Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stacker,
My quote:
That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.
Sorry, not complete cods, in my view. I've encountered it many times in many circles, over a number of years.
Fair point about 'Army' helicopters in the province, I accept.
My point is that the position of the RAF as the UK's majority operator of military aircraft is not, and has never been, in serious doubt since 1918. Which makes the current subject of this thread all the more relevant. No one 'picked a fight' with CAS on ownership of military aircraft - he picked this one all by himself. Bizarre.
Best regards as ever
Engines
My quote:
That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.
Sorry, not complete cods, in my view. I've encountered it many times in many circles, over a number of years.
Fair point about 'Army' helicopters in the province, I accept.
My point is that the position of the RAF as the UK's majority operator of military aircraft is not, and has never been, in serious doubt since 1918. Which makes the current subject of this thread all the more relevant. No one 'picked a fight' with CAS on ownership of military aircraft - he picked this one all by himself. Bizarre.
Best regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
Couldn't agree more that most people seem to think that all aircraft are operated by the RAF. I remember once being stood in front of a Lynx (with ROYAL NAVY in big white letters on the tail) at RNAS Yeovilton on Air Day when a member of the public asked me what life was like in the RAF!
Couldn't agree more that most people seem to think that all aircraft are operated by the RAF. I remember once being stood in front of a Lynx (with ROYAL NAVY in big white letters on the tail) at RNAS Yeovilton on Air Day when a member of the public asked me what life was like in the RAF!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Strange as it may seem Jucky I and no doubt many more personnel who have served/are serving in the RAF can give you examples of the general populace mistaking them for Army personnel.
In one instance whilst at a town show I was asked how long I had been in the Army and even though admittedly I was in DPM clothing it had displayed upon it a large 'ROYAL AIR FORCE' badge, I was wearing an RAF blue/grey beret with RAF cap badge and was stood in front of a huge RAF careers stand, handing out RAF careers gizits.
Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex?
In one instance whilst at a town show I was asked how long I had been in the Army and even though admittedly I was in DPM clothing it had displayed upon it a large 'ROYAL AIR FORCE' badge, I was wearing an RAF blue/grey beret with RAF cap badge and was stood in front of a huge RAF careers stand, handing out RAF careers gizits.
Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex?"
THS
You try to mock us for being silly, but do you deny that the CAS has made a move to kill us off recently with his "one nation one airforce" crap?
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
If you deny either you are a tit, and if you accept these to be the case then you must accept that our "paranoia" is perfectly reasonable.
THS
You try to mock us for being silly, but do you deny that the CAS has made a move to kill us off recently with his "one nation one airforce" crap?
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
If you deny either you are a tit, and if you accept these to be the case then you must accept that our "paranoia" is perfectly reasonable.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex
Most of the work the RN does is out at sea over the horizon beyond the view of the public. It is fairly unglamorous work but essential none the less, but doesn't make any headlines unless the matelots have been taking drugs or fighting and wrecking the local town or getting captured by Iranians etc.
We now only have three main naval bases and two air stations (most of which are biased to the South and West of England) and unless you live near these you won't have much exposure to the RN. The RN has always been historically poor at PR and has only just woken up to this fact in the past few years. AFAIK the only Media Ops people we have are RNR or Civvy contractors.
Secondly, there is something much deeper that drives the RN persecution complex.
Historically when the RAF took control of aviation from the Admiralty, it wasn't long before maritime aviation was neglected and the Admiralty had no control over it. They then introduced the title of the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF in 1924 in an effort to re-establish some control over maritime aviation, however with the war looming the Admiralty took control of the Naval Air Branch in 1937 later to be renamed the Fleet Air Arm. Then later the 60's and 70's after the cancellation of CVA-01, the carriers and along with it FW aviation. We were lucky to be able to retain some FW capability with Sea Harrier.
So as you can see we have historical reasons to be worried about the early withdrawal of Harrier. I really don't believe that the RAF would be interested in looking after maritime aviation if the FAA no longer operated FW. There are a lot of other issues already touched on in terms of experience and force regeneration if we had a gap in FW activity between Harrier and Dave B.
