"Close down RAF' says Naval whippersnapper
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: southwest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll suck back a tadge, your right i'm sure there are a lot of guys roughing it on ops from our crab friends!My opinion(for what its worth) is that the RAF should take on all fast jets, the NAVY should have all medium/heavy lift rotary and the ARMY all attack and light battlefield helis!
In these days of jointry the RAF and ARMY are on OCEAN and carriers as much as the MATLOES!
Christ, I think I should run for Prime minister!At least i'd give us bigger truncheons,harder helmets and better panda's!
Fnah Fnah!
In these days of jointry the RAF and ARMY are on OCEAN and carriers as much as the MATLOES!
Christ, I think I should run for Prime minister!At least i'd give us bigger truncheons,harder helmets and better panda's!
Fnah Fnah!
Last edited by DANGLEBERRY; 14th Apr 2002 at 14:25.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um......... and the Movers get the AT fleet? Owmigawd!
I have worked for Movers of both shades of blue and also a brown one and I safely say and with authority, that while they might be v good at Lines of Communication, logistics and so on but they know kok-all about aircraft but they insist on telling us they know better - Bless 'em! Arrrrgh!
One thing The War Against Terrorism clearly highlights is the lack of decent AT - strat ot Tac - more pandas please!
I have worked for Movers of both shades of blue and also a brown one and I safely say and with authority, that while they might be v good at Lines of Communication, logistics and so on but they know kok-all about aircraft but they insist on telling us they know better - Bless 'em! Arrrrgh!
One thing The War Against Terrorism clearly highlights is the lack of decent AT - strat ot Tac - more pandas please!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello One and all,
well you will all have to remember that the RAF is the junior service and that it was an off shot of the Army.
In todays battlefields the best weapon that anyone has is the Aircraft Carrier. Even though Amercia has an airforce the majoirty of overseas operations are carried out by carrier base aircraft.
As for someone saying that the Royal Navy do not have the technical ability, well thats garabage. I served at the Naval Airstation in Weymouth and it was at the time, the largest heli port in Europe (put me off flying in a helicopter), we also had other sites operating aircraft.
The Navy support a larger amount of technology than the RAF or the Army will every do, the simple reason is that when your at sea on a Submarine and something goes wrong, you have to be able to fix it in order to stay operational.
The Navy is just about to place an order for two very large aircraft carriers in order to replace the current three small carriers.
You also have to remember that the Royal Navy has already taken away the role of the Air Force as the UKs Nuclear Strike Foce, i.e. the four Trident submarines.
Anyway, it was talked about a lot in the forces and even today there are a lot of places where its a joint establisment for traning etc rather than seperate places. All the cooks in the army and navy get trained at the same place (dont know about the raf) thats why the food went down hill after that.
regards
John
http://gph.org.uk
well you will all have to remember that the RAF is the junior service and that it was an off shot of the Army.
In todays battlefields the best weapon that anyone has is the Aircraft Carrier. Even though Amercia has an airforce the majoirty of overseas operations are carried out by carrier base aircraft.
As for someone saying that the Royal Navy do not have the technical ability, well thats garabage. I served at the Naval Airstation in Weymouth and it was at the time, the largest heli port in Europe (put me off flying in a helicopter), we also had other sites operating aircraft.
The Navy support a larger amount of technology than the RAF or the Army will every do, the simple reason is that when your at sea on a Submarine and something goes wrong, you have to be able to fix it in order to stay operational.
The Navy is just about to place an order for two very large aircraft carriers in order to replace the current three small carriers.
You also have to remember that the Royal Navy has already taken away the role of the Air Force as the UKs Nuclear Strike Foce, i.e. the four Trident submarines.
Anyway, it was talked about a lot in the forces and even today there are a lot of places where its a joint establisment for traning etc rather than seperate places. All the cooks in the army and navy get trained at the same place (dont know about the raf) thats why the food went down hill after that.
regards
John
http://gph.org.uk
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Dear Radioman.
"In todays battlefields the best weapon that anyone has is the Aircraft Carrier ".
