Crab-Bashing
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flatus
It means "not expensive" or "no 5 star hotels" or "field conditions means your tent does not have electricity" or "a 2 a/c deployment somewhere nice does not need 50 maintainers" or "defending the uk from marauding 737s does not require 260 typhoon" or " an airbase can hold more than 10 a/c"
etc etc
Tomorrow we will work on "panache"
going to be a tricky one I think, and I have no idea how I am going to explain stoicism to you crabs
It means "not expensive" or "no 5 star hotels" or "field conditions means your tent does not have electricity" or "a 2 a/c deployment somewhere nice does not need 50 maintainers" or "defending the uk from marauding 737s does not require 260 typhoon" or " an airbase can hold more than 10 a/c"
etc etc
Tomorrow we will work on "panache"
going to be a tricky one I think, and I have no idea how I am going to explain stoicism to you crabs
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
althenick
Stop changing the rules. You asked:
Quote:
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
So far we have Spitfire, Hurricane, Vampire, B25, T45 (no mention of Op Capability), Fury, Harrier - so significantly more than ONE repeat ONE
And I would like to add a few more from the very early years of carrier ops!!!
Yesterday 20:41
Stop changing the rules. You asked:
Quote:
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
So far we have Spitfire, Hurricane, Vampire, B25, T45 (no mention of Op Capability), Fury, Harrier - so significantly more than ONE repeat ONE
And I would like to add a few more from the very early years of carrier ops!!!
Yesterday 20:41
Trust me none of these aircraft were regarded as a great success at sea and i'm even going to now include the sea fury. I'm not just talking about it's effectivness in the air but other factors such as range and design for purpose.
Sea Fury - Great A/c but it was already behind it's time - and before anyone says that it could take on a Mig 15 i would say that was down to the pilot being better than his opponent (good kill though
)Hurricane - Too heavy once navalised, also no folding wings
Seafire - Early models - as for hurricane . All Models - also with an extremely high accident rate particularly on retreval.
Vampire - Again wieght and range penalties on Navalisation
B25 - You've piqued my curiosity - did one ever land on a carrier??? Doolitles raid was an excellent idea.
Harrier - Like I said a happy coincidence. It was never invisaged as a sea going A/c when designed but as I said before a Naff Range, but very good at its job.
The Sea Fury should be compared with its direct contemporaries (eg F4U-5N) and not the jets which came immediately afterwards. And for its original role, it was pretty good.
You have to remember that frontline aircraft did not last long in those days before being rendered obsolete.
The Hornet, Attacker and Sea Hawk (P1040) were all derived from land based fighter designs, and so was the Sea Vixen. The Sea Hawk, in particular, was notably good, and would meet your criteria (name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?) .
And so was the Venom - in its time, and in its FAW/NF role.
And while some of the great aircraft designed as naval fighters were successful when adapted for land based ops, they were often not as good as aircraft designed for such use from the start. The F4U Corsair, for example, was a great aeroplane, but it wasn't in the same class as the P-51/P-47, the Spitfire or the Fw190. F-14 or F-15? F-16 or F/A-18?
You have to remember that frontline aircraft did not last long in those days before being rendered obsolete.
The Hornet, Attacker and Sea Hawk (P1040) were all derived from land based fighter designs, and so was the Sea Vixen. The Sea Hawk, in particular, was notably good, and would meet your criteria (name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?) .
And so was the Venom - in its time, and in its FAW/NF role.
And while some of the great aircraft designed as naval fighters were successful when adapted for land based ops, they were often not as good as aircraft designed for such use from the start. The F4U Corsair, for example, was a great aeroplane, but it wasn't in the same class as the P-51/P-47, the Spitfire or the Fw190. F-14 or F-15? F-16 or F/A-18?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Drift
This will be my last post on this thread.
I intended to discuss why it was that people believed that the RAF was conspiring against them whenever things didn't happen how they wanted in an aviation matter. (In fact I don't think that's possible. If you think for a moment how difficult we find it to come up with a coherent line on any of our own issues, how could we run a covert campaign against anyone else?)
Since then we seem to have had:
- RAF types similarly bemused.
- RN types protest that its true, the RAF has it in for us and by the way, we really really need carriers.
- Merest hint of questioning the requirement for carriers/independent naval aviation arm leads to heated debate that belongs on the Future Carrier thread.
