AOC 1 Group
I went on a suicide mission once, had to come back as the headband was on too tight and I was getting a migraine...
Bless you Douglas Adams
Bless you Douglas Adams
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sun Article containing direct quotes from all you "Top Guns"
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 49
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Between the devil and the deep blue sea
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has the power of intellectual rigour and challenge been cast aside by the mainstream RAF? Is it so wrong to think the unthinkable in this modern age? I find it surprising that some of you take offence over an issue that may or may not happen, but which is not inconceivable in the modern world.
While any order to crash into a car containing a terrorist may well be illegal, it should not stop individual aircrew from thinking about it, or the possibility of having to fly their aircraft into a hijacked airliner to stop Canary Wharf from going the same way as the Twin Towers. This would have to be a personal decision, taken at the time, under difficult circumstances. What would you really do? That is what the AVM appears to have said.
The answer is not to throw the teddy out of the pram because someone has asked a difficult question. And the AVM (who I have never met) does appear, from some of the comments, to want to make you all think a little more about your profession and its place in the modern world - surely that is one of the key functions of these conferences. What is so wrong with that?
While any order to crash into a car containing a terrorist may well be illegal, it should not stop individual aircrew from thinking about it, or the possibility of having to fly their aircraft into a hijacked airliner to stop Canary Wharf from going the same way as the Twin Towers. This would have to be a personal decision, taken at the time, under difficult circumstances. What would you really do? That is what the AVM appears to have said.
The answer is not to throw the teddy out of the pram because someone has asked a difficult question. And the AVM (who I have never met) does appear, from some of the comments, to want to make you all think a little more about your profession and its place in the modern world - surely that is one of the key functions of these conferences. What is so wrong with that?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Of course, if the RAF's Typhoon had been specced from the outset with the cannon, none of this discussion would be necessary.
"Of course, if the RAF's Typhoon had been specced from the outset with the cannon, none of this discussion would be necessary."
staggeringly unlikely of course, indeed so far from the realms of possibility as to be discounted without further thought, but imagine if the Typhoon/GR4 had actually used all its ammunition in a previous engagement?
Crab is an asset, an expendible asset to be used to achieve outcomes the nation sees fit and in evermore hazardous ways as the stakes - for the nation, not the individual Crab - increase. if the greatest priority of the state were the lives and aircraft of Crab then said Crab would not be in the 'Stan, they would be sat in a bunker in middle England with 600ft of overhead concrete protection, wearing NBC suits and with a stockpile of food and water lasting for the next thousand years.
this 'discussion' says many things about the RAF, none of them good.
Crab has an over-inflated sense of his own importance and can't handle unpleasently rigorous intellectual debate regarding the comparative importance of his own life/aircraft and the requirements of the state he serves.
staggeringly unlikely of course, indeed so far from the realms of possibility as to be discounted without further thought, but imagine if the Typhoon/GR4 had actually used all its ammunition in a previous engagement?
Crab is an asset, an expendible asset to be used to achieve outcomes the nation sees fit and in evermore hazardous ways as the stakes - for the nation, not the individual Crab - increase. if the greatest priority of the state were the lives and aircraft of Crab then said Crab would not be in the 'Stan, they would be sat in a bunker in middle England with 600ft of overhead concrete protection, wearing NBC suits and with a stockpile of food and water lasting for the next thousand years.
this 'discussion' says many things about the RAF, none of them good.
Crab has an over-inflated sense of his own importance and can't handle unpleasently rigorous intellectual debate regarding the comparative importance of his own life/aircraft and the requirements of the state he serves.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self sacrifice may be fine when it's your choice as in the Hurricane pilot that rammed a Do-17 over London but ordering it as part of a RamKommando? Fec that! Even the Nazis thought it was a waste. Just buy some bloody bullets for the cannon.
Anyone sign-up as a Kamikaze?
Anyone sign-up as a Kamikaze?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this is a reasonable philosophical question. If you, as a pilot, are prepared to shoot down an airliner with scores of innocent passengers then I assume you will have rationalised this in a quiet moment. It can’t be that you are merely following orders. After all, you wouldn’t shoot a child simply on the orders of a superior officer, would you? It must be that the deaths you are about to cause are for the greater good. More innocents will be saved by your actions and I salute your “willingness” to even contemplate such action let alone take it.
Now move on. There is no way to stop this aircraft other than ramming it and losing your own life. You’ve rationalised the deaths of the pax as being for the greater good so why not your own?
That, I think, is the question that was posed by the AOC and is worthy of more consideration than is being shown here.