The real answer is that we need the FAA, AAC and RAF as we all have specialist knowledge in different fields that we bring to the party. If the FAA or AAC were consumed by the RAF I feel that that RN and Army would not get the specialist services that the FAA and AAC provide their parent services. Disbanding the RAF would not work either as by the same token those at the top of the RN and Army who are not aviators don't really understand aviation and how to utilise it properly. Therefore the Government need to stop f**king around and start funding us properly if they want UK PLC to remain on the world stage as a major player, or we drastically reduce in size, become a small defence force capable of policing our own borders and not much else.
The Defence Chiefs also need to stop fighting each other, grow some balls and stand up to Comrade Brown and his cronies and demand the kit we need instead of tearing each other apart over the scraps (which I suspect the certain members of the Government just love).
The last time I checked I was British, as are most of you on the forum. I signed up to fight for Queen and Country (as well as to fly some great hardware) as I am sure most of you did. That means fighting alongside my brethren in the RN/RM, Army and RAF to protect the interests of the UK.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Tourist - You have just shown the parinoia I speak of in that last post and whilst you are not the Royal Navy at large your view is one I have heard from many within the senior service.
Far be it for a humble ex-stacker to question this but would you concede that there may have been a little more to the cancellation of CVA-01 than just a little bit of geographic licence? How about the newly-elected Labour government who realised that the UK was bankrupt and was trying to cancel as much as it could (which also included the P1154 and TSR2 as well as CVA-01)?
Stoking inter-service rivalries is a tried and tested tactic of the government in order to provide easy targets for cancellation as it seems that with the treasury where there is doubt there is no doubt. Unfortunately the Royal Navy plays straight into the government's hands everytime. Rather than plan for the future the RN is guilty of what many accuse the RAF of with Typhoon, planning for a war that has already passed.
Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset.
Cue someone mentioning carriers will be needed to fight a war that happened nearly 27 years ago?
All in my humble opinion of course.
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
Stoking inter-service rivalries is a tried and tested tactic of the government in order to provide easy targets for cancellation as it seems that with the treasury where there is doubt there is no doubt. Unfortunately the Royal Navy plays straight into the government's hands everytime. Rather than plan for the future the RN is guilty of what many accuse the RAF of with Typhoon, planning for a war that has already passed.
Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset.
Cue someone mentioning carriers will be needed to fight a war that happened nearly 27 years ago?
All in my humble opinion of course.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THS.
"Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset."
That's why so many nations are currently either building carriers or getting the ones they have servicable is it?
"Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset."
That's why so many nations are currently either building carriers or getting the ones they have servicable is it?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
If the FAA or AAC were consumed by the RAF I feel that that RN and Army would not get the specialist services that the FAA and AAC provide their parent services
Tourist - You obviously missed this bit then,
..unless you have the funds to adequately protect them..
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paranoia
Just because you may be paranoid does not mean that there is no-one out to get you.
But paranoia is better than mononoia - in that case there is definitely one person out to get you, everyone else knows who it is but is not telling you.
But paranoia is better than mononoia - in that case there is definitely one person out to get you, everyone else knows who it is but is not telling you.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Having the funds and having a government willing to use those funds for certain ends are, I'm sure you are well aware, two completely different things.
Reference protecting carriers (and I am not necessarily a 'carrier basher'), I'm sure the following has already been posted somewhere on pprune...
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online
If you invest in carriers, and I'm noy saying you shouldn't, then you need to protect them properly. And for all the RN guys who come on here saying how difficult they are to sink, talk to your own submariners - they will tell you with total confidence that they believe a well crewed and commanded SSN or SSK can penetrate a screen and sink the carrier! So one part of your own organization (the RN) knows/believes they are vulnerable.
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online
If you invest in carriers, and I'm noy saying you shouldn't, then you need to protect them properly. And for all the RN guys who come on here saying how difficult they are to sink, talk to your own submariners - they will tell you with total confidence that they believe a well crewed and commanded SSN or SSK can penetrate a screen and sink the carrier! So one part of your own organization (the RN) knows/believes they are vulnerable.