- Side discussion about whether aircraft designed for a land-based role can be adapted for use at sea (which, arguably, might be better in the JSF issues thread tongue firmly in cheek).
I'll get my coat.
I intended to discuss why it was that people believed that the RAF was conspiring against them whenever things didn't happen how they wanted in an aviation matter. (In fact I don't think that's possible. If you think for a moment how difficult we find it to come up with a coherent line on any of our own issues, how could we run a covert campaign against anyone else?)
Since then we seem to have had:
- RAF types similarly bemused.
- RN types protest that its true, the RAF has it in for us and by the way, we really really need carriers.
- Merest hint of questioning the requirement for carriers/independent naval aviation arm leads to heated debate that belongs on the Future Carrier thread.
- Side discussion about whether aircraft designed for a land-based role can be adapted for use at sea (which, arguably, might be better in the JSF issues thread tongue firmly in cheek).
I'll get my coat.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
To me "cheaply" means the delivery of ordnance on target at the lowest overall cost per unit - including all the infrastructure. Now it seems to me as a simple ex-crab that, if it were cheaper by this definition in most cases to base the delivery aircraft on board ship rather than on land, then inevitably there would be very few airfields around and lots of carriers. For instance, now that we have gone to the considerable trouble and expense of building a major airfield on the Falklands, why do the fisheads go on bleating about how we might need carriers to do CORPORATE all over again?
WIth ex-FAA people in my family I yield to no one in my admiration for the "Branch". But they are not supermen. In the mid-50s I had the great pleasure of being on an RAF fighter squadron lodged temporarily at Hal Far. While we were there we had plenty of opportunity to mix it with FAA Sea Hawk squadrons from Med Fleet carriers and, believe me, we were not found wanting. Even the (WRNS-manned) ciné assessment section at Hal Far had to admit that. Our airmen were esily the smartest unit on Divisions. The Commander told me that. And one night I was dug out of my pit by the "Officer of the Watch" (the Boss was on leave) and asked to produce a maximum effort search at first light for the crew of a Gannet which had gone over the side of a carrier. We produced our full UE of 16 aircraft at 0600, which was a damned sight more than the local FAA units could achieve. And when we were asked to support an amphibious exercise at St Paul's Bay one Saturday afternoon, when we had done our simulated "strikes" on the beachhead we laid on an impromptu display of formation aerobatics which got the full attention of the local press. Now that is what I call "panache".
I do not know why the FAA is so paranoid about the Crabs. The ususal explanation for such "chippiness" is a deep feeling of inferiority. Anyway it is boring and high time the Branch grew up.
To me "cheaply" means the delivery of ordnance on target at the lowest overall cost per unit - including all the infrastructure. Now it seems to me as a simple ex-crab that, if it were cheaper by this definition in most cases to base the delivery aircraft on board ship rather than on land, then inevitably there would be very few airfields around and lots of carriers. For instance, now that we have gone to the considerable trouble and expense of building a major airfield on the Falklands, why do the fisheads go on bleating about how we might need carriers to do CORPORATE all over again?
WIth ex-FAA people in my family I yield to no one in my admiration for the "Branch". But they are not supermen. In the mid-50s I had the great pleasure of being on an RAF fighter squadron lodged temporarily at Hal Far. While we were there we had plenty of opportunity to mix it with FAA Sea Hawk squadrons from Med Fleet carriers and, believe me, we were not found wanting. Even the (WRNS-manned) ciné assessment section at Hal Far had to admit that. Our airmen were esily the smartest unit on Divisions. The Commander told me that. And one night I was dug out of my pit by the "Officer of the Watch" (the Boss was on leave) and asked to produce a maximum effort search at first light for the crew of a Gannet which had gone over the side of a carrier. We produced our full UE of 16 aircraft at 0600, which was a damned sight more than the local FAA units could achieve. And when we were asked to support an amphibious exercise at St Paul's Bay one Saturday afternoon, when we had done our simulated "strikes" on the beachhead we laid on an impromptu display of formation aerobatics which got the full attention of the local press. Now that is what I call "panache".
I do not know why the FAA is so paranoid about the Crabs. The ususal explanation for such "chippiness" is a deep feeling of inferiority. Anyway it is boring and high time the Branch grew up.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On JFH, I'd like to respond to some points in recent posts by OA:
Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets.
