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 17th Feb 2009, 16:06
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Foldie,

I suspect he was reading what he was directed to by the politicos and media types.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 16:39
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Seldom

I assume, since you are so keen to criticise, you have a solution to the problem of avoiding such a possiblity of collision between Boats?

I would not normally defend fisheads, but the submariners are probably the most professional of all the military arms. I very much doubt an error was made.
I cannot think of any solution to the problem of avoiding the risk of collisions between our incredibly quiet stealth bomber boats which must never have their positions known to anyone outside the Captain and Navigator because that would negate the entire purpose of a sub launched deterrent, and the french incredibly quiet stealth bomber boats which must never have their positions known to anyone outside the Captain and Navigator because that would negate the entire purpose of a sub launched deterrent.

One could argue that they were both doing their job to perfection, but eventually after 40 or so years, probability caught up with them.
Eventually two of the 20 or so bombers eternally bimbling around under the oceans were bound to meet, in the same way that if there were 20 B2s from a variety of nations flying around the world permanently, they would eventually have a collision.
Tourist is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 16:51
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Tourist,

Not sure where I am criticising the submariners unless it was in my harmless jibe about "the latest navel cockup" and I can assure you that was not my intention.

No Sir,

I was merely disputing yours and that chap from Devon's assertion that the 1SL was smarter than a smart thing, which bearing in mind his appearance and performance over the last 24 hours does rather question your judgement
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 16:55
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 76
Posts: 429
I have to say I was amazed that certain RAF personnel did not recognise a clean white hanky when they saw one. Whatever did their mothers send them out with every day?

I was always taught that the only place for a handkerchief was inside the sleeve of one's jacket.
exscribbler is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 17:37
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
One would love to join the free-for-all of kicking a man whilst he is down but it is rather unsporting.

Come on now chaps, leave the fish in the barrel alone.
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 18:16
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 760
I suspect he was reading what he was directed to by the politicos and media types.
Whether or not? The piece was quite short and a good staff officer (one assumes he has been to staff college) would have rehearsed an ability to speak without referring to notes for a much longer period than the good 1SL did on this occasion.

Let's just say that his performance on this occasion goes against the 2 quotes that I referred to earlier. Especially:

It is the quality of his mind and leadership that people want to follow ...............
Foldie

PS. Anyway, why are we discussing boats on an Aircrew (yep, and all those others who support them, like looking at them and wanna be a pilot etc etc) Forum?
foldingwings is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 21:34
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
An interesting March Edition of Air Forces Monthly....

UNDER PRESSURE?
Based on the huge amount of well-spun publicity last year, the RAF might appear to be in good health, but is that really the case? Jon Lake looks at the problems faced by the service as it approaches its 91st birthday.
Air Forces Monthly - The Worlds Leading Military Aviation Magazine

Very critical editorial on current supposed MOD savings (why Harrier and why not Tornado) and a not nice piece inside on the senior leadership of the RAF. Effectively saying "we (AFM and our senior sources) can't wait for Dalton/Moran to arrive".
Pheasant is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 22:24
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Pheasant,

It's been said before but cast your mind back to the euphoria surrounding the Torphy appointment (and to a degree that of his predecessor, the current CDS). Not only does the Peter principle apply (promotion in a heirarchy to a point of incompetence) but the older truth of "whoever you vote for the government always gets in" is also valid. Senior officers, and particularly 4 stars don't get where they are without a solid foundation of self serving ambition and political savvy so why the surprise that those at the top look to themselves first second and third? And before any mention of General Dannett does anyone seriously believe that if the post of CDS had been a realistic proposition he would have popped his head above the parapet? His "forthrightness" will sell more than a few extra copies of his memoires to be sure.

God, I hate cynics
endplay is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 05:39
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Endplay,

I am as much of a cynic as you but I do not hear/see any similar comment about the Navy or Army heirarchy as I do about Stirrup/Torpy/Anderson etc where there is open in-Service and ex-Service dismay at the way they are behaving at the moment. I suspect it is the arrogance of their attitude to their own people that really grates.....you don't seem to see this with the other 2 services (look at Rum Ration and ARRSE - the issues just do not get raised). or am I missing something?

Bunch of feathers.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 10:46
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,912
Go onto arrse and ask them what they think about Mike Jackson....

He was receiving unfavourable comments (usually blunter and much less flattering than those made about CAS or CDS ) before Telic kicked off, and his reputation went further south on those means subsequently. The difference appears to have been that the press bought into the whole 'Prince of Darkness' legend and didn't print the unfavourable observations about him that were rampant, particularly at the time of FAS and the publication of his book.
Archimedes is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 12:50
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400


Made me chuckle, and I apologise in advance for the expletive. (I know some people find the term "RAF" offensive)

Last edited by Tourist; 18th Feb 2009 at 17:43.
Tourist is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 16:52
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 76
Posts: 429
Tea all over my keyboard!

exscribbler is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 17:15
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
Tea all over my keyboard!
Simple things and all that.
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 17:34
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Bus Advert

I have to admit, I really liked that.

