The deluded Dark Blue
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banter
Why do I never see retired RAF officers with their own websites
And to be honest the RAF out of all 4 (including RM here) has the most lack lustre uninspiring image on the web out of all of them. In fact the RNLI is better and more inspiring.
In theory you should be able to appeal to a vast broad range of interest even the none pointy end of things. But no you completely ignore everything but a load of pics of fast jets.
Look at the others and the full range of drills and skills are case booked and positively promoted as being full team members. Individual regiments/boats have interesting sites which appeal to be read even if you have just found them by accident.
So it may very well be that the other services officers are more web site rated mainly because they have had to do it and got their backsides booted when its crap.
Maybe they are too thick to be able to set one up ;-)
Did anyone else notice that the OP article, purporting to be written by two retired RN officers, refers to: Sir Trenchard and Sir Kennedy.
I can't believe they would misuse the title as printed.
I can't believe they would misuse the title as printed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF website? Top marks for irrelevance mad jock. I can't really see how the RAF look like 'cnuts' when they're just the subjects of abuse from these tawts.
Last edited by Vie sans frontieres; 26th Apr 2014 at 05:02.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I have been asked to review an academic paper (before my much cherished retirement from such tedious duties) I would look first at the aim.
Exploration is not an aim. Finding something is the purpose.
The intent of this paper is to cause discord. Having watched Sharky Ward perform in a Royal Air Force officer's mess many years ago, on numerous occasions, I realised that what I had first assumed to be a comic routine was a genuine display of hatred for the Royal Air Force.
Sadly, in my professional life after leaving the Royal Air Force, I encountered a good many Royal Navy officers who seemed to share Sharky's obsessive and nasty attitudes.
Frankly, if VSOs in any service continue to allow bandwidth commensurate with Commander rank to those who spurt such dissonant drivel, joint service activities will continue to be challenging rather than synergistic.
Certainly, I never encountered any British Army or Royal Air Force officers who were quite so childish. Ignore them. They won't go away!
Exploration is not an aim. Finding something is the purpose.
The intent of this paper is to cause discord. Having watched Sharky Ward perform in a Royal Air Force officer's mess many years ago, on numerous occasions, I realised that what I had first assumed to be a comic routine was a genuine display of hatred for the Royal Air Force.
Sadly, in my professional life after leaving the Royal Air Force, I encountered a good many Royal Navy officers who seemed to share Sharky's obsessive and nasty attitudes.
Frankly, if VSOs in any service continue to allow bandwidth commensurate with Commander rank to those who spurt such dissonant drivel, joint service activities will continue to be challenging rather than synergistic.
Certainly, I never encountered any British Army or Royal Air Force officers who were quite so childish. Ignore them. They won't go away!
What is it with these retired RN officers spouting off all the time? - VSF
Inferiority complex! Should have worked harder at school etc... - PA
The concurrent thread entitled
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...red-entry.html , whilst admittedly not about officer entry, presents an interesting contrast....
Jack
Inferiority complex! Should have worked harder at school etc... - PA
The concurrent thread entitled
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...red-entry.html , whilst admittedly not about officer entry, presents an interesting contrast....
Jack
Jack
As PA pointed out on the other topic, I think you will find that the bar is not being lowered below a minimum. When you have very few slots for a large number of applicants you can afford to have a higher bar; when you have more slots available you lower the bar but only back to your minimum level (may not even be down to the minimum level). It's all in how you announce these things and what your actual meaning is.
As PA pointed out on the other topic, I think you will find that the bar is not being lowered below a minimum. When you have very few slots for a large number of applicants you can afford to have a higher bar; when you have more slots available you lower the bar but only back to your minimum level (may not even be down to the minimum level). It's all in how you announce these things and what your actual meaning is.
As has been noted earlier, the recent bashing of the light blue by retired officers of both the RN and the army seems to be a symptom of all the cuts to assets and personnel across the three services (I won't say defence cuts implying less spends, we've heard plenty about still having the IVth largest defence budget on the globe). They're an utter disgrace trying to make the case against any one service. This won't result in a substantial increase in spending on army and naval budgets even if the R.A.F. is abolished entirely with the other two given full latitude to decide just what items of air power they want for themselves, they'll get sweet FA as the treasury rubs its hands with glee.
FB
FB
Melchett01, enjoyed your post, 
but I'll point out that including the B-2 in this discussion is out of touch. Nobody has one except the USAF, and this bun fight is mostly RN and RAF.
The failed decapitation strike in 2003 at long last burst the bubble that the USAF had inflated during 1991 Gulf War. Sad but true.
Its not coming of as desired highlights the key practical and doctrinal issue that USMC/USArmy Fire Support-Artillery folks and USAF/USN/USMC/USArmy air to ground folks were all concerned about: the sensor-to-shooter link. Added to that is the matter of actionable intelligence, a related but separate nut to crack that ties in to the Mansur strikes.
A pity they didn't get the bugger ... but at least the fantasies of the Air Power a outrance Mavens of the modern age (the Douhets of the 21st century) were exposed for being just what they were.
but I'll point out that including the B-2 in this discussion is out of touch. Nobody has one except the USAF, and this bun fight is mostly RN and RAF. The failed decapitation strike in 2003 at long last burst the bubble that the USAF had inflated during 1991 Gulf War. Sad but true.
Its not coming of as desired highlights the key practical and doctrinal issue that USMC/USArmy Fire Support-Artillery folks and USAF/USN/USMC/USArmy air to ground folks were all concerned about: the sensor-to-shooter link. Added to that is the matter of actionable intelligence, a related but separate nut to crack that ties in to the Mansur strikes.
A pity they didn't get the bugger ... but at least the fantasies of the Air Power a outrance Mavens of the modern age (the Douhets of the 21st century) were exposed for being just what they were.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be fair to the 2 authors. They make a very good point that the RAF lacks a SEAD capability. Freeing up some money from the RN budget would allow the UK to address this shortfall.
The more worried the Army and RN get, the more we will see this sort of posturing.
SDSR may turn out to be quite brutal
The more worried the Army and RN get, the more we will see this sort of posturing.
SDSR may turn out to be quite brutal
