Future For The RAF ??!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Future For The RAF ??!!
Interesting letter in the Times on the future of the RAF !!!
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...221532,00.html
TL
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...221532,00.html
TL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah, bless 'im. Retired as a whole Lt, and still puts it on his letterhead, eh? Nearly stopped reading there, but went on in hope of something with a spot of matelot wit, originality and insight. Reached the point where I had to look for page 2 then realised there wasn't going to be any.
Never mind - can always scan John E's and Arkroyal's contributions just to remind myself that not all fishheads (or WAFUs) are utter ostriches. And I didn't even stoop so low as to point out that the RN have shot down more Army helis than the RAF since the start of the 80s... That's what comes from relying on missiles with no vis-ident backup - a bit like those things the boat people fire. OK, I stooped - sorry.
Shall I remove the fishhook now, Titan?
Never mind - can always scan John E's and Arkroyal's contributions just to remind myself that not all fishheads (or WAFUs) are utter ostriches. And I didn't even stoop so low as to point out that the RN have shot down more Army helis than the RAF since the start of the 80s... That's what comes from relying on missiles with no vis-ident backup - a bit like those things the boat people fire. OK, I stooped - sorry.
Shall I remove the fishhook now, Titan?
Guest
Posts: n/a
What drugs is this Neddy on? I want £50 worth, please!
Opinion stated as fact always smacks of agendas. I really can't believe that this man seriously believes what he is saying.
If I was defending him, which I am not, I would suggest that he pleas, "Unbalanced while tired and emotional."
Nuff said.
Edytted fur lotas typoffs
[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 28 June 2001).]
Opinion stated as fact always smacks of agendas. I really can't believe that this man seriously believes what he is saying.
If I was defending him, which I am not, I would suggest that he pleas, "Unbalanced while tired and emotional."
Nuff said.
Edytted fur lotas typoffs
[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mmmmmm. VERY interesting....
The 'FAA have shot down more aircraft than the RAF' line is frequently used - but of course, the point here is that the only air-air shooting war the UK has been in without the USAF was the Falklands. And the top-scoring pilot was the then Flt Lt David Morgan, RAF.
As for Korea, no RAF fighters were sent - but, off the top of my head, I think that several RAF chaps on exchange did get in amongst the MiGs with success. The RAF can hardly be blamed for lack of success when it was a political decision not to deploy fighter units.
I feel a letter coming on....
The 'FAA have shot down more aircraft than the RAF' line is frequently used - but of course, the point here is that the only air-air shooting war the UK has been in without the USAF was the Falklands. And the top-scoring pilot was the then Flt Lt David Morgan, RAF.
As for Korea, no RAF fighters were sent - but, off the top of my head, I think that several RAF chaps on exchange did get in amongst the MiGs with success. The RAF can hardly be blamed for lack of success when it was a political decision not to deploy fighter units.
I feel a letter coming on....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,
This Charlie obviously slept through 'Allied Force', if his "while air power is a vital supporting asset to armies and navies, it cannot win wars by itself" comment is anything to go by. Didn't see much ass-kicking by the US Army's Apaches there.
Nor that many Tomahawks loosed off by the RN, for that matter. It might be a nice idea to say that sub-launched missiles are all you need, but when you don't have many of them how can you match the, say 1,011 weapons released (however accurately or effectively that might have been) by UK aircraft in '99?
Muppet!
This Charlie obviously slept through 'Allied Force', if his "while air power is a vital supporting asset to armies and navies, it cannot win wars by itself" comment is anything to go by. Didn't see much ass-kicking by the US Army's Apaches there.
Nor that many Tomahawks loosed off by the RN, for that matter. It might be a nice idea to say that sub-launched missiles are all you need, but when you don't have many of them how can you match the, say 1,011 weapons released (however accurately or effectively that might have been) by UK aircraft in '99?
Muppet!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's pretty amazing that Mr McGinty actually got his letter printed in the first place! Any one who has an incling of how the 3 services operate and integrate know how ludicrous his statements are. Ufortunately Mr McGinty there is 1 tiny flaw in your plan - it's b*ll*cks!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Aircraft carriers offer a more rapid.....means of establishing and sustaining an in-theatre airborne capability than land-based squadrons."
So how long does it take for Invincible to get to the Gulf? Last Jag Sqn to go took 3 days (with a day off) to deploy 10 jets with attack, recce and PW II + PW III/TIALD capability. Oh, and they could take off with the stuff on and bring the whole lot back all year round.
