Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,935 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Its not good becoming angry at him, or personal. May has a point of view.
1.Defence.History is on his side (one could argue), the RAF has got things spectacularly wrong in the past, much to the worse when one looks at the physical damage to our country meted out in the course of 1940,41,42 and even into mid 43 (in my home town). What on earth were the RAF doing in these years?
1.Defence.History is on his side (one could argue), the RAF has got things spectacularly wrong in the past, much to the worse when one looks at the physical damage to our country meted out in the course of 1940,41,42 and even into mid 43 (in my home town). What on earth were the RAF doing in these years?
It's not just over here in the UK that the lunatic fringe is out in force. The US has their own version of Lester May and he is called Robert Farley:
Robert Farley | Ground the U.S. Air Force | Foreign Affairs
The rebuttal was published a couple of months later:
Robert S. Spalding III | Disbanding the Air Force Would Be a Blunder | Foreign Affairs
Of course, what May and Farley seem to misunderstand is that ownership of airpower does not automatically mean understanding and appropriate use of airpower. After all, on the basis of May's and Farley's logic, then when the RAF operated Motor Boats to rescue downed crews, then it automatically gave them a stake in terms of Naval power and we should have handed the aircraft carriers over to the RAF.
Would anybody in their right mind agree to that? Of course not, so why on earth would we take a service that operates in the air and works at the operational level and hand it over to a service that operates at the tactical level on the land? Why would we hand over such a set of capabilities to a Navy, that whilst a fine fine Service, uses airpower as a relatively minor component of its operations, often with the narrow focus of defending its ships.
Furthermore. both May and Farley in their criticism of specific occasions when air power has not worked, would do well to remember that in this current day and age there are more factors that dictate the conduct of operations other than the wish of the commanders on the ground. RoE, legal and political considerations, media coverage etc all go towards influencing the politicians, who as the decision makers, will set the parameters and authorise specific actions. The RAF could quite easily have turned Basrah into a car park in 2008, probably over night if we had really put our mind to it. I'm not sure what it would have achieved other satisfying May's notions on how to use air power. Neither would it have been approved, so criticism of the RAF for not 'launching the fleet' is aimed in the wrong direction, and if anything, should be directed to the 2-star commander on the ground at the time for not requesting or forcefully enough articulating the requirement for a new car park to the east of the COB.
We have a unique ethos and outlook to operations, under pinning an operational level doctrine and a speed of operations far in excess of anything the Army and RN operate at. Lester May should be reminded to be careful for what he wishes for. Absorption of the RAF into the RN and Army may well not realise all the benefits he assumes it will.
Robert Farley | Ground the U.S. Air Force | Foreign Affairs
The rebuttal was published a couple of months later:
Robert S. Spalding III | Disbanding the Air Force Would Be a Blunder | Foreign Affairs
Of course, what May and Farley seem to misunderstand is that ownership of airpower does not automatically mean understanding and appropriate use of airpower. After all, on the basis of May's and Farley's logic, then when the RAF operated Motor Boats to rescue downed crews, then it automatically gave them a stake in terms of Naval power and we should have handed the aircraft carriers over to the RAF.
Would anybody in their right mind agree to that? Of course not, so why on earth would we take a service that operates in the air and works at the operational level and hand it over to a service that operates at the tactical level on the land? Why would we hand over such a set of capabilities to a Navy, that whilst a fine fine Service, uses airpower as a relatively minor component of its operations, often with the narrow focus of defending its ships.
Furthermore. both May and Farley in their criticism of specific occasions when air power has not worked, would do well to remember that in this current day and age there are more factors that dictate the conduct of operations other than the wish of the commanders on the ground. RoE, legal and political considerations, media coverage etc all go towards influencing the politicians, who as the decision makers, will set the parameters and authorise specific actions. The RAF could quite easily have turned Basrah into a car park in 2008, probably over night if we had really put our mind to it. I'm not sure what it would have achieved other satisfying May's notions on how to use air power. Neither would it have been approved, so criticism of the RAF for not 'launching the fleet' is aimed in the wrong direction, and if anything, should be directed to the 2-star commander on the ground at the time for not requesting or forcefully enough articulating the requirement for a new car park to the east of the COB.
We have a unique ethos and outlook to operations, under pinning an operational level doctrine and a speed of operations far in excess of anything the Army and RN operate at. Lester May should be reminded to be careful for what he wishes for. Absorption of the RAF into the RN and Army may well not realise all the benefits he assumes it will.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please excuse a civilian posting but I wonder if that low rank R.N. chap has been reading up on the situation here in New Zealand?
