"Close down RAF' says Naval whippersnapper
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: near to the bar
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do believe that whippersnapper is merely repeting the ideas of as former Minister of Defence, a certian Mr Hesaltine.
Having never been a lover of the Tories but then again , even less of a Blairite, Tarzan was on the ball.
For the money in and the service out, The Crabs are not really that cost effective. However, given the choice of a landaway destination I always preferred a crab station as there was transport on tap, someone to polish your helmet after a flight and
an Officers mess with a high standard of accomodation.
Of course, all these factors greatly contribute to the pubescent services ability to conduct offensive operations a consideraqble distance from home bases divorced from 5 star facilities....NOT.
Having never been a lover of the Tories but then again , even less of a Blairite, Tarzan was on the ball.
For the money in and the service out, The Crabs are not really that cost effective. However, given the choice of a landaway destination I always preferred a crab station as there was transport on tap, someone to polish your helmet after a flight and
an Officers mess with a high standard of accomodation.
Of course, all these factors greatly contribute to the pubescent services ability to conduct offensive operations a consideraqble distance from home bases divorced from 5 star facilities....NOT.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A little harsh one thinks altogether, but then i would say that. Here's an idea though, when we eventually get JSF to replace the Harrier how about we disband the now Harrier Squadrons re-establish the Fleet Air Arm to its former glory so to speak?
This eliminates the need for RAF personnel to deploy on to ships, although the new carriers may be a little more spacious (if we get them!) The RAF can then purchase another aircraft to replace the shortfall created by the loss of the harrier. Did i say say shortfall? Must have been joking!
Then again with this government in power i start to wonder if anyone will acquire ANY new kit.
This eliminates the need for RAF personnel to deploy on to ships, although the new carriers may be a little more spacious (if we get them!) The RAF can then purchase another aircraft to replace the shortfall created by the loss of the harrier. Did i say say shortfall? Must have been joking!
Then again with this government in power i start to wonder if anyone will acquire ANY new kit.
Well, this snotty-nosed cabin boy certainly seems to have put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Force projection, expeditionary forces, rapid reaction? All recent buzz words which no-one seems to be thinking about here. How long does it take to get HMS Improbable, Indecipherable or Inexcusable to relocate from A to B? Or to break HMS Iron Duck off from its, sorry, 'her' cocktail party cruise to do something useful?
Can see some useful convergence at top level though - what's the current admiral:ship ratio? Any better than the Air Marshal:cockpit ratio?
Force projection, expeditionary forces, rapid reaction? All recent buzz words which no-one seems to be thinking about here. How long does it take to get HMS Improbable, Indecipherable or Inexcusable to relocate from A to B? Or to break HMS Iron Duck off from its, sorry, 'her' cocktail party cruise to do something useful?
Can see some useful convergence at top level though - what's the current admiral:ship ratio? Any better than the Air Marshal:cockpit ratio?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Don't see what all the fuss is about really! A reasonable idea - but take it one step further:
Re-form the RAF Marine Branch and transfer all the fish-head assets to it. 1 Sqn Ldr, 2 Flt Lts and 20 or so SACs should be enough staff to run all that........
Transfer all the Brown assets (suitably scrubbed-up, of course!) to a marginally expanded RAF Regiment........
Then: sack all the Generals and Lordships. Massive savings and improved efficiency; (imagine the reduced stabling and kennelling - let alone the reduced Gold Leaf consumption!). What more could President Blair want?
Now, where's my 'K'?
Re-form the RAF Marine Branch and transfer all the fish-head assets to it. 1 Sqn Ldr, 2 Flt Lts and 20 or so SACs should be enough staff to run all that........
Transfer all the Brown assets (suitably scrubbed-up, of course!) to a marginally expanded RAF Regiment........
Then: sack all the Generals and Lordships. Massive savings and improved efficiency; (imagine the reduced stabling and kennelling - let alone the reduced Gold Leaf consumption!). What more could President Blair want?
Now, where's my 'K'?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNAFU,
"Change the names to the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service and we're back in business."
I take it from the above statement, that your previous business was Railtrack PLC(or maybe Marconi?).
Fly Navy
Go Royal
Dig Army
Eat Crab
Blow Goats
"Change the names to the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service and we're back in business."
