Sharky Watch LIVE
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
I thought that over the same period the RN haemorrhaged DD/FF numbers to keep the carriers alive. So the 'RN cared more for ships' argument is at best simplistic.
(More than aware that a carrier is a ship, before the kindergarten level argument resumes.)
(More than aware that a carrier is a ship, before the kindergarten level argument resumes.)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure why it doesn't work, try googling "Pin striped line withdrawing harrier". It might give you a feel for why their battleships could not justify their opposition.
The blog is written by someone with a nautical persuasion
The blog is written by someone with a nautical persuasion
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz & Eng - Thanks, I got it in the end.
All of it makes sense but I still think the timing was engineered.
This was interesting....
Couldn't agree more
Glojo
Its Easy to out-think Career Seaman Officers.
I worked at Faslane as a Scumbag Civil Servant and had to deal with them. Always found the Non-Seaman Branches pretty good (Stand fast the Reg Officer 
) But Seaman Officers - Well it amazes me that these guys get jobs outside the RN.
All of it makes sense but I still think the timing was engineered.
This was interesting....
Could the RN have funded the Harrier alone though? Its often suggested that the RN should regain control of its fighter squadrons and use the money to fund its force directly. A great argument in theory, which ignores a salient fact. The RN over the last 14 years could have made sacrifices to find the funding – under older arrangements it could have put forward plans to sacrifice other capabilities directly to fund the Harrier. It chose not to do so, preferring instead to try to find savings through joint work.
Glojo
Its Easy to out-think Career Seaman Officers.
I worked at Faslane as a Scumbag Civil Servant and had to deal with them. Always found the Non-Seaman Branches pretty good (Stand fast the Reg Officer ) But Seaman Officers - Well it amazes me that these guys get jobs outside the RN.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are inferring that the RAF put together a plan of Machiavellian proportions that completely out witted the RN (again). My recollection of those years is that nobody had a clue about next budget round, let alone a 5 year plan to eliminate an aircraft type to remove FAA control of their airframes. The Pin Stripe account is for me the most balanced view I've heard from anyone with a dark blue leaning
Originally Posted by engineer(retard)
You are inferring that the RAF put together a plan of Machiavellian proportions that completely out witted the RN
Of course, if the conspiracy IS true, the RN were jolly easy to outwit. If it wasn't true then they were jolly stupid to give it all up. Either way, the sad, ranting old bearded one appears to have slammed the Royal Navy's reputation. How could he do that?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 26th Sep 2013 at 19:55.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Courtney what you're telling us is that the RAF have never had any plans to get rid of the FAA and take control of all UK military flying?
I think this chap here disagrees with you.
RAF chief predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power - Telegraph
I think this chap here disagrees with you.
RAF chief predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power - Telegraph
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Yeovil,Somerset
Age: 52
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting read!
A friend of mine recently asked me; ''If Great Britain sees its future as fighting more overseas, pre emptive strike etc, this is obviously best from an aircraft carrier as it has less restrictions. So why does the RAF need to have F35?''
Good question....
A friend of mine recently asked me; ''If Great Britain sees its future as fighting more overseas, pre emptive strike etc, this is obviously best from an aircraft carrier as it has less restrictions. So why does the RAF need to have F35?''
Good question....
Last edited by lmgaylard; 27th Sep 2013 at 16:37.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
If Great Britain sees its future as fighting more overseas, pre emptive strike etc, this is obviously best from an aircraft carrier as it has less restrictions.
Less restrictions? Yeah none of the 'dodgy' nations of the world have SSKs and anti-ship missiles. Filling holes in runways is slightly easier than raising previously floating runways off the sea bed.
Simplistic? Indeed, but no less so than blanket statements of aircraft carriers having less restrictions.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind that the Naval Strike Wing only returned from theatre in December 2008 - and there were RN personnel serving with 1(F) at that time I found that particular piece from the Telegraph abhorrent.
On top of that the desert flying coverall and the carefully posed photograph that just crops the Harriers to the left were just finishing touches.
Obviously he redeemed himself somewhat with the pure slapstick genius of multi role Typhoon and scared cows. What a cheese.
I remember watching this particular idiot on a programme about the Nimrod crash in theatre when he came across as some bloke who had been walking past in No 1s by pure chance when he bumped into a camera crew.
Sorry about the emotive language team - but someone so evidently far from Joint winds me up. We never witnessed anything of the sort by a CO/OC JHC when his boys and girls of any cloth were at war.
On top of that the desert flying coverall and the carefully posed photograph that just crops the Harriers to the left were just finishing touches.
Obviously he redeemed himself somewhat with the pure slapstick genius of multi role Typhoon and scared cows. What a cheese.
I remember watching this particular idiot on a programme about the Nimrod crash in theatre when he came across as some bloke who had been walking past in No 1s by pure chance when he bumped into a camera crew.
Sorry about the emotive language team - but someone so evidently far from Joint winds me up. We never witnessed anything of the sort by a CO/OC JHC when his boys and girls of any cloth were at war.
Last edited by orca; 27th Sep 2013 at 18:53.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per Ardua ad Astra.
I am but a bit player to all this "commissioned" stuff, but I never had much liking for the FAA [who I worked for/with in my time in service] for various reasons none of which really matter now, but, when I listened to the audio on YT of Ward describing his actions to a Argentinian family member, well, I felt a great deal of admiration for his moral courage.
Maybe it's time to let this thread sink into obscurity.
Orca,
Sorry, Mate. You can describe Glenn Torpy as many things, but he is not an idiot. I can see the point he was making there and the reasons behind it. We may not like it and many would certainly disagree. But he is most certainly NOT an idiot.
Sorry, Mate. You can describe Glenn Torpy as many things, but he is not an idiot. I can see the point he was making there and the reasons behind it. We may not like it and many would certainly disagree. But he is most certainly NOT an idiot.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no other aircraft better than the Typhoon except for a US F22 Raptor and an F22 is significantly more expensive. Typhoon is truly multi-role, it is a world class aeroplane.
Except, of course, a VSO stating in public that our new jet is worse than anyone elses would have been truly idiotic. I wouldn't argue that Typhoon isn't bloody good - tricky double neg for you there - b ut I know stating a world ranking of modern ac will always be contentious. Not sure whether your statement is prompted by your view of Typhoon or the man.
Anyway, I sadly won't be online to get the responses to that for a while, so you'll have to play nicely until I'm back.
Anyway, I sadly won't be online to get the responses to that for a while, so you'll have to play nicely until I'm back.
engineer(retard)/SpazSinbad
I am sure that you are aware of the problem of Groupthink.
Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
7. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.
I am sure that you are aware of the problem of Groupthink.
Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
7. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
I do not give a ****
'WEBF' your comment including me strikes me of being Unthinking. But youse knew that. Right? I'm a Taswegian Uncaring about the shenanigans in UKland about RNers V. Crabs. OK?