A CVA is excellent for projecting power where no suitable land base exists and to defend a TF/BG at sea in blue water operations - which is it's raison d'etre. But it cannot complete with land bases for sustained long range operations when available. It is vulnerable, expensive to repair, carries limited assets with restricted size/performance and needs a continuous chain of supply ships performing a continuous chain of rearm/refuel evolutions in order to sustain operations.
If I might make the examples of:
Desert Storm, where the USN relied heavily on land based RAF AAR support as the CVAs where considered to vulnerable to operate with the shallow waters of the the Gulf.
Afghanistan, where, due to range, the USN relied heavily on RAF/USAF AAR assets to reach and operate over the target area.
In any area involving targets deep inside a continental mass, such as China, Russia etc, the CVA cannot carry assets capable of reaching the target - including Tomahawk.
"Even though Amercia has an airforce the majority of overseas operations are carried out by carrier base aircraft".
No, the CVA launches a lot of small offensive assets to achieve the same task as a single strategic bomber within the same operation.
e.g. Afghanistan; A total of 21,500 sorties were flown through February, some 13,000 of which entered Afghan air space. Of these, over 6,500 were strike sorties, of which Navy flew about 75%.
However, the total number of weapons deliverd was 17,472. Out of this number, the Air Force delivered 74% of the total munitions. The strategic bomber force, B-1, B-2, and B-52,between them delivering 11,500 weapons, representing 66 percent of the total.
If you look at special forces the total tilts even further. Special Operations Command AC-130U "Spooky" gunships alone delivered over 3,271 105mm projectiles, 6,939 40mm projectiles, and 15,626 25mm projectiles through the end of December.
These total does not even mention Recce, Elint, AT, C3 etc; which represent the remaining 8,500 sorties out of which the USAF provided over 95%.
What, then, was the contribution of the CVAs?
As I started by saying, a CVA is excellent for projecting power where no suitable land base exists.
In the case of Afghanistan, the USAF could operate long range strategic bomber and support aircraft out of Diego Garcia and other bases. It did not, however, initially possess any bases suitable for operating tactical aircraft suitable for CAS flexible targeting against mobile targets (at least until it was able to base A-10s to the north).
The CVAs, however, were able to fiulfill this task utilising the AAR/C3/Recce support mentioned above. According to a senior Navy officer, 80 percent of Navy strikes took off from aircraft carriers without having a specific fixed target, proceeding to one of 30 kill boxes where they were assigned emerging targets, designated by SF or USAF FAC personnel.
The CVA concept has been proven based on it's own merits. Putting up patently untrue Aunt Sally's, runs the risk of the whole carrier concept being abandoned for the UK based on it not being able to perform unrealistic tasks or achieve the efficiencies only available operating a large aircraft from a long runway.
"In todays battlefields the best weapon that anyone has is the Aircraft Carrier ".
A CVA is excellent for projecting power where no suitable land base exists and to defend a TF/BG at sea in blue water operations - which is it's raison d'etre. But it cannot complete with land bases for sustained long range operations when available. It is vulnerable, expensive to repair, carries limited assets with restricted size/performance and needs a continuous chain of supply ships performing a continuous chain of rearm/refuel evolutions in order to sustain operations.
If I might make the examples of:
Desert Storm, where the USN relied heavily on land based RAF AAR support as the CVAs where considered to vulnerable to operate with the shallow waters of the the Gulf.
Afghanistan, where, due to range, the USN relied heavily on RAF/USAF AAR assets to reach and operate over the target area.
In any area involving targets deep inside a continental mass, such as China, Russia etc, the CVA cannot carry assets capable of reaching the target - including Tomahawk.
"Even though Amercia has an airforce the majority of overseas operations are carried out by carrier base aircraft".
No, the CVA launches a lot of small offensive assets to achieve the same task as a single strategic bomber within the same operation.
e.g. Afghanistan; A total of 21,500 sorties were flown through February, some 13,000 of which entered Afghan air space. Of these, over 6,500 were strike sorties, of which Navy flew about 75%.