I take it from the above statement, that your previous business was Railtrack PLC(or maybe Marconi?).
Fly Navy
Go Royal
Dig Army
Eat Crab
Blow Goats
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Age: 53
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BGA
Depends on your definition of work I suppose - I prefer the landaway or airshow working to the locked-in-pussers-war-canoe-groundhog-day type of working, but then again, who doesn't?
What day is it today? - 23!
High Spirits
If we did go back to the RNAS & RFC, at least you could get a better style of uniform than you have now.
Depends on your definition of work I suppose - I prefer the landaway or airshow working to the locked-in-pussers-war-canoe-groundhog-day type of working, but then again, who doesn't?
What day is it today? - 23!
High Spirits
If we did go back to the RNAS & RFC, at least you could get a better style of uniform than you have now.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHAR could not and did not establish a "favourable air situation" over San Carlos in 1982. If the AAF had correctly fuzed six bombs that hit but did not detonate, the task force would have been off home with its tail between its legs.
But enough of these peripheral colonial wars. The primary RN role in WW2 was supposed to be to defend our shipping. Yet the RAF sank more submarines than the RN, plus the Tirpitz. if you follow the logic of Aarse and WEBF, perhaps we should disband the RN. All they seem to do these days is to faff about making a target of themselves and then claim a victory when no one bothers to attack them. "Deny Flight" - my aarse!
But enough of these peripheral colonial wars. The primary RN role in WW2 was supposed to be to defend our shipping. Yet the RAF sank more submarines than the RN, plus the Tirpitz. if you follow the logic of Aarse and WEBF, perhaps we should disband the RN. All they seem to do these days is to faff about making a target of themselves and then claim a victory when no one bothers to attack them. "Deny Flight" - my aarse!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my two-penneths worth......
Perhaps if we in the RAF had less people employed at MOD, STC, PTC, JHC, PJHQ, DLO etc. and more personnel actually carrying out the operations we are supposed to, then the other services and the rest of the general public may look apon us in a better light....
When we can't fill the frontline cockpits with aircrew can we really justify the 120+ aircrew Sqn Ldrs at Innsworth alone in desk jobs. Also when we can't get the kit for the frontline, why is MOD being gutted and refurbished at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds....
One has to wonder how far we as the military (and I include all the services in this) have progressed when HQ British Forces Cyprus has more staff Officers' now (to support 2 battalions of infantry, 8 helicopters and an admittedly busy airfield), than there were on the island when it was the HQ of the Near East Air Force and responsible for numerous front line jet Sqns and the whole of the Near East theatre (which numbered thousands of RAF personnel alone!).
The RAF is not alone in having this problem, but the solution is not in disbanding one of the services. Only in truthfully addressing the issue of what we want to be able to achieve as a nation with our armed forces, and then addressing what kit it will need to achieve it, manning them in an appropriate fashion and training properly for the task, along with making the structure front line oriented, not command oriented will we ever succeed. I despair of this ever happening under our present leadership (both political and military), as all are far too interested in feathering their own nest career wise.....
I'm afraid we have no statesmen or leaders in our nationany more, only people who crave power and are promoted above the level of their own incompetence.....
RANT OVER!
Perhaps if we in the RAF had less people employed at MOD, STC, PTC, JHC, PJHQ, DLO etc. and more personnel actually carrying out the operations we are supposed to, then the other services and the rest of the general public may look apon us in a better light....
When we can't fill the frontline cockpits with aircrew can we really justify the 120+ aircrew Sqn Ldrs at Innsworth alone in desk jobs. Also when we can't get the kit for the frontline, why is MOD being gutted and refurbished at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds....
One has to wonder how far we as the military (and I include all the services in this) have progressed when HQ British Forces Cyprus has more staff Officers' now (to support 2 battalions of infantry, 8 helicopters and an admittedly busy airfield), than there were on the island when it was the HQ of the Near East Air Force and responsible for numerous front line jet Sqns and the whole of the Near East theatre (which numbered thousands of RAF personnel alone!).
The RAF is not alone in having this problem, but the solution is not in disbanding one of the services. Only in truthfully addressing the issue of what we want to be able to achieve as a nation with our armed forces, and then addressing what kit it will need to achieve it, manning them in an appropriate fashion and training properly for the task, along with making the structure front line oriented, not command oriented will we ever succeed. I despair of this ever happening under our present leadership (both political and military), as all are far too interested in feathering their own nest career wise.....
