Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
The gist of this thread is how best to organise our assets and whether aircraft would better controlled by the Army and Navy. For the last time I will say that I really can't imagine it making any difference to the operational effectiveness.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: France
Age: 89
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti RAF Proaganda
WHENURHAPPY
You mention AT as in Air Transport. The feedback that I have had from both RN and Army customers is that the passenger service bit of AT is run by its personnel for the benefit of its personnel, with a service level which makes Ryanair look like a luxury airline.
You mention AT as in Air Transport. The feedback that I have had from both RN and Army customers is that the passenger service bit of AT is run by its personnel for the benefit of its personnel, with a service level which makes Ryanair look like a luxury airline.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turtle, I've had good, bad and indifferent experiences on AT. I take it that you've not tried the service yourself? Why did you only discuss the problem with RN and army customers of the service? Which particular bit of the service is it that is generating the issue do you feel?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: somerset
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a all ready to jump down the throat of Lt Cdr May but I thought I would test his theory.
I opened 3 web pages in separate Tabs next to each other.
In Tab 1 - Royal Navy - Pages regarding PROTECTING OUR NATIONS INTEREST, Links to operations, where present units are deployed to, Future ships and roles.
In Tab 2 - The Army = Pages regarding SECURING BRITAIN IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD. Links to current units and their operational roles. Links to the Parachute regiment and video of an Apache conducting confined area landings.
In Tab 3 - The Royal Air Force - AGILE ADAPTABLE AND CAPABLE (What for it does not say) - Links to an RAF Display team, A world war 2 operation, a BOB war bunker and a cycle race.
Its not Lt Cdr May we should be remonstrating with but who ever the people compiling our silly web site are.
I opened 3 web pages in separate Tabs next to each other.
In Tab 1 - Royal Navy - Pages regarding PROTECTING OUR NATIONS INTEREST, Links to operations, where present units are deployed to, Future ships and roles.
In Tab 2 - The Army = Pages regarding SECURING BRITAIN IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD. Links to current units and their operational roles. Links to the Parachute regiment and video of an Apache conducting confined area landings.
In Tab 3 - The Royal Air Force - AGILE ADAPTABLE AND CAPABLE (What for it does not say) - Links to an RAF Display team, A world war 2 operation, a BOB war bunker and a cycle race.
Its not Lt Cdr May we should be remonstrating with but who ever the people compiling our silly web site are.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: somerset
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised that I need to direct people to these sites but if anyone is not sure on where to go then here they are ~~~~~~
The Royal Navy is Britain's Maritime Armed Force | Royal Navy
RAF - RAF Homepage
Homepage - British Army Website
The Royal Navy is Britain's Maritime Armed Force | Royal Navy
RAF - RAF Homepage
Homepage - British Army Website
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seadrills
You conveniently forgot the link to
"Latest News Updates -including Operational News"
plus the scrolling news items at the top of the page.
"A World War 2 operation"- Operation Overlord ring any bells? Fairly significant this year
"cycle race" - that is just a picture which links to the RAF Sports Board website which covers just about every aspect of RAF related sports and AT but of course you would have clicked on that to find out wouldn't you?
The differences between the three are mainly down to the manpower and budget behind them. One is approx 3x bigger than the one of the others on both counts.
You conveniently forgot the link to
"Latest News Updates -including Operational News"
plus the scrolling news items at the top of the page.
"A World War 2 operation"- Operation Overlord ring any bells? Fairly significant this year
"cycle race" - that is just a picture which links to the RAF Sports Board website which covers just about every aspect of RAF related sports and AT but of course you would have clicked on that to find out wouldn't you?
The differences between the three are mainly down to the manpower and budget behind them. One is approx 3x bigger than the one of the others on both counts.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: somerset
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page
I agree .... But have to say that if we compare Navy news to RAF news and we compare the RN website to the RAF website then it is clear that our contribution falls well short of professional media.... It stinks of amateurish journalism ..... Why?