However, the total number of weapons deliverd was 17,472. Out of this number, the Air Force delivered 74% of the total munitions. The strategic bomber force, B-1, B-2, and B-52,between them delivering 11,500 weapons, representing 66 percent of the total.
If you look at special forces the total tilts even further. Special Operations Command AC-130U "Spooky" gunships alone delivered over 3,271 105mm projectiles, 6,939 40mm projectiles, and 15,626 25mm projectiles through the end of December.
These total does not even mention Recce, Elint, AT, C3 etc; which represent the remaining 8,500 sorties out of which the USAF provided over 95%.
What, then, was the contribution of the CVAs?
As I started by saying, a CVA is excellent for projecting power where no suitable land base exists.
In the case of Afghanistan, the USAF could operate long range strategic bomber and support aircraft out of Diego Garcia and other bases. It did not, however, initially possess any bases suitable for operating tactical aircraft suitable for CAS flexible targeting against mobile targets (at least until it was able to base A-10s to the north).
The CVAs, however, were able to fiulfill this task utilising the AAR/C3/Recce support mentioned above. According to a senior Navy officer, 80 percent of Navy strikes took off from aircraft carriers without having a specific fixed target, proceeding to one of 30 kill boxes where they were assigned emerging targets, designated by SF or USAF FAC personnel.
The CVA concept has been proven based on it's own merits. Putting up patently untrue Aunt Sally's, runs the risk of the whole carrier concept being abandoned for the UK based on it not being able to perform unrealistic tasks or achieve the efficiencies only available operating a large aircraft from a long runway.
Last edited by ORAC; 14th Apr 2002 at 19:58.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: southwest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right then,
The reason I think that the Raf should take on all Jets,planes and anything else fixed wing is that over the last blah years they have had the majority of experience with them.I'm not saying they don't do a good job with rotary just I think that all the afore mentioned should be enough for any service.
The Navy should have all medium/heavy lift rotary cause they've got plenty of experience with SeaKing,Merlin and Wessex(almost god bless its soul).Also being on board ship and delivering our ground forces to the bad areas is what they do good, Sierra Leonne for eg. I think they should also keep their Lynx for small ships flights.
The Army should keep Apache and LBH cause despite what some idiots have said about how we can't possibly service the technology its ar*e.Our REME techs can and do service/repair all kinds of electronic gadgetry(RAPIER for example)How we still keep that dustbin called a Lynx in the air is proof our techs can do the business.
The Navy can make anything at sea and MASU are fantastic,the RAF could utilise this away from home.The RAF already are onboard the carriers and can do the same job as the matloes with fixed wing.
So why spread the same kinda kit to different services, when all it does is cost more.Give each service their role in the orbat and they become exceptional and only have one job to worry about instead of many.
Everyone wants a finger in the same pie,why not give them they're own pies and get them to eat together.We all do a stirling job why try to take each others pies!
The reason I think that the Raf should take on all Jets,planes and anything else fixed wing is that over the last blah years they have had the majority of experience with them.I'm not saying they don't do a good job with rotary just I think that all the afore mentioned should be enough for any service.
The Navy should have all medium/heavy lift rotary cause they've got plenty of experience with SeaKing,Merlin and Wessex(almost god bless its soul).Also being on board ship and delivering our ground forces to the bad areas is what they do good, Sierra Leonne for eg. I think they should also keep their Lynx for small ships flights.
The Army should keep Apache and LBH cause despite what some idiots have said about how we can't possibly service the technology its ar*e.Our REME techs can and do service/repair all kinds of electronic gadgetry(RAPIER for example)How we still keep that dustbin called a Lynx in the air is proof our techs can do the business.
The Navy can make anything at sea and MASU are fantastic,the RAF could utilise this away from home.The RAF already are onboard the carriers and can do the same job as the matloes with fixed wing.
So why spread the same kinda kit to different services, when all it does is cost more.Give each service their role in the orbat and they become exceptional and only have one job to worry about instead of many.
