Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in

Old 21st Mar 2009, 16:34
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 55
Posts: 47
OK - still v grumpy! Will try and see the 'evidence' with my own eyes next week and will report back.
FINNPOG, like your suggestion ... "If true, then he should be birched for denigrating the rest of the service IMO." but may just be too lenient IMHO if proven!! Standby - out! H-W
SL Hardly-Worthitt is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2009, 16:50
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 178
When I left the RAF after having been medically downgraded (could only fly "as or with a co-pilot") the Air Sec bod told me that I had to be capable of flying single pilot if I had any chance of becoming CAS.
Wwyvern is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2009, 22:10
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
HQ reports strong 'rumour' of a written statement from CAS provided during Army bloke's recent review into Harrier manning that says something like ...."the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots...". If this statement is true I
This sounds absolutely true ...and if it wasn't CAS then it was more than likely ACAS that said it or put CAS up to it. What other idiots would have started the battle with the RN in the first place...oh yes, the same fools who said flying at sea was easy!

Perhaps someone should do an FOI on the whole shambles.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2009, 20:09
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The High Seas
Posts: 35
WHY?

"Retire honourably after more than 30 years service to the crown" sounds so much nicer though.

It is a shame that this became a "resigning" issue in the first place.
Is this really a resigning issue?

Having started an unnecessary fight, the outcome of which seems to be an enshrinement of the status quo more or less, I'm not clear as to why CAS/ACAS would now compound the failure of their strategy by throwing themselves on their swords. Surely the mature thing to do is put a positive spin on the outcome as it affects one's service and exercise some leadership.
Alpha Whiskey is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2009, 22:46
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 469
Surely the mature thing to do is put a positive spin on the outcome as it affects one's service and exercise some leadership.
Do you honestly believe that anyone further down the food chain in the RAF has any faith whatsoever in their leaders at the top, those very same leaders who start such a fight with a fellow Service (and one that participates in a JOINT Force at war) to the extent that the two Heads of Service fall out. And to the extent that one Service chief puts his name to such statements as.."the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots...".. Come on!!!

If the head of Service that I used to serve in did such a thing I would be demanding his head (and that of those that put him up to it - in this case it appears to be ACAS).

Come on RAF stand up for yourselves.
Bismark is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2009, 17:14
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 60
Posts: 19
Relations with the USAF?

If he really said that, CAS will have a hard time getting along with the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen Norton A. Schwartz . Spec Ops and trash hauling background in C-130, Not exactly FJ, but still a pretty smart man to make it up there to 4*
ECMO1 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2009, 17:56
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Angry Intellectual and Mental Capacity

OK - reporting back and pretty disgusted..... CAS statement during recent Harrier review (which incidentally has gone really quiet...anyone know of any outcomes in the dispute??) is the following:

".......the majority of key appointments are held by FJ pilots (indeed exclusively at 3* and above at the moment). This is not by accident.....the very intellectual and mental capacity attributes that help distinguish a FJ pilot.....drive these statistics."

Not sure really what more to say to this blatant arrogance! What does it really say about the rest of us who, for whatever reason, support our Service honourably in another way? I'm pretty sure there are many others that possess at least equal (or indeed infinitely greater if this is an example to go by!) intellectual and mental capacity.

Angry and ashamed. H-W
SL Hardly-Worthitt is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2009, 18:00
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
"What does it really say about the rest of us who, for whatever reason, support our Service honourably in another way?"

My take on his quote is that he thinks you are pond-life.

Happy to help
Finnpog is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2009, 18:15
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Cheers FINNPOG, kick a chap when he's down why don't you!

S'pose ur right 'though - should've worked harder at school (along with better eyesight etc etc) to up my 'intellect' to Torpy's obvious stratospheric level...still like the idea of a 'birching' - public?
SL Hardly-Worthitt is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2009, 18:27
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 781
I've hesitated to enter this thread, but the recent post confirming the remarks by CAS makes me sad - and a little angry.

I served in another Service for a good long stint, as a professional engineer. I was always treated as a member of the team, and was honoured and grateful to be commanded by engineers and aircrew who almost without exception showed the best qualities of leadership and consideration you could ask for. That included aircrew of many specialisations, FJ, rotary wing, navigators, etc. You worked on stripes, not badges. Officer first, specialization a distant second.

Here's the point. My last 9 years or so were spent with the RAF. Basically, no difference. Still great people, great leaders and team players. And as professional as you could wish for.

These remarks sadden me because they saddle a great Service with a burden of stupidity and narrow mindedness it does not, for one moment, deserve. Yes, FJ pilots are special - like all other pilots. Like lots of other people in the Services. If CAS can't work out that 'intellectual and mental capacity' are required to operate his other platform types, then what hope does he have of working with the other Services? Is driving a hunter killer submarine not a bit hard? How about leading an infantry section into close combat?

Should we be surprised that there have been issues up in Town?

The Royal Air Force deserves better leadership. Much better. I sincerely hope they get it soon.

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2009, 19:09
  #191 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Clouseau's apartment block
Age: 53
Posts: 85
IMHO Burridge and Day were two of the better 3 stars of recent years. One multi and the other rotary, I believe. Have some people only just noticed that there is a tad of prejudice knocking around the air force? Not a surprise surely? Maybe that's why we come across as complete c***s at time to the other Services.
Inspector Dreyfuss is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2009, 21:18
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
HW

Whatever CAS thinks (and I couldn't see a tongue in cheek smiley) ...