The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR. Getting 4 squadrons out of 3 was always going to be a stretch - the air staffs were told this at the time. Force slashed? Only if you're talking about numbers of RAF Harrier drivers. Not sure where 'political correctness' comes in.
You can try to blame the RAF but in the end the fact is that 801 did not stand up because the RN couldn't man it under the system that had been agreed jointly.
Not true. The QFI issue emerged as the units were standing up. It was pushed by a certain RAF senior officer. Under RN rules, 801 did not need to do it, and the need had NOT been 'agreed jointly'.
I sympathise about AOC 3 Gp, but don't forget it was always going to be a rotational/competition post anyway, and that the vast majority of the Gp was RAF.
Wrong on both. AOC 3 Gp was a dark blue post. Group HQ was around 50/50 RN/RAF.
1. UK policy at the moment is to take risk against air defence in all environments and current operations are crying out for CAS.
Accepted - and we're buying Typhoon why?
2. The SHAR was an air defence aircraft and the GR7/9 is a CAS aircraft.
Both had secondary roles. All aircraft do. JFH was supposed to exploit both, for the benefit of both.
3. The IPT has to pay for both.
Statement of the blindingly obvious. If you have an aircraft to support, it needs to be paid for.
4. The SHAR was seven times as expensive to support as the GR7.
Wrong. Plain wrong. Really wrong. PM me and I'll put you right here.
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules.
The RN agreed to move to the RAF system for a number of reasons - not least that this will be the most efficient way of operating JSF in future - one of the big drivers behind forming JFH was to build capacity for JSF.
The RN did not agree to move to the RAF system. The key aim of JFH was to try to achieve 'convergence' - put two forces alongside one another and develop better ways of doing things. OA, you are spot on that bashing between the services is a 'no win' game. JFH was formed to break through that. Bald statements like 'from a safety point of view' and 'the RAF system...will be the most efficient way of operating JSF' are exactly what they were trying to break through.
Although you could have manned the sqn under RN rules, it would not have had the support needed and would not be able to generate the FE@R required for its task - RN Sqns were structured around providing jets for embarked ops which are flexi serviced, then come back and go into the shed while the people take their end-of-tour leave.
Actually, words nearly fail me here. Assertion after wrong assertion. RN squadrons did, and could have, generated their FEAR. They'd done so for many years. Go back into the shed? End of tour leave? Fantasy. Wrong. Not true.
It works well if you can accept that dip, but JSF will be operated in the way the RAF always have - to keep the sqn on readiness all the time.
In my direct experience, RAF squadrons were not 'on readiness all the time' - the station used all the assets to maintain the force FEAR. Actually, quite a good way of doing it.
OA, what bothers me is that this sort of assertion is exactly what the bottom feeders in the Treasury thrive on. And there's rather a lot of it about just now. The best way forward would be to use the differences to advantage - compare them, test them and use them to build new and better ways of getting the best out of our units. The RN, the RAF and the Army all have great ideas and systems for running aircraft. They also all have some that are not so great. 'Jointery' should not mean 'choose one'.
Sadly, in many cases, senior officers (any service) will resist such change because it threatens their promotion and power base. If they don't get their collective act together soon, there could be some serious defence cuts hurt.
Best Regards
Engines
Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets.
The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR. Getting 4 squadrons out of 3 was always going to be a stretch - the air staffs were told this at the time. Force slashed? Only if you're talking about numbers of RAF Harrier drivers. Not sure where 'political correctness' comes in.
You can try to blame the RAF but in the end the fact is that 801 did not stand up because the RN couldn't man it under the system that had been agreed jointly.
Not true. The QFI issue emerged as the units were standing up. It was pushed by a certain RAF senior officer. Under RN rules, 801 did not need to do it, and the need had NOT been 'agreed jointly'.
I sympathise about AOC 3 Gp, but don't forget it was always going to be a rotational/competition post anyway, and that the vast majority of the Gp was RAF.
Wrong on both. AOC 3 Gp was a dark blue post. Group HQ was around 50/50 RN/RAF.
1. UK policy at the moment is to take risk against air defence in all environments and current operations are crying out for CAS.
Accepted - and we're buying Typhoon why?
2. The SHAR was an air defence aircraft and the GR7/9 is a CAS aircraft.
Both had secondary roles. All aircraft do. JFH was supposed to exploit both, for the benefit of both.
3. The IPT has to pay for both.
Statement of the blindingly obvious. If you have an aircraft to support, it needs to be paid for.
