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

Future For The RAF ??!!

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.

Future For The RAF ??!!

Old 28th Jun 2001, 12:48
  #1 (permalink)  
Titan Locked
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post 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

 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 13:28
  #2 (permalink)  
Thud_and_Blunder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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?
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 14:01
  #3 (permalink)  
jet jones
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Is this guy serious or was that some kind of joke??? Well excessive exposure to sea water does contaminate......umm

------------------
live to fly
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 14:29
  #4 (permalink)  
Low and Slow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Red face

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).]
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 15:00
  #5 (permalink)  
Archimedes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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....
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 15:26
  #6 (permalink)  
sprucemoose
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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!
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 16:44
  #7 (permalink)  
StiffNose
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Michael must be Paddy McGinty's goat's first name!
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 16:48
  #8 (permalink)  
Four 8's
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

And the Army had no confirmed kills with Rapier during the Falklands conflict. If Rapier performed so well why did so many vessels receive bomb damage/sink in San Carlos water?
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 16:49
  #9 (permalink)  
Scorpius
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

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!!!
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 17:19
  #10 (permalink)  
Ham Phisted
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Obviously promoted one level above his ability.
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 18:10
  #11 (permalink)  
swashplate
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

WIND UP ALERT!!!....WIND UP ALERT!!!....

------------------
Live long and Prosper.....
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 18:50
  #12 (permalink)  
Al Titude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"it is time to move on..." !!!!!

Has this guy ever visited the planet earth? Bl##dy Navy, never let progress get in the way of tradition.
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 21:41
  #13 (permalink)  
UnderPowered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation

"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.
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 21:56
  #14 (permalink)  
fobotcso
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
fish

There's no future in blustering and spluttering here, Guys; write to The Times with your rebuttal.
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 22:13
  #15 (permalink)  
herbie3000
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

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
 
Old 28th Jun 2001, 22:18
  #16 (permalink)  
Audax
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

I just feel sorry that the Times saw fit to publish such drivel.
 
Old 29th Jun 2001, 03:09
  #17 (permalink)  
Alf Aworna
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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
 
Old 29th Jun 2001, 11:44
  #18 (permalink)  
Wholigan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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).]
 
Old 29th Jun 2001, 12:17
  #19 (permalink)  
Chinese Vic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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'.....!)
 
Old 29th Jun 2001, 22:51
  #20 (permalink)  
Flatus Veteranus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.