Good letter in the Telegraph
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the purpose of the discussion, why should the RN operate Nimrod? Why not the Army?
As for one 'Sqn Ldr Peter Severn' of Totnes, Devon... talking utter tosh, but then he is from Totnes and probably drinks in the Seven Stars too....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I'm with those who suspect that "Sqn Ldr Peter Severn" is not, and never was associated with the RAF in any way, shape or form. My money is on RN - why else base your argument on your view that Dartmouth is an excellent training establishment. Although I'm sure it is.
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
!
Hilarious reading the undercurrent of vying vested interest on this and other threads. Poor tax payers - you just know they will never get value for money from you lot. Times coming when the numbers of senior officers in the services with all the obscure, duplicated staffy type jobs(all vital of course!) will easily outnumber the O/R's.
And ,of course, when more cuts are called for - dont forget to boost Staff posts to help analyse how best to achieve things.
And ,of course, when more cuts are called for - dont forget to boost Staff posts to help analyse how best to achieve things.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" For the purpose of the discussion, why should the RN operate Nimrod? Why not the Army?"
Well old bean... the Nimrod is a maritime patrol aircraft. Maritime means 'to do with the sea'. Navies traditionally hang around on the big blue wobbly thing, which is where Nimrod is designed to spend most of its time flying above, generally trying to blow up submarines, gather intel etc. Perhaps given that the army tend to spend a lot of time in muddy fields (ie a long way from the sea), they would perhaps not be best placed to look after an MPA?
Maybe like the US and most other countries, we should consider that we're not so different after all and put Nimrod in the place where it logically belongs?
Well old bean... the Nimrod is a maritime patrol aircraft. Maritime means 'to do with the sea'. Navies traditionally hang around on the big blue wobbly thing, which is where Nimrod is designed to spend most of its time flying above, generally trying to blow up submarines, gather intel etc. Perhaps given that the army tend to spend a lot of time in muddy fields (ie a long way from the sea), they would perhaps not be best placed to look after an MPA?
Maybe like the US and most other countries, we should consider that we're not so different after all and put Nimrod in the place where it logically belongs?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W1974
Erm,
Except for the fact that Nimrod now does a lot of its current work a long way from the blue wobbly thing, and rather close to the local equivalent of muddy fields. Isn't it damned inconsderate when people blur the traditional boundaries? You never know where you are. Still "flexibility is the key ..." and all that.
Regards
Ginseng
Except for the fact that Nimrod now does a lot of its current work a long way from the blue wobbly thing, and rather close to the local equivalent of muddy fields. Isn't it damned inconsderate when people blur the traditional boundaries? You never know where you are. Still "flexibility is the key ..." and all that.
Regards
Ginseng
Ah yes, April 1st 1918, when the RAF was born.
Wasn't that towards the end of the biggest conflict the world had ever seen, where Army and Navy alike had fought on an unprecedented scale?
Yet, after both experimenting with air power in numerous roles, both those Services agreed (now there's a first!) that actually air power would be better delivered, in its various forms, by a new service which specialized in aviation and associated activities...
If the Army and Navy (and their political masters) 90 years ago thought that a separate Air Force would be a good idea - and back then, military aviation was a sideshow compared to the main fighting on land and sea - why should they or anyone else now want to get rid of the air power specialists, when air power has such greater importance than it did in 1918?
Wasn't that towards the end of the biggest conflict the world had ever seen, where Army and Navy alike had fought on an unprecedented scale?
Yet, after both experimenting with air power in numerous roles, both those Services agreed (now there's a first!) that actually air power would be better delivered, in its various forms, by a new service which specialized in aviation and associated activities...
If the Army and Navy (and their political masters) 90 years ago thought that a separate Air Force would be a good idea - and back then, military aviation was a sideshow compared to the main fighting on land and sea - why should they or anyone else now want to get rid of the air power specialists, when air power has such greater importance than it did in 1918?
The Army and Navy thought it a thoroughly bad idea. The first Chief of the Air Staff thought it a very silly idea too...
