominantly flying to predominantly leadership based activities. Incidentally before that the emphasis was on completing EFT, do you therefore regard the new EFTS as flying clubs too?
I wouldn't say you touched a raw nerve it just galls me to see people spouting on subjects where their knowledge is pretty limited.
I wouldn't say you touched a raw nerve it just galls me to see people spouting on subjects where their knowledge is pretty limited.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UAS system now no longer teaches EFT to its studes. (Which it did do between 1997 and 2005, and even if no one else did, I found it hard to mix doing the flying training and degree at the same time 
)The studes now get ten hours flying experience a year on the Tutor, and each UAS has on average one QFI who does all the flying. The rest of the training is now leadership based etc.
As a matter of interest I believe its only the RAF who see their university corp as a recruiting agency. The OTC (army) and URNU (navy) are there to give people an experience of life in the military, and recruiting is only a pleasant co-incidence.
)The studes now get ten hours flying experience a year on the Tutor, and each UAS has on average one QFI who does all the flying. The rest of the training is now leadership based etc.As a matter of interest I believe its only the RAF who see their university corp as a recruiting agency. The OTC (army) and URNU (navy) are there to give people an experience of life in the military, and recruiting is only a pleasant co-incidence.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Michael Edic
Unless your friends are ex UAS who left no more than 3 months ago then I'm afraid your views are outdated as that was when the emphasis changed from predominantly flying to predominantly leadership based activities. Incidentally before that the emphasis was on completing EFT, do you therefore regard the new EFTS as flying clubs too?
I wouldn't say you touched a raw nerve it just galls me to see people spouting on subjects where their knowledge is pretty limited.
I wouldn't say you touched a raw nerve it just galls me to see people spouting on subjects where their knowledge is pretty limited.
We are talking about the past not the future anyway. The books talks about the then, you are talking about the tomorrow.
Originally Posted by FormerFlake
Having friends who are ex UAS as well as having worked with a fair number of ex UAS my views are not outdated. On average former UAS students are no better than direct entrants. If the RAF does not get any noticeable gains from the money spent on the UAS it is just a 'flying club'.
Far more ex air cadets join the RAF than UAS, so there are other ways to attract people. What is more the ATC/CCF pay to be members of their organistation, not get paid.
Far more ex air cadets join the RAF than UAS, so there are other ways to attract people. What is more the ATC/CCF pay to be members of their organistation, not get paid.
Your knowledge is outdated, and from your earlier post very outdated. The UASs have had ground branch members for many years. They had ground branch members when I was a QFI back in the early to mid 90s! UASs do not have ground branch members any more (with the exception of sponsored ground branch personnel and even they can now learn to fly). All members joining a UAS as of Sep last year are deemed to be "Any Branch", there is no differentiation between flying and ground. All members can get 10 hours instructional flying per year and the emphasis has moved away from EFT (which they no longer conduct) towards IPDLT.
Where do you get your, somewhat narrow, viewpoint that if the RAF do not get any noticeable gains? The UASs have not been "flying clubs" for sometime, certainly not since the early 90s when there was more of an argument that they were flying clubs.
But back to the thread. I have read extracts from the book and from what I have read a lot of the coverage is the typically jaded view from someone who IMHO hasn't/didn't quite make it to any jobs where he could see the bigger picture. A large amount seems to be the headline stuff without knowing the facts behind the headlines. But then that is just MHO.
(PS I am not an ex UAS student, but I know quite a few currently serving RAF officers who might not have been if they hadn't tried the UAS at Uni.)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
I haven't read the book, but from the extracts, I reckon you've hit the nail on the head...
what I have read a lot of the coverage is the typically jaded view from someone who IMHO hasn't/didn't quite make it to any jobs where he could see the bigger picture. A large amount seems to be the headline stuff without knowing the facts behind the headlines. But then that is just MHO.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist
Just to re-cap.
Tombstone agrees about the Tornado, hasn't read the book, but suspects that the bloke is a To$$er on principle since he is RN (we love you too)
Tombstone agrees about the Tornado, hasn't read the book, but suspects that the bloke is a To$$er on principle since he is RN (we love you too)
I suspect that the author is a t***er due to the fact that he is quite happy to publish utter tosh, apparent even from the small amount that I have read.
You seem a tad defensive old chap, perhaps the author in question is infact...
...you!