High spirits, while I agree that much criticism of RAF AT has been misplaced, I disagree about the background issues. Disregarding all the pathetic gripes, the important factor of servicability and its important knock-on effects to the reliability of the service was largely an own goal, scored from neglect by the Air Staff. The airframes themselves were largely blameless. However, despite heroic efforts by the servicing engineers, long term policies of spares holding reductions and engineering trade personel cut-backs, inversely reflected the needs of ageing airframes. The older platforms deserved much greater investment in their servicability than they got from the MOD budget. There are other factors that I will not touch on. However, a basic fact is, that AT was a neglected backwater as far as Air Chief Marshals were concerned until 2001. Politics then took over. One fallout is the £1,500,000 per day contract for the replacement of TriStar, a fleet that with better top level support and some minor (and cheap) expansion in the late 1990's, could have been providing good cost effective service for another decade at least. What is that saying? "penny-wise, pound-foolish"!
OAP
OAP
...and I have always assumed that he's never read, or, indeed, seen a copy of RAF News.
(Or the Templer Committee Report, which blows about 90% of his argument out of the water, but that's another story)
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: somerset
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page
It seems that it gets worse.... Please tell me that the Labour Party are joking....
http://thedailybale.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/labour-party-announce-plans-to-scrap-the-raf/
http://thedailybale.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/labour-party-announce-plans-to-scrap-the-raf/
Ah, from the same site that has uncovered this...
Really?
In a new piece of legislation drawn up by Ed balls who hopes to replace George osborne in 2015, he has suggested that dog owners should be made to pay £50 a month directly to the labour government.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please tell me you didn't believe any of that drivel? The article, not the show (although...)
BBC iPlayer - The Andrew Marr Show: 26/01/2014
BBC iPlayer - The Andrew Marr Show: 26/01/2014
And the transcript can be found here - Balls and Hague had about 3 minutes sparring right at the end, and were too busy talking about the proposed 50p tax rate and HS2 to get onto defence.
Transcript of Balls interview
Of course, it may be part of a plot to see if Sharkey will mention it on his blog in the same way the spoof 'RAF seeks to take over Parachute Regiment' story made an appearance...
Transcript of Balls interview
Of course, it may be part of a plot to see if Sharkey will mention it on his blog in the same way the spoof 'RAF seeks to take over Parachute Regiment' story made an appearance...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, from the same site that has uncovered this...
In a new piece of legislation drawn up by Ed balls who hopes to replace George osborne in 2015, he has suggested that dog owners should be made to pay £50 a month directly to the labour government.
Really?
Really?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turtle12
This involved moving one of said islands some 200 miles to meet the endurance capabilities of the FB-111.
Yes, supposedly Aldabra.
There is some evidence that the 'move' was a genuine error, brought to the attention of the recipients of the paper which contained it by the Air Ministry (via the late Sir Michael Quinlan, who apparently never failed to be irritated by accusations that this was a deliberate ploy[he was in the Air Ministry at the time]) while other evidence suggests that even had the island been moved, the map/chart also showed the actual distances between the island and various locations, and the stated distances were correct.
There are other factors, but the idea that moving an island was a major reason that the CVA01 was cancelled is a complete and utter myth, even if there are plenty who fondly believe it.
There is some evidence that the 'move' was a genuine error, brought to the attention of the recipients of the paper which contained it by the Air Ministry (via the late Sir Michael Quinlan, who apparently never failed to be irritated by accusations that this was a deliberate ploy[he was in the Air Ministry at the time]) while other evidence suggests that even had the island been moved, the map/chart also showed the actual distances between the island and various locations, and the stated distances were correct.
There are other factors, but the idea that moving an island was a major reason that the CVA01 was cancelled is a complete and utter myth, even if there are plenty who fondly believe it.
Turtle,
Have you asked the many thousands (yes, thousands) of personnel who have been CASEVACd and Then MEDEVACd back to the UK? I'll think you'll find that their 'passenger experience' was pretty good, given the circumstances.