4. The SHAR was seven times as expensive to support as the GR7.
Wrong. Plain wrong. Really wrong. PM me and I'll put you right here.
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules.
The RN agreed to move to the RAF system for a number of reasons - not least that this will be the most efficient way of operating JSF in future - one of the big drivers behind forming JFH was to build capacity for JSF.
The RN did not agree to move to the RAF system. The key aim of JFH was to try to achieve 'convergence' - put two forces alongside one another and develop better ways of doing things. OA, you are spot on that bashing between the services is a 'no win' game. JFH was formed to break through that. Bald statements like 'from a safety point of view' and 'the RAF system...will be the most efficient way of operating JSF' are exactly what they were trying to break through.
Although you could have manned the sqn under RN rules, it would not have had the support needed and would not be able to generate the FE@R required for its task - RN Sqns were structured around providing jets for embarked ops which are flexi serviced, then come back and go into the shed while the people take their end-of-tour leave.
Actually, words nearly fail me here. Assertion after wrong assertion. RN squadrons did, and could have, generated their FEAR. They'd done so for many years. Go back into the shed? End of tour leave? Fantasy. Wrong. Not true.
It works well if you can accept that dip, but JSF will be operated in the way the RAF always have - to keep the sqn on readiness all the time.
In my direct experience, RAF squadrons were not 'on readiness all the time' - the station used all the assets to maintain the force FEAR. Actually, quite a good way of doing it.
OA, what bothers me is that this sort of assertion is exactly what the bottom feeders in the Treasury thrive on. And there's rather a lot of it about just now. The best way forward would be to use the differences to advantage - compare them, test them and use them to build new and better ways of getting the best out of our units. The RN, the RAF and the Army all have great ideas and systems for running aircraft. They also all have some that are not so great. 'Jointery' should not mean 'choose one'.
Sadly, in many cases, senior officers (any service) will resist such change because it threatens their promotion and power base. If they don't get their collective act together soon, there could be some serious defence cuts hurt.
Best Regards
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Our airmen were esily the smartest unit on Divisions. The Commander told me that."
Oh dear Oh Dear
Definition:- The Commander. The token GL fishhead who's only job is to really give a toss about smartness and shiny shoes.
Definition:- The RAF. Civvies who really really believe that when it comes to the RAF uniform, you can, in fact, polish a turd.
Oh dear Oh Dear
Definition:- The Commander. The token GL fishhead who's only job is to really give a toss about smartness and shiny shoes.
Definition:- The RAF. Civvies who really really believe that when it comes to the RAF uniform, you can, in fact, polish a turd.
Engines,
I'm afraid that you're brave attempt to refute the allegation that:
"Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets."
is itself in error.
"The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR."
The response required to avoid ruffling RN feathers....
"Getting 4 squadrons out of 3 was always going to be a stretch - the air staffs were told this at the time. Force slashed? Only if you're talking about numbers of RAF Harrier drivers. Not sure where 'political correctness' comes in."
Before the JFH fiasco the RAF had three HUGE Harrier squadrons (1, 3, and IV) 13 jets each, fully manned, with a big OCU and plenty of Harrier mates on exchange. The Navy could bring two, tiny eight aircraft squadrons and a smaller training unit to the party. Logic would have dictated a 3:1 or 2:1 mix - not a 50:50 mix.
and you're as badly wrong on your other points, too.
Unpalateable though it may be to someone from the Navy, OA got it absolutely right.
Tourist,
Comic genius. Cheap and obvious is sometimes good comedy. You are the Benny Hill of PPRuNe.
I'm afraid that you're brave attempt to refute the allegation that:
"Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets."
is itself in error.
"The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR."
The response required to avoid ruffling RN feathers....
"Getting 4 squadrons out of 3 was always going to be a stretch - the air staffs were told this at the time. Force slashed? Only if you're talking about numbers of RAF Harrier drivers. Not sure where 'political correctness' comes in."
Before the JFH fiasco the RAF had three HUGE Harrier squadrons (1, 3, and IV) 13 jets each, fully manned, with a big OCU and plenty of Harrier mates on exchange. The Navy could bring two, tiny eight aircraft squadrons and a smaller training unit to the party. Logic would have dictated a 3:1 or 2:1 mix - not a 50:50 mix.
and you're as badly wrong on your other points, too.
Unpalateable though it may be to someone from the Navy, OA got it absolutely right.