A previous Government disbanded the small strike force of the N.Z Air Force and so far N.Z. has got away with it. I argued against
that stupid idea at the time and continue to do so, alas with no positive result. I know this will seem very childish ( I don't care ) but
I refuse to speak the name of the person responsible and I would have liked them to have been charged with treason. Of course they
have now managed to somehow got onto the U.N. gravy train.
Sorry to rant on however I have nothing but praise for the R.N. by the way and my late father was quite active in the R.N.during WW2
.
A previous Government disbanded the small strike force of the N.Z Air Force and so far N.Z. has got away with it. I argued against
that stupid idea at the time and continue to do so, alas with no positive result. I know this will seem very childish ( I don't care ) but
I refuse to speak the name of the person responsible and I would have liked them to have been charged with treason. Of course they
have now managed to somehow got onto the U.N. gravy train.
Sorry to rant on however I have nothing but praise for the R.N. by the way and my late father was quite active in the R.N.during WW2
.
Bad form Mr May, a former Lt Cdr maybe, but an expert on airpower - clearly not, and a gentleman?
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm happy to advise that Lt Cdr May was not in fact a "stacker", but joined the Royal Navy as what BEagle would probably call a "scribbly", before subsequently becoming a reasonably senior commissioned "scribbly".
Whether or not he is a gentleman is, however, a somewhat curious conclusion to draw from his letter alone, and one that I therefore suggest that only his nearest and dearest could clarify.
Jack
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm happy to advise that Lt Cdr May was not in fact a "stacker", but joined the Royal Navy as what BEagle would probably call a "scribbly", before subsequently becoming a reasonably senior commissioned "scribbly".
Whether or not he is a gentleman is, however, a somewhat curious conclusion to draw from his letter alone, and one that I therefore suggest that only his nearest and dearest could clarify.
Jack
....but joined the Royal Navy as what BEagle would probably call a "scribbly"....
.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack,
Do you know what, you're quite right, I don't know this man, I have only witnessed his obsessive rantings.
His incessant need to air, in very public fora, his ill-informed and extremely biased views about a former sister service led me to question his character - maybe I shouldn't have done that (my bad as the youngsters would say).
Thank you, sincerely, for pointing out the error in my post.
Do you know what, you're quite right, I don't know this man, I have only witnessed his obsessive rantings.
His incessant need to air, in very public fora, his ill-informed and extremely biased views about a former sister service led me to question his character - maybe I shouldn't have done that (my bad as the youngsters would say).
Thank you, sincerely, for pointing out the error in my post.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: In the middle
Age: 65
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from the Dark Blue side, I can say that his interventions are most unhelpful to all. There are many battles to be fought. Picking fights with the RAF is not one of them.
I don't suppose he has read Jerry Pook's book (ISBN 184884556-1) about the little affair down South in '82, and the total incomprehension of how to use the air power available by the RN.
From his letter declining an invitation to lecture at Staff College Camberley:
'I cannot see how I can give a talk ... without being extremely rude to the RN. The overwhelming emotion which I have rediscovered is one of sheer cold anger at the incompetent and arrogant way in which the RN did their level best to foil our efforts to carry out effective air operations.'
From his letter declining an invitation to lecture at Staff College Camberley:
'I cannot see how I can give a talk ... without being extremely rude to the RN. The overwhelming emotion which I have rediscovered is one of sheer cold anger at the incompetent and arrogant way in which the RN did their level best to foil our efforts to carry out effective air operations.'
Gentleman Aviator
the RN did their level best to foil our efforts
.... and don't get me started on the RN machinations which prevented 72 Sqn from going South in '82..........
The man is simply bitter. Perhaps he visited a Harrier Sqn and got invited to see the Magnesium Rivet?
CG
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,935 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
And the man in his little Hughes 500 that came in to produce all the bags for them, Pumas too if i remember correctly, that and all the planning going on about doing the NI swop 
Nut, I remember the bags being demo'd at 33. The boys who'd have had to fit them thought they were a nightmare on the pan at Odiham, never mind on a ship down south.
CG
CG
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
Why would anyone take any notice of a mere Lieutenant Commander (especailly an "Ex" one) - and a "Blunty" at that? The Times will be publishing his letters for the comedy effect. 
Some years ago I met a Nimrod crew member, officer, nav not pilot, who ware a wonderful ball cap.
"UFO's are real, the RAF are an hallucination."
Perhaps LCDR May saw a similar ball cap and took it seriously.
"UFO's are real, the RAF are an hallucination."
Perhaps LCDR May saw a similar ball cap and took it seriously.