Oh, and whilst you are about it, ask the grieving relatives of those personnel, from the three services, whose remains are repatriated back to Brize Norton, and previously, RAF Lynham. You clearly have no idea the efforts exerted by the three services (and principally the RAF) to make sure in both situations that the 'customer' comes first.
What is your recent experience of RAF air transport, by the way?
Have you asked the many thousands (yes, thousands) of personnel who have been CASEVACd and Then MEDEVACd back to the UK? I'll think you'll find that their 'passenger experience' was pretty good, given the circumstances.
Oh, and whilst you are about it, ask the grieving relatives of those personnel, from the three services, whose remains are repatriated back to Brize Norton, and previously, RAF Lynham. You clearly have no idea the efforts exerted by the three services (and principally the RAF) to make sure in both situations that the 'customer' comes first.
What is your recent experience of RAF air transport, by the way?
Moving the Island is a convenient myth for the RN to hide behind hard facts; there was a financial crisis, a fundamental rebalancing of priority towards NATO 'in area' roles (due to decolonisation and the cost of re-equipping BAOR/RAFG)and, as stated before, they were 'Out-Staffed' by the Army and RAF. The acquisition and running costs were outlined by Healey and deemed unaffordable given the analysis of threats & need that had been conducted. This is where the RN lost the argument. It is not 'lobbying gullible politicians' it is getting your Staff work right....
Turtle, without wishing to reawaken WEBF et al, the SDSR 10 decision re FJ fleets has been well discussed. In short, Harrier could not carry Storm Shadow at the time (which proved quite useful over Libya....) and had a too small a fleet to cover concurrent operations - I don't doubt that some elements of the RAF (probably non-Harrier...) saw hitting the FAA as collateral damage - but this was not the fundamental reason. Also, the RN conceded to deleting Ark early (
) to help keep QEC/F35 alive - short term savings had to be found.
Another reason the FAA had few modern types was 'Gunclub Myopia' on the part of the Admiralty which saw aircraft firstly as recce/observation/gunnery platforms (such as the Fulmar) and torpedo bombers (the delightful Swordfish....). Little credence was given to defending the fleet against aircraft as the battlewagons all had lots of guns. Not until Taranto. Pearl Harbour and the loss of PoW/Repulse did RN brass reluctantly admit the shift in emphasis.
RAF AT has been under-invested in for several years as Typhoon/F35 has bled the budget. Can you be sure that the Army would not do the same? Or the RN? 10 new DAS equipped AT aircraft or 3 DD/FFs - what do you think the RN would chose? AT aircraft that can be committed to a threat environment are not cheap.
Turtle, without wishing to reawaken WEBF et al, the SDSR 10 decision re FJ fleets has been well discussed. In short, Harrier could not carry Storm Shadow at the time (which proved quite useful over Libya....) and had a too small a fleet to cover concurrent operations - I don't doubt that some elements of the RAF (probably non-Harrier...) saw hitting the FAA as collateral damage - but this was not the fundamental reason. Also, the RN conceded to deleting Ark early (
) to help keep QEC/F35 alive - short term savings had to be found.Another reason the FAA had few modern types was 'Gunclub Myopia' on the part of the Admiralty which saw aircraft firstly as recce/observation/gunnery platforms (such as the Fulmar) and torpedo bombers (the delightful Swordfish....). Little credence was given to defending the fleet against aircraft as the battlewagons all had lots of guns. Not until Taranto. Pearl Harbour and the loss of PoW/Repulse did RN brass reluctantly admit the shift in emphasis.
RAF AT has been under-invested in for several years as Typhoon/F35 has bled the budget. Can you be sure that the Army would not do the same? Or the RN? 10 new DAS equipped AT aircraft or 3 DD/FFs - what do you think the RN would chose? AT aircraft that can be committed to a threat environment are not cheap.