Lloyd George saw a separate service as being a means of denying Haig control over air power; he and the cabinet were also keen on the idea of creating a strategic bombing force to retaliate against Germany, but which would be limited if the Admirals and Generals controlled the development of their air services, since they'd inevitably (at least as far as the politicians could see) spend the money on aircraft that would be used tactically to support maritime and land operations.
The Smuts report helped this - Smuts wasn't driven by political considerations, but by taking a broad view of air power, aided by input from Sir David Henderson (DG of Military Aeronautics and the head of the RFC [Trenchard was GOC RFC in France]), who'd grown weary of watching the Admiralty and War Office fight each other over the apportionment of resources for developing air power to the extent that they were in fact hindering its development.
Lloyd George saw a separate service as being a means of denying Haig control over air power; he and the cabinet were also keen on the idea of creating a strategic bombing force to retaliate against Germany, but which would be limited if the Admirals and Generals controlled the development of their air services, since they'd inevitably (at least as far as the politicians could see) spend the money on aircraft that would be used tactically to support maritime and land operations.
The Smuts report helped this - Smuts wasn't driven by political considerations, but by taking a broad view of air power, aided by input from Sir David Henderson (DG of Military Aeronautics and the head of the RFC [Trenchard was GOC RFC in France]), who'd grown weary of watching the Admiralty and War Office fight each other over the apportionment of resources for developing air power to the extent that they were in fact hindering its development.
From today's Torygraph (amongst others):
Sir - So Sqd Ldr Peter Severn (Letters, February 20) has found three friends who agree with him that the RAF should be abolished. In the words of General Charles de Gaulle, when confronted with a similar justification: "Changez vos amis."
Sir Michael Armitage, Air Chief Marshal (Rtd), Bath
and:
Sir - When Sqd Ldr Severn's wishes have been carried out, perhaps he and his chums could be taken outside and shot.
Rod Pickles (Former Sergeant, RAF)
More here
Sir - So Sqd Ldr Peter Severn (Letters, February 20) has found three friends who agree with him that the RAF should be abolished. In the words of General Charles de Gaulle, when confronted with a similar justification: "Changez vos amis."
Sir Michael Armitage, Air Chief Marshal (Rtd), Bath
and:
Sir - When Sqd Ldr Severn's wishes have been carried out, perhaps he and his chums could be taken outside and shot.
Rod Pickles (Former Sergeant, RAF)
More here
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe that Phil Congdon is agreeing with the twerp. I always thought that Phil was a reasonably decent type not prone to uttering ill thought out, fatuous statements.
In Severn's case et al it probably just proves the point that promotion takes place until the level of incompetence has just passed.
And before anyone jumps on that - yes, it probably applied to me as well (although I did go on to higher things once I left the RAF)
In Severn's case et al it probably just proves the point that promotion takes place until the level of incompetence has just passed.
And before anyone jumps on that - yes, it probably applied to me as well (although I did go on to higher things once I left the RAF)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
He has three chums who agree with him and, on the other side, there are 4 chums who bothered to write to the Telegraph.
Earth shattering stuff.....lunch I think.......
He has three chums who agree with him and, on the other side, there are 4 chums who bothered to write to the Telegraph.
Earth shattering stuff.....lunch I think.......
If you went the whole hog and subsumed everything into the RN and Army, surely it would save a bag of cash and at the same time give what was the world's finest navy something useful to do.
. Still "flexibility is the key ..." and all that
W1974,
Ginseng nicely makes the point I was subtly hinting at. Thank you for patronising me anyway 
, but I think I got the most satisfaction from your post.
JG
Ginseng
nicely makes the point I was subtly hinting at. Thank you for patronising me anyway , but I think I got the most satisfaction from your post. JG
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blurring traditional boundaries? Like when the Commando helo squadrons deployed to (landlocked) Bosnia? Or the SHAR for that matter (altho I suspect you could argue that it just operated, rather than deployed there).
I didn't hear anyone arguing that they should become part of the Crabs.