Everyone wants a finger in the same pie,why not give them they're own pies and get them to eat together.We all do a stirling job why try to take each others pies!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So now you want the Dark Blue blokes wandering around the battlefield flying Wokkas/Merlins? Seem to me they might need a bit of training up and new support organisations to do that. I can see the case for transferring them to the army, they are after all going to be almost exclusively moving troops/ammo/artillery and supporting the Apache. But the RN, ................!!
As for the idea that you can support the complex electronics and composite structures on something like a GR7/9 by calling on the REME/MASU to whip together a spare for it..... Call out the blacksmith for a new set of shoes?
As for the idea that you can support the complex electronics and composite structures on something like a GR7/9 by calling on the REME/MASU to whip together a spare for it..... Call out the blacksmith for a new set of shoes?
Last edited by ORAC; 14th Apr 2002 at 22:22.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: southwest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't the navy support ground based aircraft?Unless my eyes decieved me a few hundred times,the matloes seem to do ok supporting seakings in support of the RM and now supporting Lynx 7's and Gazelles at 847 sqn in the field.As for whipping up a pair of shoes, ask your airframe techs if they make any parts that get fitted to your aircraft! I know for a fact they do cause i've been in the workshops when they've been making them as well as making them for us!
As for complex electronics and composites, the matloes have Merlin which has got as much high tech composites than anything the RAF have got and electronics wise,don't fool yourself I'm sure that the RAF aren't any more advanced than the rest of the services!
As for complex electronics and composites, the matloes have Merlin which has got as much high tech composites than anything the RAF have got and electronics wise,don't fool yourself I'm sure that the RAF aren't any more advanced than the rest of the services!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: a secret airbase not far from you
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Deeear
Ants in pants then? Remember Merlin EHI 01, oh sorry EH 101, what a machine! can maintain flight on 2 engines, good job a Wessex could maintain it on 1!
Of course in this day and age of HSW and CAA engineering, it will be easy to make bits for a plastic pig......won't it?
No one can can predict what will happen, didn't see any GR4/F3/Jag/SHAR pics from Kabul, have you?
Ants in pants then? Remember Merlin EHI 01, oh sorry EH 101, what a machine! can maintain flight on 2 engines, good job a Wessex could maintain it on 1!
Of course in this day and age of HSW and CAA engineering, it will be easy to make bits for a plastic pig......won't it?
No one can can predict what will happen, didn't see any GR4/F3/Jag/SHAR pics from Kabul, have you?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The support of a rotary force ,when a carrier is nearby, can be aided by the RN. What, however, about the times when it is not? Such as in Desert Storm? What about in the central Germany?
This would require the RN to establish a support capability able to operate inland and independently of any deployed surface units. Including aircrew and ground crew used to working in the field with the army. Not saying the RAF SH force is perfect, but they have had a lot of practice.
Please justify this in light of your own comment: "Give each service their role in the orbat and they become exceptional and only have one job to worry about instead of many".
You implied that the REME/MASU could do something that the RAF could not when deployed. They cannot.The RAF is as proficient as the other services at BDR, as permitted and allowed under the release to service. Otherwise, like everyone else, they have to use approved spares or manufactures support.
The advantage held by the RAF is that it has the supply and movement organisation in place to support such deployments and to locate and dispatch spares world-wide as required, and the means to do so.
As I said, I can understand a case for transferring them to the army, as they operate almost solely in support of them. I can understand the advantages of the RN being able to support them on a ship, thereby reducing the number of personnel needing to be deployed. But to give them lock, stock and barrel to the RN seems bizarre; and something I have never heard anyone in the RN ever wish for!!
This would require the RN to establish a support capability able to operate inland and independently of any deployed surface units. Including aircrew and ground crew used to working in the field with the army. Not saying the RAF SH force is perfect, but they have had a lot of practice.
Please justify this in light of your own comment: "Give each service their role in the orbat and they become exceptional and only have one job to worry about instead of many".
You implied that the REME/MASU could do something that the RAF could not when deployed. They cannot.The RAF is as proficient as the other services at BDR, as permitted and allowed under the release to service. Otherwise, like everyone else, they have to use approved spares or manufactures support.