But I would, as an agnostic I can see the parallel with the RN thinking that somewhere out there there's an all-powerful being that is going to stop the carriers, when the truth is that there ain't really.

We're not out to get you -

SO STOP WORRYING AND BUILD THE FCU%ING CARRIERS!
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 22:14
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 76
Posts: 429
You'd know all about that, Stacker, old chap.
exscribbler is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 23:38
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Not sure it it's just me but there does seem to be a bit of dark blue insecurity in this thread

Now with regards to the 1SL and his public performances this last week, I thought he looked like a scruffy urchin who had obviously not prepared himself well, but perhaps Tourist et al could afford us their opinion
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 23:50
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 317
I think the Tornado GR4 was very good in its day, but is now probably a bit behind the drag curve/past its sell by date with regard to the utility/scale of its combined weapons and sensor pod fits for close air support.

What do you think?
Apologies for the delay.

What I think is.....

I'm not convinced the GR4 has had it's day just yet, there is life in the "Fin" yet.

I accept it is not proven as a CAS asset yet but it is too early to write it off.

As for fit, look again at what the GR4 has, just because it's not the same is no reason to write it off. It's different that's all.

Finally sorry for not partaking in the Navy/RAF banter, I just hope to god both sides of the repartee are not representative of the Officer Corps in either service.

Gentlemen, we are on the same side, the enemy resides in and around the Palace of Westminter.
insty66 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 06:47
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
I'm not convinced the GR4 has had it's day just yet, there is life in the "Fin" yet.

I accept it is not proven as a CAS asset yet but it is too early to write it off.
I think the point people are arguing, Insty, is why does it need to be converted for CAS when the GR9 is a far better CAS asset already doing the job in the stan and is the weapon of choice for the ground troops. If it were not for Torpy's desire to get the navy out of FW the Harrier would remain on task.

Finally sorry for not partaking in the Navy/RAF banter, I just hope to god both sides of the repartee are not representative of the Officer Corps in either service.
The Navy did not pick the fight. This seems to be a personal vendetta by Stirrup/Torpy and Anderson - interestingly all single seat jocks who do not understand CRM (ie take the team with you). What the RAF needs to do is follow the USAF and put a multiseat man in at the top (pref Truckie or Helo man, which is where the real effort is being expended in the RAF today - and for many years to come).
Pheasant is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 07:10
  #99 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by Pheasant View Post
I think the point people are arguing, Insty, is why does it need to be converted for CAS when the GR9 is a far better CAS asset already doing the job in the stan and is the weapon of choice for the ground troops. If it were not for Torpy's desire to get the navy out of FW the Harrier would remain on task.
Why does [the GR4] need to be converted for CAS?

One answer might be found from the USAF in the Vietnam War. Earlier on the USAF was fighting 2 wars. TAC was fighting in Vietnam and SAC was waiting to fight the cold war. In those days you were either in TAC or SAC with no cross-over. The TAC guys were getting fatigued and the answer was to rotate SAC pilots through TAC. There are 2 wings of GR4 and one wing of Harrier. Logic says you must spread the pain.

When the GR9 is a far better CAS asset already doing the job in the stan .

Far better than . . . ? As they have not been in the CAS role it is too early to say the GR9 is better.

and is the weapon of choice for the ground troops

Choice of what? The aircraft you know from the aircraft you don't? How can the GR4 be declared 'not the weapon of choice' when it is not yet on offer?

If it were not for Torpy's desire to get the navy out of FW the Harrier would remain on task

Ah, now that is a different story and Air seems confident that CVF will never happen. Cut Dii/f, a glorified email system, and you could afford CVF, JSF etc. The more I learn of Dii/f the more I believe it sucks.

It is cheaper to buy a new suite of stand-alone computers - 30 to 40 off hand - to run a new software bought from the US than pay the 6-figure sums demanded to get in on Dii/. Who was behind Dii? Air.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2009, 11:51
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
There are 2 wings of GR4 and one wing of Harrier. Logic says you must spread the pain.
But only if pain is being felt and the cost of converting a non-CAS a/c to a pseudo CAS role is actually affordable (and not at the cost of the current, designed-for-role CAS aircraft).


How can the GR4 be declared 'not the weapon of choice' when it is not yet on offer?
The GR4 is a long range interdiction/strike aircraft and designed from the outset to be so; the GR9 is designed from the outset as a CAS aircraft. The fact that M hundreds are being spent to give GR4 even some CAS capability says it all.....surely this could be spent in more worthwhile areas?

How did Dii get into the discussion???
Pheasant 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.