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 23rd Feb 2009, 06:02
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 65
Posts: 237
Navaleye - where did you get ;

".......... BTW an American carrier stored for war and was due to be sent down on June 1. I believe it was the Kitty Hawk but it was not needed."

All reputable sources, including the official history, say all these rumours about offers of carriers, etc..... are absolute rubbish. And who was going to man this carrier on the 1st June ?
phil gollin is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 09:14
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 284
"BTW an American carrier stored for war and was due to be sent down on June 1. I believe it was the Kitty Hawk but it was not needed"

Must admit that i thought it was an LPH not a CVA, a completely different kettle of fish(heads).
andyy is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 11:34
  #123 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
In answer to your questions. Casper Weinberger offered an LPH, which was politely declined. In 1985 I met a USN exchange officer who volunteered the the information that his CVA was brought to 48hrs notice to sail south and hurriedly stored, no destination specified, but pretty obvious. This was later rescinded. That's all I know.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 13:39
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
During the 70s it was proved that RAF Phantoms scrambled from the UK to intercept Russian Bombers heading for the Fleet in the middle of the Atlantic could do no more than photograph the aftermath two hours after the Russians had gone home.
And do you know why?

One time we were scrambled to provide AEW against a pair of Bear D en route to the fleet. Simple - just get airborne and sit across the Bear track and wait for them to turn up.

The catch, we didn't know the Bear track which was from North Cape direct to the fleet. Why? Because Northwood would not tell 11Gp as it was need to know. Even when we pointed out that the Bear Shad knew where the fleet was they still would not tell us.

Familiar?
Wader2 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 16:11
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SE Spain
Age: 73
Posts: 32
Back up from going deep.

If any of you have watched the Buccaneer 50 year DVD watch how the flight deck crew operate like a ballet on a very restricted space with a 30 knot gale blowing along it.

Pilots are still two a penny, a few can even still do flight deck landings but you are are fresh out of FAA Ground crew with any experience in SNCO rank downward. In 20 years time when the first CV is out of the builders hands anybody with any experience will be dead. Even if Pusser get the planes who is going to throw them into the air and drag them back down RAF Pilots and Ground-crew who only crawled out of their mothers wombs a year or two ago, I don't think so.

If the Light and Dark blue fraternity want world wide capability they need to start doing it tomorrow.

BobH
BobHead is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 16:30
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Bob
"In 20 years time when the first CV is out of the builders hands anybody with any experience will be dead. Even if Pusser get the planes who is going to throw them into the air and drag them back down RAF Pilots and Ground-crew who only crawled out of their mothers wombs a year or two ago, I don't think so."

Gosh, you're right. I wish we had thought of that. Maybe then we would have sent lots of people out on exchanges to the Foreign Navies with carriers to build a backbone of experience for when ours come in.

Hey, wait a minute..........

Last edited by Tourist; 23rd Feb 2009 at 17:25.
Tourist is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 16:44
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,910
Going back to the offer of an LPH/Carrier in 82 for a moment, if I may -

The US offered a carrier - to be manned by the RN - if required. This, at least, is the recollection of Admiral Leach, Admiral Woodward and John Nott (and other senior defence bods of the time) from a seminar held at the Staff College in 2002.

I suspect that while the destination for Kitty Hawk might have seemed obvious, the FI weren't actually the intended destination - or that this was a bit of maskirovska (sp?) being employed against the Argentines and/or the Soviets.

Admiral Leach and John Nott were very clear that the US offer was for equipment only, and not US manpower (this was not a criticism of the US stance - one of them called the offer 'incredibly generous', IIRC).
Archimedes is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 19:07
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
Going back to the original point of the thread, see questions 14 and 16....

Order of Business for Monday 23 February 2009
Biggus is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2009, 19:57
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,910
Looking at 'Today in the Chamber' it would seem that those questions were not put.

This 'topical question' was, however:
T6. [257908] Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What is the future of the Joint Force Harrier?

Mr. Hutton: There is a piece of work being done in the Department about the Joint Force Harrier. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is right that we should look at every option as we prepare for the future, but all the options that we are considering include recognising the principle that it should be a jointly operated force.