The advantage held by the RAF is that it has the supply and movement organisation in place to support such deployments and to locate and dispatch spares world-wide as required, and the means to do so.
As I said, I can understand a case for transferring them to the army, as they operate almost solely in support of them. I can understand the advantages of the RN being able to support them on a ship, thereby reducing the number of personnel needing to be deployed. But to give them lock, stock and barrel to the RN seems bizarre; and something I have never heard anyone in the RN ever wish for!!
Last edited by ORAC; 15th Apr 2002 at 00:16.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: southwest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
If there were less ac types per service, then everyone in that service could concentrate on those fewer ac types thus becoming more proficient.
Less ac types=better understanding of support needed= more proficient work/support
As for saying that REME/MASU are better than the RAF, then i'm sorry that you took it that way.I know that the RAF guys are just as good as the rest.
In sheet metal work repair, if a stringer or similar needs replacing then with the correct materials and drawings they can be locally manufactured iaw ac manual( topic 6)
With regards to support in the field away from ships,maybe someone could shed light on how they supported themselves in the field (eg 3 BAS now 847nas in northern iraq 1991 or every year in Norway). I imagine with the team work of RAF and ARMY and NAVY!
I can see why you think the Army would have a case for taking the ac but trust me when i say we can just about cope with what ac we've got thanks to chronic undermanning(but thats a whole different topic)
Unless you're a policy maker in the MOD your opinion is worth as much as mine.I doubt whether we're gonna agree on this,so this could go on for ever.
As for the Navy wanting the change and relinquish FJ.I think theres more chance me becoming Prime Minister!
If there were less ac types per service, then everyone in that service could concentrate on those fewer ac types thus becoming more proficient.
Less ac types=better understanding of support needed= more proficient work/support
As for saying that REME/MASU are better than the RAF, then i'm sorry that you took it that way.I know that the RAF guys are just as good as the rest.
In sheet metal work repair, if a stringer or similar needs replacing then with the correct materials and drawings they can be locally manufactured iaw ac manual( topic 6)
With regards to support in the field away from ships,maybe someone could shed light on how they supported themselves in the field (eg 3 BAS now 847nas in northern iraq 1991 or every year in Norway). I imagine with the team work of RAF and ARMY and NAVY!
I can see why you think the Army would have a case for taking the ac but trust me when i say we can just about cope with what ac we've got thanks to chronic undermanning(but thats a whole different topic)
Unless you're a policy maker in the MOD your opinion is worth as much as mine.I doubt whether we're gonna agree on this,so this could go on for ever.
As for the Navy wanting the change and relinquish FJ.I think theres more chance me becoming Prime Minister!
Last edited by DANGLEBERRY; 15th Apr 2002 at 02:14.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Guys (and girls),
It seems that this debate could/can go on for ever. The main thing is that during any joint UK forces operation it usually all works with no problems (apart from me walking around an army place with my cap off inside the building and not know who the hell I was talking too but they let me off).
I have worked with both Army and RAF chaps and each time I really enjoyed it. We took the mick out of each other but we did get on with the job.
I think that one thing that would be good for all the three services if at all possible is to spend time with the other service, even for a couple of weeks (or like I had 2 years...in Italy).
I have spent a few good nights propping up a bar......I even got stranded in Dortmund due to an ear infection for two weeks, oh the RAF looked after me...........even let me buy them beer.
regards
John
It seems that this debate could/can go on for ever. The main thing is that during any joint UK forces operation it usually all works with no problems (apart from me walking around an army place with my cap off inside the building and not know who the hell I was talking too but they let me off).
I have worked with both Army and RAF chaps and each time I really enjoyed it. We took the mick out of each other but we did get on with the job.
I think that one thing that would be good for all the three services if at all possible is to spend time with the other service, even for a couple of weeks (or like I had 2 years...in Italy).
