Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New CDS Announced

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New CDS Announced

Old 31st Jan 2016, 13:32
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,533
No view on Peach, never met him, although a number of people I respect sing his praises. I have however, met Adm Z and rate him highly.

If there is RN angst at the appointment of Peach, I would suggest it probably stems from a combination of the following :

1. It's 13 years since a naval service officer held the post of CDS. That is three terms of the Army and a very long term of RAF (Stirrup). There are some understandable reasons for the Army bias (given contemporary operations), but no longer. It's fair to say that there is a sense that it really should be the navy's turn - not in a strict rotational sense, but generally because the return to contingent ops ought to require that sort of perspective. It is also noteworthy that in the 30 years since Fieldhouse took up the post in 1985, only he and Boyce from the NS have actually held the CDS post. There are some who will say - with some justification - that this may not reflect well on those in the RN who achieve high rank.

2. Adm Z is very highly regarded and as a leader is a step change from some of his more recent predecessors. I suspect there is a palpable sense that if he couldn't make it, there'll be a long wait for the next one. This may or may not be true and it might not be a dark blue suit that becomes the next leading candidate, if the rumours are true.

I sincerely hope Peach lives up to his reputation and proves to be the best man for the job. I have no doubts that Adm Z would have proven equally capable and am sad to see that he'll be leaving in April.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2016, 14:34
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
Spent a very long boozy night on the lash with him when he was a wingco. Bloody good bloke I thought.

That is all.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2016, 15:07
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,612
Admiral Z must have had a varied career to go on the lash as a WingCo.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2016, 15:31
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 469
Peach is a Joint as they come and very able, just like Nick Houghton. This is what the PM wants. George Z, whilst extremely capable, was probably seen as too partisan and too direct in his opinion. Whilst he and Pulford got on well and we did not see the internicene warfare of recent generations, Z still fought the RN (particularly the FAA) corner very hard, perhaps too hard at times. Z stood for grand strategy and as we know the Govt hate grand strategy.

As a side note. Tourist, you should step back a little from your pontificating - it is embarrassing.
Bismark is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2016, 17:28
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Zambellas wasn't going to make CDS for two reasons. First, his CV lacks the depth and "purpleness" the post demands; all but two of his posts were Navy centric and, as Bismark said, he has always been too tightly focussed on the FAA to be seen as a balanced Defence Cheif.

More importantly, his ill-conceived and inappropriate foray into politics effectively meant that he ruled himself out of the running. Whilst his articles in the Telegraph were excellent, stepping over the line and trying to dabble in the Scottish Independence Referendum achieved nothing better than to embarrass and piss-off the Government, especially his own minister. Fallon was never going to recommend him after that. The episode was made worse by the fact that his statements were then strenuously denied and held as incorrect. The Government was never going to appoint a man that attempted to speak for them - out of turn.

He has been a good First Sea Lord and I have always held him in high regard, just not what the Government needs for CDS - and perhaps the other two Services too.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2016, 17:32
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by Bismark View Post

As a side note. Tourist, you should step back a little from your pontificating - it is embarrassing.
To whom, exactly?
You?

At the very least, I moved this thread on from a "yes I knew him in the past and in my opinion he is the man for the job" lick-fest and we have some discussion.
Tourist is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2016, 18:48
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Bismark View Post
Z still fought the RN (particularly the FAA) corner very hard, perhaps too hard at times.
I think that's a case of someone has/had to. A number of his predecessors certainly didn't.

In terms of "joint" appointments, it is often forgotten that the Naval service is actually joint by its nature. By definition, the head shed should understand sub-sea, surface, air, land and space warfare - not that too many actually have!

CM's second point probably nails it.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 18:12
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
I agree, NaB, that the Navy corner needed fighting - probably all the Arms need a bit of that to differing degrees. I suspect Zambellas' public image may have suffered a little because Navy and Naval Aviation appeared to be his main or only focus. Perceptions are make-or-break issues in these cases.

I like your point about the broad nature of Naval ops.
Courtney Mil is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.