On a lighter note. The rest of the RAF have been telling aircrew to go fcuk themselves for years and if you followed the AOC’s advice you would certainly achieve that.
Now move on. There is no way to stop this aircraft other than ramming it and losing your own life. You’ve rationalised the deaths of the pax as being for the greater good so why not your own?
That, I think, is the question that was posed by the AOC and is worthy of more consideration than is being shown here.
On a lighter note. The rest of the RAF have been telling aircrew to go fcuk themselves for years and if you followed the AOC’s advice you would certainly achieve that.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think most who have posted on this thread are confusing madness with the ability to provoke thought and debate. Anyone who has ever worked with the good AVM would know that he often asks difficult questions to provoke such debates and gauge reactions. There have also been quite a few derogatory comments from certain parties that, I would hazard a guess, have never even met the man. Whilst he does have his moments, I defy anyone on this site who has worked for him to argue against his charisma and intellectual capacity. So many threads over the years have screamed out for 'leaders' who are not afraid to say 'no' and yet, when we do have one, we collectively stone him! So, what is it to be? A yes man? Or someone that IS controversial, is NOT afraid to speak his mind and DOES ask difficult questions (deliberately)? I'm afraid that the 'yes' man, typically, will not fulfill the latter criteria. As to the great argument that one who has never seen Ops is not fit to lead, well, I disagree, and I have seen lots myself. Truth be known, he has too. And before you start stoning me, I am not a career man, and look forward to leaving fairly soon. My thoughts are based on personal experience with said AVM. The man, though having his faults (don't we all?), is several steps ahead of both his seniors and subordinates. Don't underestimate his abilities. I would like to think that, when I leave, we have more people like Walker at the top.
Finally, this was a simple question to provoke debate, and it certainly has, 6 months after it was posed. So who are the idiots?!!!
SOTB
Finally, this was a simple question to provoke debate, and it certainly has, 6 months after it was posed. So who are the idiots?!!!
SOTB
TBSG,
for you to say that this type of comment and response should cause us to look at the place our profession has in the modern world would be ridiculous if it were not so laughable. Try telling all the people who have carried the burden of Ops for the last 6 years that we are in a position where we can consider losing assets and highly trained people on 1 target, however valuable. If we have such a depth of reserve then let's see some of it today to alieviate the burden.
This comment was not thrown out as a hypothetical discussion point - AOCs in front of a roomful of junior officers do not do that! In the silence that followed his comments no-one put themselves forward to say they thought such an idea was repellant. That being the case, then if he did not immediately say that the topic was simply an extreme view and that there is no way that he would countenance such a thing, he leaves no other impression than that he thinks it an option.
Ignoring the ridiculous concept that someone could be ordered to attempt to fly into a target on the basis of dodgy dosier type int, where would that place us morally. We quite rightly parade our outrage and indignance at the reprehensible actions of suicide bombers in the middle and far east. How would this type of action play on Al Jaz television?
For a whole plethora of reasons, this is simply a "larger than life", vaguely cartoon character allowing his ego to run amock.
SOTB, hi fella-tally the village!. We posted at the same time so excuse edit to reflect.
There is no point in a "leader" stimulating debate and then leaving the topic in the air. He asked a question, the floor gave no answer and so what are his views? Where does that leave us? Where does that leave the shiney new QWI who now doesn't know if his AOC is a thought provoking and inspirational leader or completely raving hatstand! That is not decisive leadership, that is at best some-one on a raving ego trip and at worst someone who poses a difficult question and then doesn't have the balls to answer it if no-one else will.
As to what I think, and having had the priviledge of operating under his command, I refer you to my previous post re An-22!
for you to say that this type of comment and response should cause us to look at the place our profession has in the modern world would be ridiculous if it were not so laughable. Try telling all the people who have carried the burden of Ops for the last 6 years that we are in a position where we can consider losing assets and highly trained people on 1 target, however valuable. If we have such a depth of reserve then let's see some of it today to alieviate the burden.
This comment was not thrown out as a hypothetical discussion point - AOCs in front of a roomful of junior officers do not do that! In the silence that followed his comments no-one put themselves forward to say they thought such an idea was repellant. That being the case, then if he did not immediately say that the topic was simply an extreme view and that there is no way that he would countenance such a thing, he leaves no other impression than that he thinks it an option.
Ignoring the ridiculous concept that someone could be ordered to attempt to fly into a target on the basis of dodgy dosier type int, where would that place us morally. We quite rightly parade our outrage and indignance at the reprehensible actions of suicide bombers in the middle and far east. How would this type of action play on Al Jaz television?
