Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs by Lewis Page
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern Scotland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs by Lewis Page
Has anyone else read this book about the wasteful Defence Procurement Process ??
According to Lewis Page (an ex Royal Navy Officer) :
The Nimrod AEW3 came about because we had "several Nimrods in mint condition sitting around doing nothing", werent the airframes selected the newest and lowest houred MR2's at the time?? I remember airframe 84 at Kinloss and the closest to that being 60 which would indicate this was the case. I am sure two prototypes had the serials 85 and 86.
He claims the F3 cant climb above 30,000ft feet and says this is because while on a AAR VC10 jolly in the Gulf the crew told him so !! Apparently the crew had to descend to refuel the F3's as the Tanker Crew told him an F3 would be burning fuel at that height at the same rate as they were receiving it. Surely a crew wind up or a circumstance of Hot and High ?? (Not looking for details .. Opsec and all that)
He mentions Eurofighter and he does have a point there but claims that Israel bought F15's at 3 million pounds a jet !!
He also claims that the UK could have bought J-STARS but are the Americans selling this technology ??
And for someone apparently researching Defence Procurement blunders surely it is a crime to mention the F4 Phantom but not the debacle of the redesign to take the Spey ??
He also claims the RAF employs "swarms of meteorologists" .. WTF ??
Anyone read it and thought the same ??
According to Lewis Page (an ex Royal Navy Officer) :
The Nimrod AEW3 came about because we had "several Nimrods in mint condition sitting around doing nothing", werent the airframes selected the newest and lowest houred MR2's at the time?? I remember airframe 84 at Kinloss and the closest to that being 60 which would indicate this was the case. I am sure two prototypes had the serials 85 and 86.
He claims the F3 cant climb above 30,000ft feet and says this is because while on a AAR VC10 jolly in the Gulf the crew told him so !! Apparently the crew had to descend to refuel the F3's as the Tanker Crew told him an F3 would be burning fuel at that height at the same rate as they were receiving it. Surely a crew wind up or a circumstance of Hot and High ?? (Not looking for details .. Opsec and all that)
He mentions Eurofighter and he does have a point there but claims that Israel bought F15's at 3 million pounds a jet !!
He also claims that the UK could have bought J-STARS but are the Americans selling this technology ??
And for someone apparently researching Defence Procurement blunders surely it is a crime to mention the F4 Phantom but not the debacle of the redesign to take the Spey ??
He also claims the RAF employs "swarms of meteorologists" .. WTF ??
Anyone read it and thought the same ??
"The Nimrod AEW3 came about because we had "several Nimrods in mint condition sitting around doing nothing", werent the airframes selected the newest and lowest houred MR2's at the time?? I remember airframe 84 at Kinloss and the closest to that being 60 which would indicate this was the case. I am sure two prototypes had the serials 85 and 86."
Norman,
I am pretty sure that XZ 280-286 came back to the UK when 203 Sqn disbanded. I certainly have hours in 80,81, 82,84 and 85. Need to check my log book for 83 and 86. 60 wasn't the closest to 80 though. 261, 262 and 263 have been at Kinloss in living memory. I also seem to recall that there were over 30 Nimrods produced. I think they are all listed in the Jim Hughes history of Kinloss which should be available to you.
Norman,
I am pretty sure that XZ 280-286 came back to the UK when 203 Sqn disbanded. I certainly have hours in 80,81, 82,84 and 85. Need to check my log book for 83 and 86. 60 wasn't the closest to 80 though. 261, 262 and 263 have been at Kinloss in living memory. I also seem to recall that there were over 30 Nimrods produced. I think they are all listed in the Jim Hughes history of Kinloss which should be available to you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern Scotland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was that Jim Hughes from Eng Co-0rd ??
Worked ops 95 - 98 and remember the engineers board going from 26 to 60 and then 84. Missing Frames from 26 to 60 were 34,38,39,42,47,49,53,56,57, and 59 for various reasons. Remember the Aircrew talking about all the frames lost for AEW3. And I am sure that by the old sports hangar on the south taxiway near 26 threshold there is a AEW3 rear fuselage section.
Just read that in the book and thought it was a criminal lack of research to come out with the obviously wrong fact that the AEW3 frames were spare.
Worked ops 95 - 98 and remember the engineers board going from 26 to 60 and then 84. Missing Frames from 26 to 60 were 34,38,39,42,47,49,53,56,57, and 59 for various reasons. Remember the Aircrew talking about all the frames lost for AEW3. And I am sure that by the old sports hangar on the south taxiway near 26 threshold there is a AEW3 rear fuselage section.
Just read that in the book and thought it was a criminal lack of research to come out with the obviously wrong fact that the AEW3 frames were spare.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there were 8 unused frames in storage somewhere that made the bulk of the 11.
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/Nim%20aew.htm
I dont think he is to far away with his F3 comments. There will of course be variables.
F15 may be cheap to buy, but are expensive to run and do break a lot.
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/Nim%20aew.htm
I dont think he is to far away with his F3 comments. There will of course be variables.
F15 may be cheap to buy, but are expensive to run and do break a lot.
I bought this risible piece of utter rubbish on Saturday.
A cursory flick through the light blue sections revealed a strong anti-RAF prejudice (I'll bet you a pound to a penny that he was binned off his UAS, or didn't get a third year VR) with the kind of 'in depth' analysis that you'd expect from the usual non-specialist, under-informed, Euro-sceptic 'defence analysts' that too many of the broadsheets turn to.