I have spent a few good nights propping up a bar......I even got stranded in Dortmund due to an ear infection for two weeks, oh the RAF looked after me...........even let me buy them beer.
regards
John
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: lincoln, england
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could see this line making ome sense except for one slight problem! The bun fight every year for money.
The RAF will eentually sacrifice everything to make sure it gets EF2000+5. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that the top brass are all FJ types!
But imagine if the RN were in charge! How many Typhoons do you get to the Type 45 or god forbid a CVS. And if their in charge guess who'd lose!!
Luck_B*
I know how lucky I really am! No really I do!!!
The RAF will eentually sacrifice everything to make sure it gets EF2000+5. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that the top brass are all FJ types!
But imagine if the RN were in charge! How many Typhoons do you get to the Type 45 or god forbid a CVS. And if their in charge guess who'd lose!!
Luck_B*
I know how lucky I really am! No really I do!!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wherever
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't we a bit amongst the weeds on this one. OK - ex RN so I'm partisan but long time civilian so I want to see best bang for bucks, especially as Prudence is about to stick his greedy hand in my pocket yet again. Less tail, more teeth.
The fact is, aircraft support. They create the conditions to win but the last gasp is always a grunt or a grey target (sorry, pedigree will out) standing there with a big gun and saying "this is my piece of turf/ocean, you can't have it".
The direction of the support should lie with the people who have to carry out the endgame. Aeroplanes support and they don't need a whole Air Force full of infrastructure to do it. Keep the aeroplanes, get rid of the infrastructure.
The fact is, aircraft support. They create the conditions to win but the last gasp is always a grunt or a grey target (sorry, pedigree will out) standing there with a big gun and saying "this is my piece of turf/ocean, you can't have it".
The direction of the support should lie with the people who have to carry out the endgame. Aeroplanes support and they don't need a whole Air Force full of infrastructure to do it. Keep the aeroplanes, get rid of the infrastructure.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the dark ages 32 Sqn was a joint RAF/RN operation out of Northolt; 'C' Flight being RAF only, flying Whirlwind HCC10s (plus the one and only HCC12) When we needed heavy maintenance on a Whirly, the Navy came in and did it. They're experts on corrosion for obvious reasons.
One day I did the customary squeaky "Hello Sailor" greeting to one of our matelot friends, who was with us for a "Minor **" on a Whirly. I was jumped on by a furious red faced Lt. Cmdr who thought I was extracting the urine from him. The Navy and the RAF can work together well enough as long as you keep the Gold Leaf away from RAF groundcrew. Why are Naval Officers such a Crabby bunch? Our own zobbs were perfect gentlemen in comparison.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
One day I did the customary squeaky "Hello Sailor" greeting to one of our matelot friends, who was with us for a "Minor **" on a Whirly. I was jumped on by a furious red faced Lt. Cmdr who thought I was extracting the urine from him. The Navy and the RAF can work together well enough as long as you keep the Gold Leaf away from RAF groundcrew. Why are Naval Officers such a Crabby bunch? Our own zobbs were perfect gentlemen in comparison.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
CVS - Sea Harriers = Target.
Fleet - organic air defence = very dodgy.
Damned Treasury!!! It is them, not the Navy, who want to be rid of the Sea Harrier.
Fleet - organic air defence = very dodgy.
Damned Treasury!!! It is them, not the Navy, who want to be rid of the Sea Harrier.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 19th Apr 2002 at 22:56.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree to an extent WEBF but the FAA always seem to get seen off by the fisheads in finance matters. If the navy wants more ships then something has to give. I can't believe HM Gov is abandoning fleet defence. It's a tragedy waiting to happen.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that a very raw nerve has been touched here. How many aircraft (useful ones) are available in the RAF and waht is the annual cost of the RAF? How many staff of air rank ar there? As far as a good professional service is concerned - what happened in the Falklands with the Vulcan bombings? What happened to the Tory Canyon? What happened to the low level stuff in the Gulf war? How many civilian pilots and passengers have you hit in low level antics ( sorry sorties) in the U.K? How many Controlled Airspace " busts" has there been in the last 12 months. Very professional I am sure!