For a whole plethora of reasons, this is simply a "larger than life", vaguely cartoon character allowing his ego to run amock.
SOTB, hi fella-tally the village!. We posted at the same time so excuse edit to reflect.
There is no point in a "leader" stimulating debate and then leaving the topic in the air. He asked a question, the floor gave no answer and so what are his views? Where does that leave us? Where does that leave the shiney new QWI who now doesn't know if his AOC is a thought provoking and inspirational leader or completely raving hatstand! That is not decisive leadership, that is at best some-one on a raving ego trip and at worst someone who poses a difficult question and then doesn't have the balls to answer it if no-one else will.
As to what I think, and having had the priviledge of operating under his command, I refer you to my previous post re An-22!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so he raised a debate, but surely the debate SHOULD be, why is there only 1 aircraft involved in the mission?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the pointy ones fly around in PAIRS?
Also, if INT is so sure that the target is there in the first place, why would the strike aircraft have used their ammo on a lesser value target? It's not as if they have to battle their way through intensive aerial defenses to get there is it?
It's good to ask questions and provoke thought, but make sure you aim the discussion in the correct direction. The ultimate sacrifice has already been made by over 100 of our colleagues because their country asked them to risk their lives. The fact that those people were still sat in that room rather than on a Virgin Atlantic flight deck indicates that they are willing to face the risks.
This one I feel should have been aimed at the politicos, NOT the Crabs.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the pointy ones fly around in PAIRS?
Also, if INT is so sure that the target is there in the first place, why would the strike aircraft have used their ammo on a lesser value target? It's not as if they have to battle their way through intensive aerial defenses to get there is it?
It's good to ask questions and provoke thought, but make sure you aim the discussion in the correct direction. The ultimate sacrifice has already been made by over 100 of our colleagues because their country asked them to risk their lives. The fact that those people were still sat in that room rather than on a Virgin Atlantic flight deck indicates that they are willing to face the risks.
This one I feel should have been aimed at the politicos, NOT the Crabs.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLAP,
Long time no booze fella! Said village, i'd warrant a guess, is still there!!! Maybe even the red tractor as well!!
I think with said AVM, you either love his syle of leadership or you hate it. Having seen the rest of what is on offer, i'll go with his particular brand. I would also add that, perhaps, one does not have a more intellectual forum than he did when this question was posed. Immediate reactions were understandable but, on reflection, was it SO bad? I think not though if faced with the dilemma for real I would probably not be able to clear my ears. Something as simple as this gives a REAL snapshot into the mentality of the 'enemy' rather than reading someone else's views in an article. To me, personally, it highlights the vast difference in culture.....but are we THAT different in this respect? I think the only differences are the cirumstances under which such a 'abhorrent' prospect could become reality. I know (at least I think i do) under which cirumstances I would consider this! I assure you that they would not be the same ones that Captain Mohammed and his heavy plastic belt would be! But isn't one persons perception anothers reality? Christ, need a stiff drink now before I start to sprout ear hair!
At the end of the day, IMHO, the man asked to provoke and he got the result, evidenced by this and the papers. Change the 'circumstances' and then ask yourself the same question. I would hazard a guess that each persons' 'cirumstances' will be different but that each person DOES have a theoretical scenario where they WOULD!
Long time no booze fella! Said village, i'd warrant a guess, is still there!!! Maybe even the red tractor as well!!
I think with said AVM, you either love his syle of leadership or you hate it. Having seen the rest of what is on offer, i'll go with his particular brand. I would also add that, perhaps, one does not have a more intellectual forum than he did when this question was posed. Immediate reactions were understandable but, on reflection, was it SO bad? I think not though if faced with the dilemma for real I would probably not be able to clear my ears. Something as simple as this gives a REAL snapshot into the mentality of the 'enemy' rather than reading someone else's views in an article. To me, personally, it highlights the vast difference in culture.....but are we THAT different in this respect? I think the only differences are the cirumstances under which such a 'abhorrent' prospect could become reality. I know (at least I think i do) under which cirumstances I would consider this! I assure you that they would not be the same ones that Captain Mohammed and his heavy plastic belt would be! But isn't one persons perception anothers reality? Christ, need a stiff drink now before I start to sprout ear hair!
At the end of the day, IMHO, the man asked to provoke and he got the result, evidenced by this and the papers. Change the 'circumstances' and then ask yourself the same question. I would hazard a guess that each persons' 'cirumstances' will be different but that each person DOES have a theoretical scenario where they WOULD!