new CAS
A better statement would be 'he is the first rotary CAS'. Back in the day it was bomber pilots who had a stranglehold on the top job, and in no way can you equate a Lancaster with a FJ! The last non-FJ CAS was Sir Michael Beetham (1977-82), who was a Lancaster and Valiant pilot. Admittedly that's quite a while ago, so a change was definitely due.
Got to agree with earlier comments about the SH force; if we're out of Afghanistan before SDSR-2, as expected, then it will be interesting to see how much effort Pulford puts into defending his old patch. SH will look ripe for culling, and there will be knives out for FJ as usual. Who knows where he will focus?
Got to agree with earlier comments about the SH force; if we're out of Afghanistan before SDSR-2, as expected, then it will be interesting to see how much effort Pulford puts into defending his old patch. SH will look ripe for culling, and there will be knives out for FJ as usual. Who knows where he will focus?
FB
he may be all the less resistant to further attempts to cut the FJ Section
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey maybe he got the job because he was the best man for it?
What I find most irritating in these discussions is the naval attitude that "it is all the RAF's fault". The RN top brass are equally responsible - they overtly and covertly campaigned for the end of the RAF (far more serious than wanting to fly some aircraft, I suggest) and far worse they have spread their vitriol throughout the RN so that all the way down to Lt you get very anti-RAF sentiment based on a specific agenda that most know nothing about. It is a very sad sight that the RN has come to this and it isn't something the RAF does. If the 3 and 4 stars want to have a playground spat then let them, I suggest the rest of us just stay professional and get on with the job.
The final point is that we need to accept that we no longer have sufficient cash to buy a fleet of modern aircraft that will sit on a carrier and another fleet that will be land based. The F35s will have to be shared and be based where they are best suited for defence, not for single-service agendas.
ps is the Ferguson report freely available? If so could someone post a link if not can someone explain it further (including who Ferguson is, who commissioned the report, where it is now etc, not just the content). Thanks
What I find most irritating in these discussions is the naval attitude that "it is all the RAF's fault". The RN top brass are equally responsible - they overtly and covertly campaigned for the end of the RAF (far more serious than wanting to fly some aircraft, I suggest) and far worse they have spread their vitriol throughout the RN so that all the way down to Lt you get very anti-RAF sentiment based on a specific agenda that most know nothing about. It is a very sad sight that the RN has come to this and it isn't something the RAF does. If the 3 and 4 stars want to have a playground spat then let them, I suggest the rest of us just stay professional and get on with the job.
The final point is that we need to accept that we no longer have sufficient cash to buy a fleet of modern aircraft that will sit on a carrier and another fleet that will be land based. The F35s will have to be shared and be based where they are best suited for defence, not for single-service agendas.
ps is the Ferguson report freely available? If so could someone post a link if not can someone explain it further (including who Ferguson is, who commissioned the report, where it is now etc, not just the content). Thanks
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: An Ivory Tower
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As much of a good man as Air Chief Marshal Pulford may be, his appointment, at least in Government circles, I suspect is based to some degree on wishful thinking that he may be all the less resistant to further attempts to cut the FJ Section. I would ordinarily say Force, but I feel that's a little grand these days.
"
Or the man who is largely responsible for his selection (CAS) thought he was the best man for the job....
"Or the man who is largely responsible for his selection (CAS) thought he was the best man for the job....
Last edited by London Eye; 25th Jan 2013 at 10:57.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: on track, on speed, on time
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He cannot do any worse than the present incumbent! Totally lost touch with anything apart from Typhoon which is apparently the answer for everything hence Combat ISTAR! Does he have a prang in his closet like Dalts?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Europeshire
Age: 60
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Backwards PLT
" The RN top brass are equally responsible - they overtly and covertly campaigned for the end of the RAF".
Go on, spill the beans and spoil us with some substantiated back up!
Go on, spill the beans and spoil us with some substantiated back up!
Rotary ripe for picking? Perhaps, but, unlike a FJ, a RW is a true dual role asset, capable of significant MACP (or whatever it's called nowadays). When Afg is finished I bet you'll see Chinooks all over floods / civil disasters at home and abroad (carried by C17/A400M) as we try to regain some sense of being a 'force for good'. Typhoon may be multiple role but it ain't much good at building a flood defence, providing disaster relief or evacuating people...
Pully will not have much (if any) wiggle room; if, however unlikely, he decides to favour SH over FJ well, it's about time some would say. Air power is far more than just delivering kinetic effect or ISTAR via fast air - vital in some cases, but not all.
Pully will not have much (if any) wiggle room; if, however unlikely, he decides to favour SH over FJ well, it's about time some would say. Air power is far more than just delivering kinetic effect or ISTAR via fast air - vital in some cases, but not all.
capable of significant MACP
Easy,
Correct from a military PoV, but not necessarily from the public/politicos. The loss of mil SAR in 2016 will increase pressure on the govt to provide visible assistance to the civil authority (thanks for the correction!) and I'm sure (in the same way we couldn't wait to get Sentinel to Mali) RW assets would be released far more often (as they were at Boscastle, Foot and Mouth, Pan Am 747 etc) to fix the capability in public minds and make reduction harder.
Correct from a military PoV, but not necessarily from the public/politicos. The loss of mil SAR in 2016 will increase pressure on the govt to provide visible assistance to the civil authority (thanks for the correction!) and I'm sure (in the same way we couldn't wait to get Sentinel to Mali) RW assets would be released far more often (as they were at Boscastle, Foot and Mouth, Pan Am 747 etc) to fix the capability in public minds and make reduction harder.
You don't need 7 odd SH squadrons to provide very occasional military assistance to civil authorities!