I'm afraid we have no statesmen or leaders in our nationany more, only people who crave power and are promoted above the level of their own incompetence.....
RANT OVER!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: southwest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been on exercise and operations with both crabs and matloes, never have i seen so much whinging and moaning from officer aircrew about how they need their sleep and their butlers to warm their slippers up for them when they return. granted the matloes are better than the crabs at the hard work thing, but rest assured that we in the army work hardest, whinge least and get the job done with the least amount of aircrew/groundcrew per aircraft. And dont forget, AAC have more rotary assets than the crabs and motloes together( I'm pretty certain)
The army must be doing something right!
The army must be doing something right!
Oh dear, Flatus, you do seem to have an interesting view of history. And what exactly do you mean by "my" logic? As my postings on the (sunk without trace) SHAR thread should prove my logic is based on facts.
Now for your points....
In WWII the man threat to Britain was attacks on merchant shipping. The first method of dealing with this threat was the convoy system. There was a threat from enemy warhips, submarines and aircraft. The real menace of course was the U boat, being responsible for 68% of shipping losses.
Whether the RN or RAF sank the greater number of U boats is frankly neither here nor there. The Kreigsmarine plan (produced by Admiral Donitz) was that the Ubootwaffe would be divided into three. A third would be attacking the Allied convoys, another third would be traveling to/from the convoys and the remaining third would be in refit etc. The in theatre U boats were divided in Wolfpacks. In 1939, radar was still in its infancy and had not found any large scale naval use. Therefore an attacking U boat (on the surface) could be detected only by visual means, and on a dark night that was nearly impossible. Being on the surface, the boat would be able to attain a much greater speed than when submerged. So they were used a torpedo boats initially. A torpedo attack was much more difficult to achieve submarged. The Wolfpack tactic was that one boat would find a convoy, and shadow it. HF radio would be used to inform other boats and they would attack on mass.
Defending the convoys were the ships of the Royal Navy. Very early on it was found that the key to preventing a succesful U boat attack was to keep them at a distance. The introduction of radar aboard escort vessels made this feasible. HF/DF (again carried by escorts) made the wolfpack tactics very dangerous. ASDIC allowed the enemy to be located underwater, and attacked with new weapons such as Hedghog or Squid. These efforts denied the U boats an easy victory. Carrier based aircraft also played an important role in dealing with U boat threat. RAF and RCAF aircraft often acted with naval forces. Thus the credit for defeating the U boats must go, in the main, to the Royal Navy, and to its sailors. Let us hope that their succesors (and I'm including myself here) are made of the same stuff - guts, determination, bravery and a hundred other qualities that are sadly lacking in 2002.
So what about the Tirpitz? Well yes the RAF (617 sdn) sent her to the bottom. But she had already been attacked before, by the X Craft (midget submarines) and by RN aircraft from SIX carriers in Operation Tungsten. The net result of these attacks was that she was imobilised and was no longer a serious menace.
Now for more recent events. You claim that the Sea Harrier did not achieve a favourable air situation in San Carlos. Well it did achieve a degree of air superiority in the Falklands', enough for landing to be conducted. As for San Carlos, it should be remebered that whilst we called it bomb alley, the Argentine pilots (Navy as well was Air Force) called it Death Valley due to their losses, many of which were down to the Sea Harrier. Why did they fly so low (which caused many bombs to fail to arm)? It was to avoid shipborne radars (see below) and also the Sea Harriers. In a study of the conflict, the USAF concluded that over 450 Argentine sorties had been prevented due to the deterent affect that the Sea Harrier had. Those 450 extra sorties by Skyhawks/Daggers etc could have resulted in defeat for Britain.
There were a number of problems with the task group's air defence.