So how long does it take for Invincible to get to the Gulf? Last Jag Sqn to go took 3 days (with a day off) to deploy 10 jets with attack, recce and PW II + PW III/TIALD capability. Oh, and they could take off with the stuff on and bring the whole lot back all year round.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And the jags required a 15,000ft runway to get airborne..oh yes and when the fog rolls in like in Italy hummmm!! Please boys can the carrier cover us. Looking to the future a JSF with 39,000 lbs of thrust will be able to do anything the airforce has now or will have. There USAF and RAF have much in common trying to justify its existance. With the USAF its pretty easy, however, me thinks the RAF is somewhat struggling hence GR7's on the boat. All food for thought, Purple isa the way to go its just a case of everyone accepting it.
Fly Navy
Fly Navy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Herbie 3k, how come if the grey funnel line "carriers" are the way ahead, every time the land harriers worked in the Adriatic they flew from........LAND!!! Go on, tease us with that shipborne hoverjet combat radius, weapons load and loiter time again. Still airfields probably are vastly overrated, I would always advocate go by sea for those rapid deployments, you arrive so much more relaxed and rested
Guest
Posts: n/a
herbie3000,
No, of course none of us are saying that the JSF will not be more capable than anything we in the RAF have now (if we can afford it and we ever get it!). However, who says it MUST operate from a "boat"? It could operate from anything - it's called the "flexibility of air power" mate! Can't remember if any Navy Doctrine Manuals (now where are they kept again?) talk about the "flexibility of Sea Power" - long time since I read 'em!! In fact. long time since anybody read 'em!
Oh yes, the new carriers! When the USN sends a Carrier task force to an area of trouble, I rather think they believe it to be such a valuable asset that they send as many surface and sub-surface vessels in support/protection as the RN owns!! Not that these RN assets are always servicable of course. So what do we do? Do we cancel everything else that is due for the RAF and the Army so that we can afford to build enough sea-going kit to defend the carriers? Or do we use the measly, meagre, penny-piching, soddin' defence budget to try to maintain an all-round capability? Tough decision!
Edited 'cos I missed a word out - it IS early for me!
[This message has been edited by Wholigan (edited 29 June 2001).]
No, of course none of us are saying that the JSF will not be more capable than anything we in the RAF have now (if we can afford it and we ever get it!). However, who says it MUST operate from a "boat"? It could operate from anything - it's called the "flexibility of air power" mate! Can't remember if any Navy Doctrine Manuals (now where are they kept again?) talk about the "flexibility of Sea Power" - long time since I read 'em!! In fact. long time since anybody read 'em!
Oh yes, the new carriers! When the USN sends a Carrier task force to an area of trouble, I rather think they believe it to be such a valuable asset that they send as many surface and sub-surface vessels in support/protection as the RN owns!! Not that these RN assets are always servicable of course. So what do we do? Do we cancel everything else that is due for the RAF and the Army so that we can afford to build enough sea-going kit to defend the carriers? Or do we use the measly, meagre, penny-piching, soddin' defence budget to try to maintain an all-round capability? Tough decision!
Edited 'cos I missed a word out - it IS early for me!
[This message has been edited by Wholigan (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Isn't it more correct that actually the RN were in need of a attack capability the SHAR couldn't give them, so came up with the JFH concept to ensure they had a future? (and of course, two shiny new boats?)
You have to admit that the senior RN chappies were extremely clever in getting the concept in place before SDR so that it dovetailed nicely with the budget restrictions. (Sorry - that supposed to be 'capability requirements'.....!)
You have to admit that the senior RN chappies were extremely clever in getting the concept in place before SDR so that it dovetailed nicely with the budget restrictions. (Sorry - that supposed to be 'capability requirements'.....!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
The only intriguing thing about the letter is why The Times published it. They normally only print letters from people who are eminent in their field or have special experience. An officer who retired in the rank of Lieutenant from a service that promotes officers on time, rather than merit, to Lieutenant Commander seems unlikely to have met The Times's criteria.
Probably best to ignore the letter. Alternatively reply in equally outrageous vein - eg, the RAF destroyed more U-Boats than the RN in WW2, so perhaps HM warships ought to be sailing under the light blue ensign with roundel.
------------------
presto digitate
Probably best to ignore the letter. Alternatively reply in equally outrageous vein - eg, the RAF destroyed more U-Boats than the RN in WW2, so perhaps HM warships ought to be sailing under the light blue ensign with roundel.
------------------
presto digitate