Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page
I suspect a few other members will have seen the letter by Lt. Cdr. Lester May RN (Ret'd) in the Times today. Whilst he is entitled to his opinion, I just wonder what motivates a retired RN Officer to be so vitriolic and anti RAF ?
Whilst it may be easy to simply ignore such writings (some of which is quite barking IMHO) and consign them to the sidelines along with "other" axe grinders, the worry is that some of this stuff can gain currency over time.
Lt. Cdr. Lester May's Letter
Full quote ...
Forces organisation
Sir, Neither Julian Brazier, in his
article about Army Reserves (Jan 18),
norformer US Secretary of Defence
Gates, last week expressing concerns
about Britain’s forces, mentioned
land—based aircraft. Both make clear
the Royal Navy is the UK’s strategic
priority; CDS, and General Richards
before him, expressed similar views.
Forces’ websites are telling. Royal
Navy, Royal Marines and Army pages
highlight operational business. The
RAF spotlights the Second World
War, aircraft displays, sport, much
less operations.
This RAF modesty is right. It has
220 combat jets, 650 support aircraft
and 36,000 personnel yet, after
withdrawal from Afghanistan this
year, just four jets, a few other aircraft
and 1,000 airmen will be overseas.
The bulk of the £7 billion-a-year RAF
will be home, facing no air threat, our
islands safeguarded by Nato in
Europe and an expanse of ocean, yet
those 220 Typhoon and Tornado jets
cost £20 billion.
Defence experts here, and across
the Atlantic, argue that independent
air forces are no longer necessary or
affordable. Land-based combat jets
have limited roles, flying mostly
supporting operations on land and
sea. Huge cost and manpower savings
would follow transferring essential
frontline land-based aircraft to Navy
and Army control. The RAF owns 80
per cent of UK military aircraft assets
— reorganisation is overdue.
LESTER MAY
(Lieutenant Commander RN (Ret’d)
Lt. Cdr. L. May RN (Ret'd) Tw1tter Feed
Where he describes himself as a maritime affairs writer and campaigner. Royal Navy 1967-89: Leading Writer 1971; Lieutenant-Commander (S) 1984. There are some other "choice" quotes about the RAF.
Begrudgingly ... I do agree that the RAF would be better served by having a more operational focus on it's Website Homepage.
Whilst it may be easy to simply ignore such writings (some of which is quite barking IMHO) and consign them to the sidelines along with "other" axe grinders, the worry is that some of this stuff can gain currency over time.
Lt. Cdr. Lester May's Letter
Full quote ...
Originally Posted by Lt. Cdr. Lester May RN (Ret'd)
Forces organisation
Sir, Neither Julian Brazier, in his
article about Army Reserves (Jan 18),
norformer US Secretary of Defence
Gates, last week expressing concerns
about Britain’s forces, mentioned
land—based aircraft. Both make clear
the Royal Navy is the UK’s strategic
priority; CDS, and General Richards
before him, expressed similar views.
Forces’ websites are telling. Royal
Navy, Royal Marines and Army pages
highlight operational business. The
RAF spotlights the Second World
War, aircraft displays, sport, much
less operations.
This RAF modesty is right. It has
220 combat jets, 650 support aircraft
and 36,000 personnel yet, after
withdrawal from Afghanistan this
year, just four jets, a few other aircraft
and 1,000 airmen will be overseas.
The bulk of the £7 billion-a-year RAF
will be home, facing no air threat, our
islands safeguarded by Nato in
Europe and an expanse of ocean, yet
those 220 Typhoon and Tornado jets
cost £20 billion.
Defence experts here, and across
the Atlantic, argue that independent
air forces are no longer necessary or
affordable. Land-based combat jets
have limited roles, flying mostly
supporting operations on land and
sea. Huge cost and manpower savings
would follow transferring essential
frontline land-based aircraft to Navy
and Army control. The RAF owns 80
per cent of UK military aircraft assets
— reorganisation is overdue.