1. Not enough Sea Harriers.
2. No AEW.
3. Only two ships with Sea Wolf.
4. Inadeqaute radar on/in the Type 42 Destroyers.
Lets consider point 4. When the Type 42s were designed/built, the government of the day decided to give them Type 965 radar for long range air search. One problem: excessive beamwidth. Hence aded clutter, adding to the problem of picking out the target. In Engineering terms you would consider this as the Signal to Noise ratio being reduced. A good analogy is if you have your pupils dilated by eye drops (so they can look inside the eyeball) your pupilsdilate, letting large amouts of light in from all directions. And your vision is seriously reduced, so much so you can read. Back to radar, the excessive beamwidth problem was made more serious by operating close to shore, where the enemy hid behing the hills until he went feet wet, and there was more clutter anyway.
AEW would have been a massive help.
Finally lets consider Bosnia. Deny Flight was the codename for the NATO operation to prevent aircraft being used in Bosnian airspace. This was on behalf of the UN. Yugoslav aircraft still flew traing sorties. At times these got VERY close to NATO warships on duty just off the coast of Montenegro. The Sea Harriers were there for TWO purposes. Firstly to contribute to patrolling Bosnia's skies, and secondly to provide Close Air Support to UNPROFOR. When push came to shove and NATO gave the Bosnian Serbs a good lesson, the Sea Harriers flew air defence, recce and attack sorties.
The Royal Navy is overstretched. Considering its considerable problems, most of which are due to politics, it does a very good job. If we ae not attacked because the attacker is detered, then that IS a victory. God willing the politicians can be disuaded from the current ideas to get rid of he Sea Harrier before the JSF comes along.
One final point. I don't and have never advocated the idea of scrapping the RAF. What a stupid idea. My earlier post simply made the pont that all the services have a lot of high technology systems.
Now for your points....
In WWII the man threat to Britain was attacks on merchant shipping. The first method of dealing with this threat was the convoy system. There was a threat from enemy warhips, submarines and aircraft. The real menace of course was the U boat, being responsible for 68% of shipping losses.
Whether the RN or RAF sank the greater number of U boats is frankly neither here nor there. The Kreigsmarine plan (produced by Admiral Donitz) was that the Ubootwaffe would be divided into three. A third would be attacking the Allied convoys, another third would be traveling to/from the convoys and the remaining third would be in refit etc. The in theatre U boats were divided in Wolfpacks. In 1939, radar was still in its infancy and had not found any large scale naval use. Therefore an attacking U boat (on the surface) could be detected only by visual means, and on a dark night that was nearly impossible. Being on the surface, the boat would be able to attain a much greater speed than when submerged. So they were used a torpedo boats initially. A torpedo attack was much more difficult to achieve submarged. The Wolfpack tactic was that one boat would find a convoy, and shadow it. HF radio would be used to inform other boats and they would attack on mass.
Defending the convoys were the ships of the Royal Navy. Very early on it was found that the key to preventing a succesful U boat attack was to keep them at a distance. The introduction of radar aboard escort vessels made this feasible. HF/DF (again carried by escorts) made the wolfpack tactics very dangerous. ASDIC allowed the enemy to be located underwater, and attacked with new weapons such as Hedghog or Squid. These efforts denied the U boats an easy victory. Carrier based aircraft also played an important role in dealing with U boat threat. RAF and RCAF aircraft often acted with naval forces. Thus the credit for defeating the U boats must go, in the main, to the Royal Navy, and to its sailors. Let us hope that their succesors (and I'm including myself here) are made of the same stuff - guts, determination, bravery and a hundred other qualities that are sadly lacking in 2002.
So what about the Tirpitz? Well yes the RAF (617 sdn) sent her to the bottom. But she had already been attacked before, by the X Craft (midget submarines) and by RN aircraft from SIX carriers in Operation Tungsten. The net result of these attacks was that she was imobilised and was no longer a serious menace.
Now for more recent events. You claim that the Sea Harrier did not achieve a favourable air situation in San Carlos. Well it did achieve a degree of air superiority in the Falklands', enough for landing to be conducted. As for San Carlos, it should be remebered that whilst we called it bomb alley, the Argentine pilots (Navy as well was Air Force) called it Death Valley due to their losses, many of which were down to the Sea Harrier. Why did they fly so low (which caused many bombs to fail to arm)? It was to avoid shipborne radars (see below) and also the Sea Harriers. In a study of the conflict, the USAF concluded that over 450 Argentine sorties had been prevented due to the deterent affect that the Sea Harrier had. Those 450 extra sorties by Skyhawks/Daggers etc could have resulted in defeat for Britain.