In addition, the civil world is already starting to work on the principle that help from the military is likely to be both less sizable and available. The military no longer provides backup to support a strike by firefighters, just one example of the way things are going.
In addition, the civil world is already starting to work on the principle that help from the military is likely to be both less sizable and available. The military no longer provides backup to support a strike by firefighters, just one example of the way things are going.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus - 7 Sqns of SH? More like 4 (28/78 on their last RAF rotation already) with the duty rumour being that we'll lose 1 of the Puma Sqns if the MK2 extra buy does not come to fruition. I make that 3 gusting 4.
CiC,
Fine, I'll bow to your more in depth knowledge. I know a bit more than the average politician, and a lot more than the man on the street, about RAF SH assets, but I'm a long way short of being an expert (although before we get the "retired duffers shouldn't comment on things they know nothing about" statement, I should say that I'm still in the mob, albeit not for much longer).
As I see it we currently have 7 RAF SH squadrons, 3 Chinook, 2 Merlin, 2 Puma. Hence my comment. While I knew the Merlins were going to the RN, I didn't know exactly when. So yes, it will very soon reduce to 5(?).
I'll admit that getting things wrong doesn't add strength to my argument. However, in terms of MACA requirement, 3 Chinook and 2(?) Puma squadrons permanently based in the UK, without even mentioning how many of the Junglies are likely to be available in the UK (and not floating on a gin palace somewhere!) is far more than could ever be needed/justified.
Trying to justify SH numbers using MACA as part of your argument is, in my opinion, as pointless as trying to justify MPA on the basis of its SAR role.
Still, feel free to disagree, that's the beauty of such a site. I tend to find that people either disagree/correct my comments, or totally ignore them - I think I actually prefer the former to the latter!
Fine, I'll bow to your more in depth knowledge. I know a bit more than the average politician, and a lot more than the man on the street, about RAF SH assets, but I'm a long way short of being an expert (although before we get the "retired duffers shouldn't comment on things they know nothing about" statement, I should say that I'm still in the mob, albeit not for much longer).
As I see it we currently have 7 RAF SH squadrons, 3 Chinook, 2 Merlin, 2 Puma. Hence my comment. While I knew the Merlins were going to the RN, I didn't know exactly when. So yes, it will very soon reduce to 5(?).
I'll admit that getting things wrong doesn't add strength to my argument. However, in terms of MACA requirement, 3 Chinook and 2(?) Puma squadrons permanently based in the UK, without even mentioning how many of the Junglies are likely to be available in the UK (and not floating on a gin palace somewhere!) is far more than could ever be needed/justified.
Trying to justify SH numbers using MACA as part of your argument is, in my opinion, as pointless as trying to justify MPA on the basis of its SAR role.
Still, feel free to disagree, that's the beauty of such a site. I tend to find that people either disagree/correct my comments, or totally ignore them - I think I actually prefer the former to the latter!
Last edited by Biggus; 26th Jan 2013 at 09:34.
Biggus,
By that logic how many AD Sqns do you need for a very occasional QRA? As with disaster relief, when you need it you really need it.
I don't think SH is that bleak Crab; I'd assume one of 28/78 will become a third CH47 Green Sqn with the Mk6 arriving. Maybe the other numberplate will become a joint CH47/Puma OCU? I reckon we'll lose one numberplate if it's managed carefully.
SH numbers are not going to be squeezed by UCAS over the next epoch, unlike manned Combat Air, so, who knows, maybe after a couple of obligatory Typhoon types next there could be a FJ mate with Pred/Reaper high in his/her competancies?
By that logic how many AD Sqns do you need for a very occasional QRA? As with disaster relief, when you need it you really need it.
I don't think SH is that bleak Crab; I'd assume one of 28/78 will become a third CH47 Green Sqn with the Mk6 arriving. Maybe the other numberplate will become a joint CH47/Puma OCU? I reckon we'll lose one numberplate if it's managed carefully.
SH numbers are not going to be squeezed by UCAS over the next epoch, unlike manned Combat Air, so, who knows, maybe after a couple of obligatory Typhoon types next there could be a FJ mate with Pred/Reaper high in his/her competancies?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,742
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...cers-appointed
Congratulations, I recognise him from going through 240 0CU
On the photo front you think they would have used one for Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach with the popper on his pocket done up and where is his belt?
Also is it me or is the new Commander Joint Forces Command in April 2013
Is it just the picture that makes him look boss eyed?
.
Congratulations, I recognise him from going through 240 0CU
On the photo front you think they would have used one for Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach with the popper on his pocket done up and where is his belt?
Also is it me or is the new Commander Joint Forces Command in April 2013
Is it just the picture that makes him look boss eyed?
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 26th Jan 2013 at 12:02.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus, fair enough I had discounted 7 by virtue of the different role and the fact that although badged as a Sqn they're more like a Flt in terms of size. Mk6 Sqn, Joint OCU: one of those - maybe, both - highly unlikely, neither - fairly likely IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Europeshire
Age: 60
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unused QRA
Just like the unused CASD Deterrence. It seems the British malady is resenting paying the premiums for insurance from MoD. Perhaps we should "Go Compare" and find it cheaper elsewhere - the Algerian AF could do our hostage rescue & AT, the Syrian AF the CIMIC. A thread on 3rd-party Defence service providers would make a welcome change from watching the RN & RAF "rats" fighting one another 
You don't need 7 odd SH squadrons to provide very occasional military assistance to civil authorities!
I'm out of the HQ environment now, so unsighted, but what happened to the notion that the Merlins would go to CHF and the Merlin Force was to be backfilled with 14x CH-47?