LESTER MAY
(Lieutenant Commander RN (Ret’d)
Lt. Cdr. L. May RN (Ret'd) Tw1tter Feed
Where he describes himself as a maritime affairs writer and campaigner. Royal Navy 1967-89: Leading Writer 1971; Lieutenant-Commander (S) 1984. There are some other "choice" quotes about the RAF.
Begrudgingly ... I do agree that the RAF would be better served by having a more operational focus on it's Website Homepage.
This letter could have been written any time over the last 95 years, so I don't think that we need to worry just yet, but, as you say, myths have a habit of sticking.
The writer forgets the AT and rotary fleets (AT as in Air Transport, not Adventure Training, and having a look at the RAF home page, an uninformed viewer could get the wrong idea). The writer fails to mention UCAS operated by the RAF...I could go on. The RAF Engagement team do work hard to keep gatekeepers and influencers (eg MPs) informed so I don't think there is too much to worry about the ill-informed rants of a retired Upper Yardsman (Supply).
The writer forgets the AT and rotary fleets (AT as in Air Transport, not Adventure Training, and having a look at the RAF home page, an uninformed viewer could get the wrong idea). The writer fails to mention UCAS operated by the RAF...I could go on. The RAF Engagement team do work hard to keep gatekeepers and influencers (eg MPs) informed so I don't think there is too much to worry about the ill-informed rants of a retired Upper Yardsman (Supply).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whenurhappy ...
I'm sure you are right about not needing to worry too much ... but the guy certainly has some venom.
Daly History Blog : "What's the point of the RAF ?"
Scroll down to see more of May's "contributions"
I'm sure you are right about not needing to worry too much ... but the guy certainly has some venom.
Daly History Blog : "What's the point of the RAF ?"
Scroll down to see more of May's "contributions"
Lester May has history. He writes to The Times, on average, about once every six weeks and has a letter published. The majority of his submissions have an anti-RAF theme. I am not sure if he is a lone antagonist or if he is being sponsored by some Dark (Blue) force.
He is a serial offender and seems to use any avenue to spread his nonsense. You may have seen a letter from him in RAF News recently, along the usual lines (disband the RAF etc). Why the editor thought it useful or even sensible to publish it is anyone's guess.
What is certain is that May has no concept of how modern air power is employed, nor of its breadth and complexity. It is pointless trying to dissect all his 'arguments' as most of them are supposition or use false premises, and the man himself is not open to discussion and will not be changing his ill-considered opinions. He is partly right though in one statement - that's the one where he says huge costs and manpower savings would follow transfer of assets to RN/Army control. Manpower reductions would not be that large, as you would still have to regulate and manage, but there would definitely be huge costs!
What is certain is that May has no concept of how modern air power is employed, nor of its breadth and complexity. It is pointless trying to dissect all his 'arguments' as most of them are supposition or use false premises, and the man himself is not open to discussion and will not be changing his ill-considered opinions. He is partly right though in one statement - that's the one where he says huge costs and manpower savings would follow transfer of assets to RN/Army control. Manpower reductions would not be that large, as you would still have to regulate and manage, but there would definitely be huge costs!
May is by my reckoning as mad as a box of frogs. He turns up in all sorts of places and comes up wit hthe usual tired old diatribes. He gets in a range of publications, often monthly, and is humoured because there is seemingly no coherent RN or RAF person willing to write sensible letters in his place.
I did reply on one occasion, after which he googled me and then bombarded my work email address with his rubbish! He has the skin of a rhinoceros and you will not change his views by countering them with reasoned argument.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
I do like reading lucid, concise and accurate letters, shame that wasn't one of them.
£7 Billion a year for the RAF doesn't look bad when you think it's costing an Estimated £6.2 billion for a brace of flat topped boats, which is actually one short of what you need, as you would normally allow for one to be on refit, while one is working up and and one is operational at sea..
Now if as he is saying land based aircraft are dead.. Sticking them at sea you are then limited to approximately 40 total allowing for the other boat being on refit, and additionally with the likes of mines, torpedoes, anti shipping missiles it appears you are sticking all your eggs in £6.2 billion worth of vulnerable assets.