Tourist,
Comic genius. Cheap and obvious is sometimes good comedy. You are the Benny Hill of PPRuNe.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why thank you Jacko!
Now it seems to me that Engines is either a masterful bullsh1tter, or somebody who has a lot of experience in the harrier world, yet you, a journalist who flew a buldog once are arrogant enough to make statements like "and you're as badly wrong on your other points, too."
That would make you the Micheal Winner of the Journalist world.
Now it seems to me that Engines is either a masterful bullsh1tter, or somebody who has a lot of experience in the harrier world, yet you, a journalist who flew a buldog once are arrogant enough to make statements like "and you're as badly wrong on your other points, too."
That would make you the Micheal Winner of the Journalist world.
fight, fight, fight, fight.
Unfortunately Jacko, you previous post history shows you have a very narrow and extreme ight blue bias to your point of view and you regularly allow this bias to get in the way of considered debate, looking at both sides of the argument. Most posters on these forums give considered views that take into account the good and bad elements of all three services. Magic Mushromm is a good example, despite his loyalty to one service in particular.
Your regular rant across the pages of Pprune "scrap the carriers" is getting a bit boring now.
Unfortunately Jacko, you previous post history shows you have a very narrow and extreme ight blue bias to your point of view and you regularly allow this bias to get in the way of considered debate, looking at both sides of the argument. Most posters on these forums give considered views that take into account the good and bad elements of all three services. Magic Mushromm is a good example, despite his loyalty to one service in particular.
Your regular rant across the pages of Pprune "scrap the carriers" is getting a bit boring now.
Tourist,
Michael Winner ain't a journo.......
....... and he can spell.
I'd prefer the 'Piers Morgan of PPRuNe' really.
As to Engines, his posts contain a puzzling mixture of fact and bol.locks. Fortunately there are plenty of other Harrier mates on PPRuNe (and others accessible on the end of a phone) who have confirmed the sad story of JFH manning - eg that the SHar force was never big enough to provide half of JFH, and its demand to do so was based on senior service willy waving, and not on what was best for the force or for the tax-payer.
Widger,
Anyone who dares question the carriers is going to be accused of bias. Anyone who puts forward a sensible argument against them is going to be accused of ranting.
I'd have thought, however, that you were bright enough to see the difference between a straight, all-out anti-carrier position (carriers are of no utility, however much we have to spend) and a reluctant acceptance of financial realities.
It's simple. When the defence budget is as tight as it is now, then spending several billion on carriers, and many billions more on JSF, on an asset that is neither responsive nor autonomous, represents an unwelcome diversion from the real priorities and necessities.
Now if we were back in 8% GDP days, I'd probably be 'ranting' about why only two carriers and not three.....
Michael Winner ain't a journo.......
....... and he can spell.
I'd prefer the 'Piers Morgan of PPRuNe' really.
As to Engines, his posts contain a puzzling mixture of fact and bol.locks. Fortunately there are plenty of other Harrier mates on PPRuNe (and others accessible on the end of a phone) who have confirmed the sad story of JFH manning - eg that the SHar force was never big enough to provide half of JFH, and its demand to do so was based on senior service willy waving, and not on what was best for the force or for the tax-payer.
Widger,
Anyone who dares question the carriers is going to be accused of bias. Anyone who puts forward a sensible argument against them is going to be accused of ranting.
I'd have thought, however, that you were bright enough to see the difference between a straight, all-out anti-carrier position (carriers are of no utility, however much we have to spend) and a reluctant acceptance of financial realities.
It's simple. When the defence budget is as tight as it is now, then spending several billion on carriers, and many billions more on JSF, on an asset that is neither responsive nor autonomous, represents an unwelcome diversion from the real priorities and necessities.
Now if we were back in 8% GDP days, I'd probably be 'ranting' about why only two carriers and not three.....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger accuses Jacko of having a narrow and biased point of view while most posters on these forums give considered and balanced views! Haven't laughed so much in months!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
I'd like to respond to your points, if I may:
You said that : "The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR." was: The response required to avoid ruffling RN feathers....
By that time RN feathers were fairly ruffled anyway. The development of the 4 squadron structure was, I can assure you, very much a 'joint' effort.
