Future For The RAF ??!!

[Dead Loss]

While I agree that the content of of McGinty's letter is crass and ill-informed, I have it on reasonable authority that the man is not an unpromotable imbecile (although I can understand why it might seem that way). Apparently he retired from the RN as a Lt on medical grounds. My point - he is just stirring it up and it must have been a slow letter day at The Times.

[Oggin Aviator]

A point to note - Naval aviators have only ever been promoted on merit, not on time. Its the ship drivers that get promoted on time. Promotion is now judged across the board resulting in the FAA being seen off. That way the Navy gets to keep the cockpits manned by junior officers (Lt and below), irrespective how old they are !!

Thats the way I see it anyway.

BTW, I agree with most of what has been said here, not all. In a littoral situation with no host nation support it is unlikely that the tanker support required for FW FJ a/c would be available at a sustainable rate hence the need for Carrier based assets.

Thats the way I saw bits of SDR anyway !!

Any warship sitting off a nation's coast is going to cause it to think of its actions. With a carrier the airfield can move a long way overnight making it stealthy and less vulnerable to attack, unlike shore based airfields. Also you couldn't really dig up GDC or Aviano and transport it ready for flying ops the next day.

Any thoughts ??

------------------

The OA

[RATBOY]

Sorry to burst your bubble but I've had letters published in the Times about things I know NOTHING about.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Thank you , Ratboy, you've just admitted being an ace bullshi**er!

------------------
presto digitate