I love you
Finnpog is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2009, 23:59
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EU Land
Posts: 189
Toxic Leader Judgement

IMHO Burridge and Day were two of the better 3 stars of recent years.

Inspector, you are obviously not the perceptive man I thought you were!

SO
skippedonce is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2009, 04:51
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 57
Posts: 552
Smile

"..the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots..."

No disrespect intended but having met a few Pilots from both FAA and RAF. I have to say I dont really rate them with any intellectual capacity at all. It's a known fact that in the officer corps of all 3 services the intelectual cream is usually in the medical and Engineering branches (Except for RAFSEE or whatever they call themselves now - They are all morons to a man) As for the RN by far the cleverest people are WE Tiffs - but then again I could be biased!
althenick is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2009, 14:54
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Why do some people have to lower themselves to depths where one branch is debated over another? It beggars belief that the same people criticising one man's (CAS's) alleged statement, then demonstrate utter hypocrisy in their own muses. And anyway, if CAS really said this then who's to say that his opinion matches everyone else's in the RAF? It doesn't!

I for one believe that everyone's a specialist, everyone's capable in their own way (like unknown idiots becoming pop stars overnight) and if the Services can't work together then none will survive the next 50 years IMHO. I think the very fact that this RAF/RN tiff is in the public domain is a sad state of affairs, I really do.
ICBM is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2009, 15:46
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
ICBM,

You are absolutely right re sadness, but this was a battle started solely by CDS/CAS/ACAS. The RN were quite contentedly getting on with the mandate given in SDR and re-affirmed by the decision to proceed with the CVFs.

CAS has dug the hole and should now jump into it.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 05:43
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 65
Posts: 237
Latest news - Oxbridge professors to be chosen by eyesight and co-ordination tests.

Seriously, even if his attempt at attacking another service doesn't get him sacked - surely this wonderful example of his intellectual power applied to man management should ?
.
phil gollin is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 08:25
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Pheasant,

It takes two to tango. I think your assertion that
this was a battle started solely by CDS/CAS/ACAS. The RN were quite contentedly getting on with the mandate given in SDR and re-affirmed by the decision to proceed with the CVFs
Is a little disingenuous. Nobody in the RAF is trying to stop CVF; the discussion was about the proportion of JSF pilots who should be RN or RAF. The SDR (and indeed the decision to proceed with CVF) is entirely silent on this matter. The officer Band did not make the situation any better by trying to insist that half of all JSF pilots should be RN, considering that this would be a much larger number than the RN has been historically uanble to sustain on the harrier force. Furthermore, has it occurred to anyone that since we all seem to be agreed that we have too many fast jets, cutting the Harrier is something we ought to consider in the best interests of Defence, and might not simply be trying to have a go at the FAA?

PS CAS is wrong if he said that RAF 3* and above are exculsively FJ pilots - what about CJO?
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 15:17
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Occasional Aviator

Just checked my online dictionary for "disingenuous". They have a big photo you smiling at the camera.

:-disingenuous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] –adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: For example:

"Nobody in the RAF is trying to stop CVF" (yea right)

or

"much larger number than the RN has been historically uanble to sustain on the harrier force" (ok, so you picked the one fixed wing type in the 100 yr history of the FAA which has had small numbers of pilots through choice. Coincidentally this is the aircraft flown during the soon to be forgotten small carrier phase of the FAA. The big ships will be able to carry more aircraft, thus more pilots will be required. The only hurdle to our pilot numbers is the RAF training system. The USN is already doing some of our pilot training, and have offered to do all of it.)

or my personal favourite:

"Furthermore, has it occurred to anyone that since we all seem to be agreed that we have too many fast jets, cutting the Harrier is something we ought to consider in the best interests of Defence, and might not simply be trying to have a go at the FAA?"

You're a polititian, right?
Tourist is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 22:08
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
OK, perhaps I was a little hasty.

Point One: "Nobody in the RAF is trying to stop CVF" - well, I'm not, and I don't know anybody who is - although I can't say I know what everyone's agenda is. However, I was trying to point out that the pilot numbers were never set by SDR or the decision to buy CVF.

Point Two: So, you agree that the RN has been unable to sustain the Harrier force? Actually I don't care either way, but I'd like to see you substantiate your suggestion that
The only hurdle to our pilot numbers is the RAF training system
... Are you suggesting that the RAF system (which is the only one we (note we, as in defence, let's be joint) have, is unable to train enough fast-jet pilots? Or are you just trying to blame the RAF for all of the FAA's problems, again?

Point Three: Are you seriously suggesting that if Defence has too many fast jets, and we need to reduce some numbers, that we should exclude a type from consideration just because it's flown by the RN? I'm not saying Harrier is the one to cut, just that we should be considering it along with the other types. Let's make the decision by balancing the money we would save against the operational capability we would give up. That's what we did with the Jaguar (NB CAS is a Jaguar pilot, so I don't think personal agendas cut much ice here). The sad fact is that we wouldn't really save any money cutting Tornado or Typhoon, and the aircraft with the nearest out-of service date, the smallest fleet, the shortest range, smallest payload and smallest selection of weapons is the Harrier. I wouldn't want to see our carrier-borne FJ capabilities take a holiday, but then we're not using them at the moment anyway, are we? There's no painless answer here and petty, parochial, dying in a ditch over whether the RAF or the RN fly particular jets help no-one - and I'm not particularly proud of those in my Service who approach it that way either. Now if someone in the RN could explain why it's best value for defence to keep it dark blue, rather than just going off on one about how the crabs have always had it in for us and don't understand maritime stuff, then I'd be all ears.
Occasional Aviator is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.