Jungly,
It is precisely because this book is aimed at the "uninformed civvy" that it is important that this half-arsed half wit doesn't spout ill-informed bollocks himself. People trust what they read in books, giving his nonsensical diatribes against Tornado's suicide tactics and ineffective weapons, against the Cold War Eurofighter, and in support of the all-singing, all-dancing Tomahawk a credibility that they do not deserve.
And if this is supposed to be a serious study of procurement, why no serious examination of the strategy followed for the Jag upgrade, and the reasons for its failure to be considered for the so-called Tornado IDS 2000?
Lazy, flawed, clichéd, and one-sided analysis has no place in what purports to be a serious book, whoever it's intended for.
And like Tourist, unless and until you're prepared to be a bit more up front about your own qualifications, you should perhaps refrain from under-stating, mocking and belittling mine.
It is precisely because this book is aimed at the "uninformed civvy" that it is important that this half-arsed half wit doesn't spout ill-informed bollocks himself. People trust what they read in books, giving his nonsensical diatribes against Tornado's suicide tactics and ineffective weapons, against the Cold War Eurofighter, and in support of the all-singing, all-dancing Tomahawk a credibility that they do not deserve.
And if this is supposed to be a serious study of procurement, why no serious examination of the strategy followed for the Jag upgrade, and the reasons for its failure to be considered for the so-called Tornado IDS 2000?
Lazy, flawed, clichéd, and one-sided analysis has no place in what purports to be a serious book, whoever it's intended for.
And like Tourist, unless and until you're prepared to be a bit more up front about your own qualifications, you should perhaps refrain from under-stating, mocking and belittling mine.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lions
I have read the book and it is utter bilge. There is a blatant anti-RAF bias which, to be honest, I would forgive if he had shown any sort of consistency throughout. Anyone with half a brain knows to show both sides of the argument before coming down on one side of the argument. One has only to read the navy chapters to see that he automatically decides aircraft carriers are a "good thing" whichout any attempt to consider whether the British military can achieve the required level of effect using different resources. Even if he subsequently then concluded that carriers were "good" at least he would have seen to be balanced.
Personally, I am still undecided about carriers but that is fine because MOD procurements only rarely consult me before making decisions but a decent author would have considered whether British carriers have made a decisive contribution since 1982; if the answer is "no" (plausible), then consideration has to be given whether carriers can be sacrificed in favour of something else.
I dont mind reading controverisal, thought provoking stuff even if I disagree with the conclusions so long as the author has a decent stab at being balanced but this book has all the hallmarks of being written by a failed naval officer who probably failed to rise beyond the rank of Leading Parrot.
Personally, I am still undecided about carriers but that is fine because MOD procurements only rarely consult me before making decisions but a decent author would have considered whether British carriers have made a decisive contribution since 1982; if the answer is "no" (plausible), then consideration has to be given whether carriers can be sacrificed in favour of something else.
I dont mind reading controverisal, thought provoking stuff even if I disagree with the conclusions so long as the author has a decent stab at being balanced but this book has all the hallmarks of being written by a failed naval officer who probably failed to rise beyond the rank of Leading Parrot.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do find it amusing that people are saying that the book has an anti RAF slant.
He advocates the Army losing all its Main battle tanks and its Apache, and he advocates the Navy losing all its Frigates and Destroyers and just keep ing the new carriers.
All he wants for the RAF is a few less Typhoon, a vastly larger AT fleet and a change in role emphasis from deep strike to CAS.
He advocates the Army losing all its Main battle tanks and its Apache, and he advocates the Navy losing all its Frigates and Destroyers and just keep ing the new carriers.
All he wants for the RAF is a few less Typhoon, a vastly larger AT fleet and a change in role emphasis from deep strike to CAS.
Whether or not he's pro- or anti-RAF is just one point, and it wouldn't make the book good or bad either way.
One could make an argument to bin Tranche 3 of Typhoon, for example, but not by making facile, misleading, irrelevant and wrong-headed assumptions about its 'Cold War origins', while if you want to criticise it on cost grounds, it would be a good idea to get one's facts right about what the cost actually is, and how and how much money could be saved.
One could make an argument against the effectiveness of Tornado, but not by making entirely false statements about what it did and do during Granby.
This isn't a bad book because of Page's overall conclusisons (Though I think most of them are wrong), but because he reaches those conclusions without making a convincing case, but instead lazily parrots tired, hackneyed cliches and makes basic, schoolboy mistakes.
