Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I believe the SEATO UK/US AOR boundary was 105 deg E.
It was certainly the UK Government's plan to "intention to run down the size of the UK’s armed forces over 10 years as defence spending would be maintained at its present levels"
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which of all of my comments have apparently demonstrated such breathtaking levels of hypocrisy, are biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate?
The only reason why I started replying in this thread was simply because of the obvious need to counter some of the very RAF biased and ridiculously unfair statements that were being made about the other UK Forces by some people in this thread.
...Ray Lygo gives a clear account of his discovery that Australia had been moved 200 miles to the west in his autobiography. Not saying it's right or wrong, only that he makes the claim ..
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem. It was brought to his attention while he was Deputy Director of Naval Air Warfare in the MoD. You'll find it on pages 285 and 286. Save you the trouble of wading through the whole thing ...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MWD
Read the title of the post.
If indeed he did threaten to resign, it would surely make sense for him to resign if they do scrap the harriers, not before they scrap the carriers, or if they don't scrap the carriers?
Just a thought......
Read the title of the post.
If indeed he did threaten to resign, it would surely make sense for him to resign if they do scrap the harriers, not before they scrap the carriers, or if they don't scrap the carriers?
Just a thought......
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very senior RAF officers do not resign - they serve through whatever the politicians do to their service and personnel and invariably draw their full pension on normal retirement.
Resignations on a point of honour are reserved for the other two services it seems.
Resignations on a point of honour are reserved for the other two services it seems.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slug Balancers Strike Again
A well written article here:
RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register
Interesting fact about how many aircraft have been shot down by fighters since WWII.
RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register
Interesting fact about how many aircraft have been shot down by fighters since WWII.
Well written????????????????
Chump.
RAF and it's continuing love of strategic deep bombers? Please!!!!!!!
Chump.
RAF and it's continuing love of strategic deep bombers? Please!!!!!!!
Bit harsh, Proone - Lewis Page writes reasonably well.
It's just that his reasonably crafted prose can't hide the fact that the substance of everything he produces is badly researched, ill-thought out and hopelessly prejudiced.
It's just that his reasonably crafted prose can't hide the fact that the substance of everything he produces is badly researched, ill-thought out and hopelessly prejudiced.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again
...
1930s, 1970s ... disaster every time they do it
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Government, 8th December 2008 15:03 GMT
...
But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.
Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans.
RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register
Very expert opinion, yes indeed.
...
1930s, 1970s ... disaster every time they do it
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Government, 8th December 2008 15:03 GMT
...
But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.
Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans.
RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register
Very expert opinion, yes indeed.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern Elmo
"But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.
Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans"
Interesting that you picked that paragraph to mock.
I don't agree with Lewis on everything, and as always his attention to detail is not as good as his overview in my opinion, but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result.
"But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.
Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans"
Interesting that you picked that paragraph to mock.
I don't agree with Lewis on everything, and as always his attention to detail is not as good as his overview in my opinion, but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the face of it I'd agree, particularly the AEW options would be far more attractive. However, if we consider the possibility that if (big if) Ocean and Ark eventually get replaced, we may find that going STOVL offers the option of building two commando carriers with ski jumps, similar to the Navantia designs being built by Australia. If that ever becomes the case having four STOVL capable carriers would offer advantages over two dedicated CTOL carriers only.
But as the USMC is finding out, Dave B is a big aircraft and hard to support on a mid-sized ship - particularly along with transport helos, grunts, grunt food &c. For a "commando ship" role you'd be better off with a smaller, CAS-optimized "Harrier III".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
"but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result."
Which is what most have being saying from day1 along with reactors to power the bloody things.
"but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result."
Which is what most have being saying from day1 along with reactors to power the bloody things.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we get carried away with a nuclear powered option, remember that would limit the ships to X/Z Berths. Such berths don't grow on trees, particularly when considered against deployments. CVF is supposed to increase our flexibility.