Oddly enough he skirts over the contribution the RAF has made in Afghanistan and seems not to have fathomed out that a Carrier wouldn't have been a lot of use.
Equally I cannot figure out where these huge savings would come from, if you transferred the RAF to the Army and Navy, you would still need the manning to operate them, the bases to operate them from and even admin wise you would need to ramp up to administrate it all..
Oddly he doesn't mention the Marines would be ideal to transfer to the Army, once landed that is all they are, and the Army already have experience in operating a unit that overlaps another service, they're called the paras.
£7 Billion a year for the RAF doesn't look bad when you think it's costing an Estimated £6.2 billion for a brace of flat topped boats, which is actually one short of what you need, as you would normally allow for one to be on refit, while one is working up and and one is operational at sea..
Now if as he is saying land based aircraft are dead.. Sticking them at sea you are then limited to approximately 40 total allowing for the other boat being on refit, and additionally with the likes of mines, torpedoes, anti shipping missiles it appears you are sticking all your eggs in £6.2 billion worth of vulnerable assets.
Oddly enough he skirts over the contribution the RAF has made in Afghanistan and seems not to have fathomed out that a Carrier wouldn't have been a lot of use.
Equally I cannot figure out where these huge savings would come from, if you transferred the RAF to the Army and Navy, you would still need the manning to operate them, the bases to operate them from and even admin wise you would need to ramp up to administrate it all..
Oddly he doesn't mention the Marines would be ideal to transfer to the Army, once landed that is all they are, and the Army already have experience in operating a unit that overlaps another service, they're called the paras.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the very ill informed views and the complete lack of understanding of airpower, that Mr May has demonstrated in his letter, that drives the requirement for an independent air force.
His opinion about air forces (and the RAF in particular) are not worthy of consideration - his opinion is on a par with getting an Estate Agent to provide a view on the requirement for Nuclear Submarines - you'll get an opinion, but it's likely to be utter drivel (as it was from Mr May).
No land based fast jets?? Is he really serious?? Does anyone know how many carriers we would need to meet standing and contingent commitments?
For starters:
Defence of UK Airspace (although Mr May doesn't think it is a task required to be conducted by the UK, we can leave it to our European neighbours) = 1 carrier.
Defence of the Falkland Islands (or does Mr May think we can leave this task to the Argentines?) = 1 carrier.
Not sure how many contingent operations that we may need to conduct concurrently, lets call it 2 = 2 carriers.
Probably need at least one spare = 1 carrier.
I won't go into the support and escort vessels required - this of course wouldn't be expensive at all - all eggs in one basket - no redundancy - mad.
I suspect that trying to debate with this poor, deluded and ill-informed individual would get us nowhere. It's a shame that The Times felt the need to print this; Mr May's points are actually at risk of doing nothing more than tarring the reputation of his former Service - I know plenty of outstanding RN personnel, thankfully, they're often much more sensible than Mr May.
Bad form Mr May, a former Lt Cdr maybe, but an expert on airpower - clearly not, and a gentleman?
His opinion about air forces (and the RAF in particular) are not worthy of consideration - his opinion is on a par with getting an Estate Agent to provide a view on the requirement for Nuclear Submarines - you'll get an opinion, but it's likely to be utter drivel (as it was from Mr May).
No land based fast jets?? Is he really serious?? Does anyone know how many carriers we would need to meet standing and contingent commitments?
For starters:
Defence of UK Airspace (although Mr May doesn't think it is a task required to be conducted by the UK, we can leave it to our European neighbours) = 1 carrier.
Defence of the Falkland Islands (or does Mr May think we can leave this task to the Argentines?) = 1 carrier.
Not sure how many contingent operations that we may need to conduct concurrently, lets call it 2 = 2 carriers.
Probably need at least one spare = 1 carrier.
I won't go into the support and escort vessels required - this of course wouldn't be expensive at all - all eggs in one basket - no redundancy - mad.