He repeats all the tired old lies, exaggerations, misinterpretations and misunderstandings - suicidal low level Tornado missions in Granby, the Cold War Typhoon, the high cost of Storm Shadow etc. I was astonished that anyone with a UAS background should have swallowed all that (from Hastings, Keegan et al) quite so uncritically, and to have spewed it all with quite such cheerful and unembarrassed abandon.
I had been looking forward to reading it, but I've put it aside for when my anger is less likely to be roused by such piss-poor ignorant tosh.
It is nicely written, though.
A cursory flick through the light blue sections revealed a strong anti-RAF prejudice (I'll bet you a pound to a penny that he was binned off his UAS, or didn't get a third year VR) with the kind of 'in depth' analysis that you'd expect from the usual non-specialist, under-informed, Euro-sceptic 'defence analysts' that too many of the broadsheets turn to.
He repeats all the tired old lies, exaggerations, misinterpretations and misunderstandings - suicidal low level Tornado missions in Granby, the Cold War Typhoon, the high cost of Storm Shadow etc. I was astonished that anyone with a UAS background should have swallowed all that (from Hastings, Keegan et al) quite so uncritically, and to have spewed it all with quite such cheerful and unembarrassed abandon.
I had been looking forward to reading it, but I've put it aside for when my anger is less likely to be roused by such piss-poor ignorant tosh.
It is nicely written, though.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the review on this tawdry little piece of rubbish in The Times last year. What utter, utter bilge. 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. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he also advocates disbanding the RAF and splitting its assets between the Army (who don't know how to manage it) and the RN (who don't need it).
Do not read this book. It is clearly a piece of unneccessary tripe.
Do not read this book. It is clearly a piece of unneccessary tripe.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I particularly liked the bit where he states that only the worst pilots in the RAF get sent rotary, and that even though rotary pilots know fast jet and multi engine mates are better than them, rotary pilots in the RAF are still professional
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't like to refuel the Tonka at 30k in any circumstances!
The SAR pilots are up there with the big boys IMHO, top job & certainly not a lower calibre of pilots compared to FJ mates, excluding the Harrier of course!
Are all of this Ex RN Officer's comments on the subject of Air Power and if so, how does he qualify his comments?
Sounds like a T***er who didn't make the grade...
The SAR pilots are up there with the big boys IMHO, top job & certainly not a lower calibre of pilots compared to FJ mates, excluding the Harrier of course!
Are all of this Ex RN Officer's comments on the subject of Air Power and if so, how does he qualify his comments?
Sounds like a T***er who didn't make the grade...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a bit like the Da Vinci Code. Utter cobblers (so I'm told) but an entertaining read. Mind you, if his comments about BAe are even half true....
Stuart.
(Edited for Rafloo to reflect that my Presbyterian (sp?) upbringing may have left me with a less than objective view on that, and to hopefully stay on topic)
Stuart.
(Edited for Rafloo to reflect that my Presbyterian (sp?) upbringing may have left me with a less than objective view on that, and to hopefully stay on topic)
Last edited by StuartP; 24th Apr 2006 at 12:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern Scotland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I continued reading for a while but his whole attitude towards the Air Force seems to be negative, finally gave up this morning. Whoever researched the Air Power segment of this book should be fired. I find his facts and figures highly specualtive and found that although the book is well written what I know to be false about the Air Force side coloured what he had to say about the other services.
And I did note that his comments on the UAS system comclude that it is an organisation where "they teach you to fly for nothing in return", maybe someone should tell him where a lot our fast jet guys started flying !!
4/10 .. must try harder.
And I did note that his comments on the UAS system comclude that it is an organisation where "they teach you to fly for nothing in return", maybe someone should tell him where a lot our fast jet guys started flying !!
4/10 .. must try harder.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Times article on said publication...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...965526,00.html
...especially good is the story on the SA80 procurement!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...5526_2,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...965526,00.html
...especially good is the story on the SA80 procurement!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...5526_2,00.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern Scotland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Archimedes
You mean the Air Power section was researched?
Well I assumed it was but then assume can have a different meaning cant it ??
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought the book was very thought provoking actually, though I admit I disagreed on some points.
It isn't in any way anti RAF incidentally, he spreads his ire equally across the services.
It isn't in any way anti RAF incidentally, he spreads his ire equally across the services.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the sun
Age: 52
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"He also claims the RAF employs "swarms of meteorologists" .. WTF ??"
if lewis page is having a dig at the RAF surely this quote back fires on him
The navy employes their own meteorologists, even though they do other jobs on board, such as oceanography. The air force rent them.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Norman Nimrod
He also claims that the UK could have bought J-STARS but are the Americans selling this technology ??
Sorry for any thread creep.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Norman Nimrod
I continued reading for a while but his whole attitude towards the Air Force seems to be negative, finally gave up this morning. Whoever researched the Air Power segment of this book should be fired. I find his facts and figures highly specualtive and found that although the book is well written what I know to be false about the Air Force side coloured what he had to say about the other services.
And I did note that his comments on the UAS system comclude that it is an organisation where "they teach you to fly for nothing in return", maybe someone should tell him where a lot our fast jet guys started flying !!
4/10 .. must try harder.
And I did note that his comments on the UAS system comclude that it is an organisation where "they teach you to fly for nothing in return", maybe someone should tell him where a lot our fast jet guys started flying !!
4/10 .. must try harder.
The UAS is just a flying club (and now they have ground branches too), he has a point.