Your point:
Before the JFH fiasco the RAF had three HUGE Harrier squadrons (1, 3, and IV) 13 jets each, fully manned, with a big OCU and plenty of Harrier mates on exchange. The Navy could bring two, tiny eight aircraft squadrons and a smaller training unit to the party. Logic would have dictated a 3:1 or 2:1 mix - not a 50:50 mix.
Deserves a response. Comparing RAF and RN squadron strengths was just one area where JFH had to work across two dissimilar systems. The RAF unit strengths (and I'm not going to reveal what they were) included aircraft in maintennace at second line. RN units did not. As a result, actual numbers of aircraft available to fly on the units were much closer than you might suppose. The RN and RAF OCUs were of a similar size in terms of aircraft establishment. RN units, like their RAF counterparts, were fully manned - but to very different manning principles and systems. Again, part of the JFH challenge was to bring those together and build best practice to meet the operational need.
I'm not sure that using terms like HUGE and 'tiny' when describing squadron sizes (or anything else) really gets anyone further forward. You may disagree.
If you'd like to PM me on the other areas where I was 'badly wrong', I'd be happy to reply.
The key thing, as far as this thread goes, is that 'crab-bashing' is a pointless activity in our current circumstances - all 3 services sink or swim togther just now (if you pardon the phrase). That's why I've taken care to avoid doing it.
Regards
Engines
I'd like to respond to your points, if I may:
You said that : "The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR." was: The response required to avoid ruffling RN feathers....
By that time RN feathers were fairly ruffled anyway. The development of the 4 squadron structure was, I can assure you, very much a 'joint' effort.
Your point:
Before the JFH fiasco the RAF had three HUGE Harrier squadrons (1, 3, and IV) 13 jets each, fully manned, with a big OCU and plenty of Harrier mates on exchange. The Navy could bring two, tiny eight aircraft squadrons and a smaller training unit to the party. Logic would have dictated a 3:1 or 2:1 mix - not a 50:50 mix.
Deserves a response. Comparing RAF and RN squadron strengths was just one area where JFH had to work across two dissimilar systems. The RAF unit strengths (and I'm not going to reveal what they were) included aircraft in maintennace at second line. RN units did not. As a result, actual numbers of aircraft available to fly on the units were much closer than you might suppose. The RN and RAF OCUs were of a similar size in terms of aircraft establishment. RN units, like their RAF counterparts, were fully manned - but to very different manning principles and systems. Again, part of the JFH challenge was to bring those together and build best practice to meet the operational need.
I'm not sure that using terms like HUGE and 'tiny' when describing squadron sizes (or anything else) really gets anyone further forward. You may disagree.
If you'd like to PM me on the other areas where I was 'badly wrong', I'd be happy to reply.
The key thing, as far as this thread goes, is that 'crab-bashing' is a pointless activity in our current circumstances - all 3 services sink or swim togther just now (if you pardon the phrase). That's why I've taken care to avoid doing it.
Regards
Engines
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
I'm honestly puzzled by your statement that my posts contain 'a puzzling mixture of fact and b******s'.
As I said, I'd be happy to swap PMs on exactly where you think I'm going astray.
Regards
Engines
I'm honestly puzzled by your statement that my posts contain 'a puzzling mixture of fact and b******s'.
As I said, I'd be happy to swap PMs on exactly where you think I'm going astray.
Regards
Engines
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just think.....
Scrap JSF/Trident replacement save ££££wonga.
Put %££££wonga into carriers and make them "full" sized with reactors.
Put % of remaining of wonga to buy off the shelf modern twin engined naval multirole aircraft, Ghia model. Don't care manufacturer so long as it's got twin engines. If BAES want a (bigger) share of the pie they work for it.
As F3 mates draw down man aircraft with F3 crews initial fleet defence role. Continue this with training/mud crews to complete multirole work up.
Give, YES, GIVE what is left to Army let them buy what they want, boots, guns that work, choppers, smart kit whatever.
Well it's almost Christmas...........
Put %££££wonga into carriers and make them "full" sized with reactors.
Put % of remaining of wonga to buy off the shelf modern twin engined naval multirole aircraft, Ghia model. Don't care manufacturer so long as it's got twin engines. If BAES want a (bigger) share of the pie they work for it.
As F3 mates draw down man aircraft with F3 crews initial fleet defence role. Continue this with training/mud crews to complete multirole work up.
Give, YES, GIVE what is left to Army let them buy what they want, boots, guns that work, choppers, smart kit whatever.
Well it's almost Christmas...........