I suspect that trying to debate with this poor, deluded and ill-informed individual would get us nowhere. It's a shame that The Times felt the need to print this; Mr May's points are actually at risk of doing nothing more than tarring the reputation of his former Service - I know plenty of outstanding RN personnel, thankfully, they're often much more sensible than Mr May.
Bad form Mr May, a former Lt Cdr maybe, but an expert on airpower - clearly not, and a gentleman?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not this bell end again.....
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...air-force.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...air-force.html
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lt Cdr May seems to be talking sense to me, if only to infuriate the RAF (mainly retired) who seem to think that these forums are a light blue club!!!!
Quote
Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Quote
Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
That's him, he and Sharkey must take turns in the barrel... One spouts off while the other takes it easy..
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two way street
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?
2.Present day or near about. A question I have asked before and been stiffed for on this site;
Why, in the winter, spring into summer of 2008, in Basra, in the COB were we allowed to be repeatedly rocketed by the bad lads from down town, and the RAF did little to nothing to defend the 4000 odd mixed bag of civvies and 2000 odd mostly British people under that barrage? Phalanx was from the RFA and RN ships, anti barrage was from the Army, air umbrella was from the er USN, USMC and USAF (90% of the time). yet in GB, 100+ FJ and Lord knows how many aircrew sat about and did nothing? I didn't imagine it, I was there.
If the past is a guide to the future, maybe he has a few points right. Its no good getting all prickly, people will report on what they see.
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?
2.Present day or near about. A question I have asked before and been stiffed for on this site;
Why, in the winter, spring into summer of 2008, in Basra, in the COB were we allowed to be repeatedly rocketed by the bad lads from down town, and the RAF did little to nothing to defend the 4000 odd mixed bag of civvies and 2000 odd mostly British people under that barrage? Phalanx was from the RFA and RN ships, anti barrage was from the Army, air umbrella was from the er USN, USMC and USAF (90% of the time). yet in GB, 100+ FJ and Lord knows how many aircrew sat about and did nothing? I didn't imagine it, I was there.
If the past is a guide to the future, maybe he has a few points right. Its no good getting all prickly, people will report on what they see.
Just a thought, but why would anyone take any notice of an ex navy stacker on any matter of importance ? The man obviously has a "burr in his craw" over something RAF, perhaps one of the regulars might remember crossing swords with him. Personally I suspect he was turned down for RAF entry and so went for the inferior option. He needs to learn to live with his life choices, recognise the limitations of his specialist knowledge on the subject (as I do) and take up crown green bowling and pipe smoking. If nothing else it should hasten the popping of his clogs. I do hope he gets over his latest bout of verbal flatulence and look forward to future contributions to British Military thinking,mobviously treasured by the floaty bloaters who follow his Times contributions.
Smudge
Smudge
Hangarshuffle you are Lester May and I claim my £10.
Well I suppose they were trying hard to stop the Luftwaffe from bombing your town. They were bombing German targets. They were attacking German submarines that threatened to choke off the UK's lifeline. They were fighting against overwhelming odds to defend Malta. Fighting in Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. But hey-ho that's history for you.
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?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hangar,
You know what, you're right - I'm bloody annoyed with myself for getting drawn into this ridiculous non debate.
I'm not sure I see your logic on the history side - if we took that line to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't have a Navy, Army or Air Force - I'm pretty sure that most could point out mistakes/errors made by all the services - does that mean they should all get the heave ho?
As for the Basra point - can't really comment. That said, we could all once again point out similar errors/failures to succeed amongst all 3 services.
All in all - Mr May has spouted some, in my view utter rubbish, and I am not convinced that your 2 points support the disband argument.
You know what, you're right - I'm bloody annoyed with myself for getting drawn into this ridiculous non debate.
I'm not sure I see your logic on the history side - if we took that line to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't have a Navy, Army or Air Force - I'm pretty sure that most could point out mistakes/errors made by all the services - does that mean they should all get the heave ho?
As for the Basra point - can't really comment. That said, we could all once again point out similar errors/failures to succeed amongst all 3 services.
All in all - Mr May has spouted some, in my view utter rubbish, and I am not convinced that your 2 points support the disband argument.