There were a number of problems with the task group's air defence.
1. Not enough Sea Harriers.
2. No AEW.
3. Only two ships with Sea Wolf.
4. Inadeqaute radar on/in the Type 42 Destroyers.
Lets consider point 4. When the Type 42s were designed/built, the government of the day decided to give them Type 965 radar for long range air search. One problem: excessive beamwidth. Hence aded clutter, adding to the problem of picking out the target. In Engineering terms you would consider this as the Signal to Noise ratio being reduced. A good analogy is if you have your pupils dilated by eye drops (so they can look inside the eyeball) your pupilsdilate, letting large amouts of light in from all directions. And your vision is seriously reduced, so much so you can read. Back to radar, the excessive beamwidth problem was made more serious by operating close to shore, where the enemy hid behing the hills until he went feet wet, and there was more clutter anyway.
AEW would have been a massive help.
Finally lets consider Bosnia. Deny Flight was the codename for the NATO operation to prevent aircraft being used in Bosnian airspace. This was on behalf of the UN. Yugoslav aircraft still flew traing sorties. At times these got VERY close to NATO warships on duty just off the coast of Montenegro. The Sea Harriers were there for TWO purposes. Firstly to contribute to patrolling Bosnia's skies, and secondly to provide Close Air Support to UNPROFOR. When push came to shove and NATO gave the Bosnian Serbs a good lesson, the Sea Harriers flew air defence, recce and attack sorties.
The Royal Navy is overstretched. Considering its considerable problems, most of which are due to politics, it does a very good job. If we ae not attacked because the attacker is detered, then that IS a victory. God willing the politicians can be disuaded from the current ideas to get rid of he Sea Harrier before the JSF comes along.
One final point. I don't and have never advocated the idea of scrapping the RAF. What a stupid idea. My earlier post simply made the pont that all the services have a lot of high technology systems.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Apr 2002 at 00:09.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB,
If things are so great in the AAC then why are AAC pilots leaving to join the RAF? Idon't think there are many going RAF to AAC.
Would you really want to get aboard a VC10/Herc/Tristar flown by a crew who had not slept for 24 hours because of inadequate accomodation?
Just food for thought.
GB
If things are so great in the AAC then why are AAC pilots leaving to join the RAF? Idon't think there are many going RAF to AAC.
Would you really want to get aboard a VC10/Herc/Tristar flown by a crew who had not slept for 24 hours because of inadequate accomodation?
Just food for thought.
GB
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: southwest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB
I didnt say that all the pilots and groundcrew loved what they were doing.The reason a lot of both aircrew and REME Technicians want to transfer is cause they've seen how much time off and perks you crabs get, and naturally want a peice of all that tax payers money you lot are overzealosely spending.but if you want to do some real flying may i suggest a few days down on the border with the mighty LYNX in NI!
I didnt say that all the pilots and groundcrew loved what they were doing.The reason a lot of both aircrew and REME Technicians want to transfer is cause they've seen how much time off and perks you crabs get, and naturally want a peice of all that tax payers money you lot are overzealosely spending.but if you want to do some real flying may i suggest a few days down on the border with the mighty LYNX in NI!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back off Guys please
I'm sure you are all aware that there have been many RAF aircrew (and groundcrew) living in tents in deserts various since last Sep. They are doing some very 'real' flying and putting their @rses on the line every day. They have not whinged once about food/hotels/allowances etc as has been intimated. The chaps' morale is not helped by some of you spouting such complete tosh.
It is my considered opinion that ALL the Services are 'up the creek' because of a lack of funding and we would be better off sticking together and not try to score points of each other.
If the PM wants us to be 'world policemen' then he could at least give us helmets, truncheons and panda cars!
That is all.
I'm sure you are all aware that there have been many RAF aircrew (and groundcrew) living in tents in deserts various since last Sep. They are doing some very 'real' flying and putting their @rses on the line every day. They have not whinged once about food/hotels/allowances etc as has been intimated. The chaps' morale is not helped by some of you spouting such complete tosh.
It is my considered opinion that ALL the Services are 'up the creek' because of a lack of funding and we would be better off sticking together and not try to score points of each other.
If the PM wants us to be 'world policemen' then he could at least give us helmets, truncheons and panda cars!
That is all.