Wiretensioner
Simple answer - No. And I don't think he ever had any intention to - I even suspect the "threat" didn't even originate from his office - more MOD MB staff officer rumour mill, overheard in the Red Lion etc! But he may well win either way. My reasoning - I don't think there has ever been any intent to totally scrap the Harrier. IMHO the Harrier will be reduced in numbers with the FAA/RAF manning reduced accordingly. CNS will then be able to claim "victory" at seeing of the nasty Torpy bloke and his secret disband the FAA plan and thus be seen as a "hero" amongst his men, retire gracefully (Apr 09?), be elevated to the HofL etc etc.
If only some of the contibutors to this thread could get themselves into a position (or even join the military!) where they could influence such debates then life would be so much easier. And yes I have been in that position (for my sins) before anyone asks. And yes I am RAF but still believe a reduction in Harrier (given the creek the MOD are up with no paddles in sight) is the only way the carriers and carrier borne fixed wing aviation will survive the next few planning rounds. It is only going to get more brutal - if Tornado GR4 has survived because of its intending deployment to AFG it is only a stay of execution! And, again, I don't care what colour cloth the drivers are - as long as they are the best person for such a task.
I'd like to think it's all going to get get better in 2009 but I don't think reducing one op will do anything more than offer up more for the salami slicing machine. Happy New Year anyway!
Simple answer - No. And I don't think he ever had any intention to - I even suspect the "threat" didn't even originate from his office - more MOD MB staff officer rumour mill, overheard in the Red Lion etc! But he may well win either way. My reasoning - I don't think there has ever been any intent to totally scrap the Harrier. IMHO the Harrier will be reduced in numbers with the FAA/RAF manning reduced accordingly. CNS will then be able to claim "victory" at seeing of the nasty Torpy bloke and his secret disband the FAA plan and thus be seen as a "hero" amongst his men, retire gracefully (Apr 09?), be elevated to the HofL etc etc.
If only some of the contibutors to this thread could get themselves into a position (or even join the military!) where they could influence such debates then life would be so much easier. And yes I have been in that position (for my sins) before anyone asks. And yes I am RAF but still believe a reduction in Harrier (given the creek the MOD are up with no paddles in sight) is the only way the carriers and carrier borne fixed wing aviation will survive the next few planning rounds. It is only going to get more brutal - if Tornado GR4 has survived because of its intending deployment to AFG it is only a stay of execution! And, again, I don't care what colour cloth the drivers are - as long as they are the best person for such a task.
I'd like to think it's all going to get get better in 2009 but I don't think reducing one op will do anything more than offer up more for the salami slicing machine. Happy New Year anyway!
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minigun
That's right, because nobody in the RAF has ever fecked up and crashed because they were stupid eh?
Add up the cost of all the RAF a/c lost due to pilot error or negligence, and I assure you that it will be more money than the surface fleet have cost due to running aground.
..............then again, that probably goes for the FAA as well..
I can't believe I just defended the fisheads..........
That's right, because nobody in the RAF has ever fecked up and crashed because they were stupid eh?
Add up the cost of all the RAF a/c lost due to pilot error or negligence, and I assure you that it will be more money than the surface fleet have cost due to running aground.
..............then again, that probably goes for the FAA as well..
I can't believe I just defended the fisheads..........
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist: You must defend the fishheads; solidarity and all that.
You'll be pleased to hear that Mrs Ex seems to think all helicopters should have RN painted on them. I wonder where she got that idea from...
You'll be pleased to hear that Mrs Ex seems to think all helicopters should have RN painted on them. I wonder where she got that idea from...
Tourist
Given the RAF is a mere 90 and a bit years old, and as everyone keeps telling us the Navy is the Senior Service, I'm sure that a good spin doctor could (hopefully!) dispute that statement!
Add up the cost of all the RAF a/c lost due to pilot error or negligence, and I assure you that it will be more money than the surface fleet have cost due to running aground
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THS
Indeed 'tis very strange... I'd have thought you were more likely to be mistaken for members of the RAC with that uniform 
Strange as it may seem Jucky I and no doubt many more personnel who have served/are serving in the RAF can give you examples of the general populace mistaking them for Army personnel.