One could make an argument to bin Tranche 3 of Typhoon, for example, but not by making facile, misleading, irrelevant and wrong-headed assumptions about its 'Cold War origins', while if you want to criticise it on cost grounds, it would be a good idea to get one's facts right about what the cost actually is, and how and how much money could be saved.
One could make an argument against the effectiveness of Tornado, but not by making entirely false statements about what it did and do during Granby.
This isn't a bad book because of Page's overall conclusisons (Though I think most of them are wrong), but because he reaches those conclusions without making a convincing case, but instead lazily parrots tired, hackneyed cliches and makes basic, schoolboy mistakes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir PWA,
Without dragging this into the realms of other threads: how plausible is it really that carriers haven't made a difference since 1982? Didn't see much HNS during Sierra Leone, and Italy was a bit foggy at times for the RAF to fly missions over Bosnia, to mention a couple of egs. Anyway, I digress.
I agree with Jacko on the fact that this sort of book needs to be accurate. The public get presented with so much b
s on military matters by ill-informed journos (NOT a dig at anyone) it annoys me intensely when someone with a service background, who should know better, does the same. However, does the author claim to have worked within either the DLO or DPA on any of the projects he is critical on? Seems to me that alot of it is based on his personal opinions or overheard stories. It was an interesting read and I agree that some projects have been managed worse than the NHS, but little is made of some of the improvements made in recent times.
Just for the record I also agree with Tourist in the fact he seems pretty much against all the big legacy projects across all three services.
Without dragging this into the realms of other threads: how plausible is it really that carriers haven't made a difference since 1982? Didn't see much HNS during Sierra Leone, and Italy was a bit foggy at times for the RAF to fly missions over Bosnia, to mention a couple of egs. Anyway, I digress.
I agree with Jacko on the fact that this sort of book needs to be accurate. The public get presented with so much b
s on military matters by ill-informed journos (NOT a dig at anyone) it annoys me intensely when someone with a service background, who should know better, does the same. However, does the author claim to have worked within either the DLO or DPA on any of the projects he is critical on? Seems to me that alot of it is based on his personal opinions or overheard stories. It was an interesting read and I agree that some projects have been managed worse than the NHS, but little is made of some of the improvements made in recent times. Just for the record I also agree with Tourist in the fact he seems pretty much against all the big legacy projects across all three services.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko.
Leaving banter aside (just for a moment), with all due respect, all of your opinions are necessarily second hand. Whilst I accept that you have many contacts in the RAF, all of them are going to be protective of their role for obvious reasons. The fact that they are convinced of their correctness means very little.
Pre 1st world war every single member of the Cavalry was convinced that nothing would ever withstand the mounted charge. If someone had pointed out they were wrong they would have been ridiculed.
But they were wrong, and they were the experts.
Same goes for the belief in the invincability of the Battleship pre Taranto/Pearl Harbour, Blitzing a country into submission pre WW2/Iraq/Afghanistan/Serbia(maybe we keep failing to learn that one), Lines of Battle pre Nelson etc etc
The fact that your RAF mates disagree does not make him wrong, and remember, his experience across all the services may be scanty at best, ie UAS and All Arms, but it is more breadth than 99% of the military have done.
I hear a lot of statments that his arguments are b@llocks, but not a lot of considered argument against them.
Leaving banter aside (just for a moment), with all due respect, all of your opinions are necessarily second hand. Whilst I accept that you have many contacts in the RAF, all of them are going to be protective of their role for obvious reasons. The fact that they are convinced of their correctness means very little.
Pre 1st world war every single member of the Cavalry was convinced that nothing would ever withstand the mounted charge. If someone had pointed out they were wrong they would have been ridiculed.
But they were wrong, and they were the experts.
Same goes for the belief in the invincability of the Battleship pre Taranto/Pearl Harbour, Blitzing a country into submission pre WW2/Iraq/Afghanistan/Serbia(maybe we keep failing to learn that one), Lines of Battle pre Nelson etc etc
The fact that your RAF mates disagree does not make him wrong, and remember, his experience across all the services may be scanty at best, ie UAS and All Arms, but it is more breadth than 99% of the military have done.
I hear a lot of statments that his arguments are b@llocks, but not a lot of considered argument against them.