Hansard - Commons | Houses of Parliament
Being a fan of Yes, Prime Minister, I applaud Mr Hutton's careful choice of words to leave readers wondering whether this means 'RN pilots flying in RAF squadrons' as opposed to 'a joint force made up of RAF and RN squadrons...
Archimedes is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2009, 06:23
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 65
Posts: 237
In answer to your questions. Casper Weinberger offered an LPH, which was politely declined. In 1985 I met a USN exchange officer who volunteered the the information that his CVA was brought to 48hrs notice to sail south and hurriedly stored, no destination specified, but pretty obvious. This was later rescinded. That's all I know.


So, that's a no then.

.
phil gollin is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2009, 13:25
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,910
All reputable sources, including the official history, say all these rumours about offers of carriers, etc..... are absolute rubbish. And who was going to man this carrier on the 1st June
I refer the hon gentleman to post #127 - the offer of a carrier was not 'absolute rubbish', and the OH only says that the offer was 'perhaps less definite' than people thought. This had been written before the Staff College seminar at which the nature of the offer was revealed and at which the author of the OH was sitting, as I recall, two places to the right of Admiral Leach. The OH also mentions an American offer to sail a CVBG down South as a show of support.

Back on topic, Hansard suggests that the two questions Biggus referred to were not put; nor was question 12 about meeting NATO leaders regarding AD capability for carriers.
Archimedes is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2009, 17:04
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
Archimedes,

Are you sure.....

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 23 Feb 2009 (pt 0004)

Column 15W, question 12 answered (well, not really) as well....
Biggus is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2009, 19:41
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,910
They were meant to be oral questions, and weren't put - they were consequently answered as written Qs, and that page of Hansard refused to load when I tried to get on it before I last posted.

To be honest, if the MPs thought that they'd get an answer other than 'meeting regularly, discuss matters of mutual interest [stamp collecting? Coastal Command's role in the Battle of the Atlantic?]' they must be fairly naive...
Archimedes is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2009, 18:08
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 1
I believe it is traditional for a man in CASs position to be given a "second", to make sure he does not disgrace himself during the falling on his sword.
I hereby volunteer for the position.
I'm free any time next week.
Demosthenes is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2009, 13:23
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Is that a good rumour?
Tourist is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2009, 16:10
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 358
Best one I've heard in a while. Besides, the more we repeat it - the more true it becomes
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2009, 16:32
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Glesga, Scotland
Age: 47
Posts: 213
When the carriers are a year off completion would it not be a good idea to have some RN go work on a US carrier? see how a modern carrier works in real life ? not just pilots but deck hands etc
As already mentioned by the time they hit the seas in a offical way no one in the navy will prob have any real life experinace????
fallmonk is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2009, 16:52
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,910
[Cynicism]Current CAS retires in July. Current govt will not want either the Chief of the Air Staff or the FSL & Chief of the Naval staff resigning over this issue, so will - surely - just put off the decision until the new CAS arrives in post.

Torpy cannot resign when he's retired, ergo any decision to continue with FAA GR9s will be delayed until he's gone; if no announcement is made within a few days of his departure, it means Torpy has won the argument and it'll be announced that NSW will disband and its assets be handed to the RAF shortly after the new FSL/CNS is appointed. No resignations at all that way, and no embarassment to the govt. [\Cynicism]

Of course, since Hutton appears to have a degree of intestinal fortitude not present in his two immediate predecessors, he might not play that sort of Yes, Prime Minister-ish game...
Archimedes is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2009, 22:12
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 469
When the carriers are a year off completion would it not be a good idea to have some RN go work on a US carrier? see how a modern carrier works in real life ? not just pilots but deck hands etc
As already mentioned by the time they hit the seas in a offical way no one in the navy will prob have any real life experinace????
I think you will find the RN have been doing just this for quite a while. Whilst the Air Farce think they can embark for 10 mins and remain operational at sea the RN/FAA realise that it take years of experience to do it properly, effectively and safely.
Bismark is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2009, 11:38
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 358
Come off it, it's not that difficult. If the fish-heads can do it, surely anyone can?
LateArmLive 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.