The Nimrod, however, is designated as an MPA!
I didn't hear anyone arguing that they should become part of the Crabs.
The Nimrod, however, is designated as an MPA!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Ginseng nicely makes the point I was subtly hinting at. Thank you for patronising me anyway , but I think I got the most satisfaction from your post."
Glad to be of service...
nicely makes the point I was subtly hinting at. Thank you for patronising me anyway , but I think I got the most satisfaction from your post."Glad to be of service...
But as the Booties were working for the Land Component Commander they could be transfered to the Army.
And the NAS were working for the Air Component Commander so they could be transferred to the RAF.
And the Cdo Helicopters are part of JHC are they not - so they could be transfered to either the Air Force or the Army.
HM Coast Guard can do Fishery Protection. And have the odd jolly to the Caribbean to do the drug thing.
RN SAR - put it out to contract (or transferred to the RAF).
Cancel the carriers before we spend any money. We won't then need all the fleet support. "Sea basing" could be done by the RFA with the force protection carried out by the Army Marines.
Now if we could just find someone daft enough to take over the submarines .... that's the Navy done for!
And of course there wouldn't me as many cat fights on the streets either!
And the NAS were working for the Air Component Commander so they could be transferred to the RAF.
And the Cdo Helicopters are part of JHC are they not - so they could be transfered to either the Air Force or the Army.
HM Coast Guard can do Fishery Protection. And have the odd jolly to the Caribbean to do the drug thing.
RN SAR - put it out to contract (or transferred to the RAF).
Cancel the carriers before we spend any money. We won't then need all the fleet support. "Sea basing" could be done by the RFA with the force protection carried out by the Army Marines.
Now if we could just find someone daft enough to take over the submarines .... that's the Navy done for!
And of course there wouldn't me as many cat fights on the streets either!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gentlemen you do Sqn Ldr Pete Severn a disservice.
Peter graduated as a GD/Nav on No 42 ANC in 1963. He was posted to Canberras and I believe finished his active service, as pointed out, in 1977 having taken the then golden bowler offered in 1973. He was, I believe, serving on 7 Sqn at RAF St Mawgan at the time.
Sqn Ldr Severn joined the RAuxAF and served, IIRC, as an intelligence officer well into the 1990s. When he retired from the RAuxAF his is quite entitled to the style of sqn ldr and, as Teeteringhead pointed out, should not use the style RAF rtd or RAuxAF rtd as was discussed at length about use of retired ranks a week or so back.
I am surprised however that none of you picker up this error:
The Royal Navy actually took over the deterrent in 1969 although the V-Force maintained a nuclear role until disbanded and the Buccanneer, Phantom, Jaguar, Tornado and Nimrod maintained a nuclear role long after.
No, the real issue is not whether the RAF should be split dark blue or brown, which would probably not make a lot of difference right now, but the Air Staff. Without an air staff that understands all aspects of air power there would be problems. At least with the present arrangement we have an organisation that can evaluate the requirments of the other two services.
Peter graduated as a GD/Nav on No 42 ANC in 1963. He was posted to Canberras and I believe finished his active service, as pointed out, in 1977 having taken the then golden bowler offered in 1973. He was, I believe, serving on 7 Sqn at RAF St Mawgan at the time.
Sqn Ldr Severn joined the RAuxAF and served, IIRC, as an intelligence officer well into the 1990s. When he retired from the RAuxAF his is quite entitled to the style of sqn ldr and, as Teeteringhead pointed out, should not use the style RAF rtd or RAuxAF rtd as was discussed at length about use of retired ranks a week or so back.
I am surprised however that none of you picker up this error:
The last time we had a possible need for a third force was before the Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrent from the RAF in 1979.
No, the real issue is not whether the RAF should be split dark blue or brown, which would probably not make a lot of difference right now, but the Air Staff. Without an air staff that understands all aspects of air power there would be problems. At least with the present arrangement we have an organisation that can evaluate the requirments of the other two services.
Last edited by Wader2; 26th Feb 2007 at 12:24.