Islamic State: Charles de Gaulle carrier triples French firepower
Ah, sailor, now I understand. You're saying that Navy pilots are brilliant, brave, so skilled that they can go anywhere, do anything and RAF pilots are no use at all. Given the extent of the evidence you've presented, I am totally convinced that in my entire 30 year career I have been nothing more than a scab on the bottom of military aviation. I contributed nothing to the defence of the U.K. and the only difference I made to any op that I was sent to was to run up transportation and accommodation charges, whilst holding back the aim of the operation. Your argument is so convincing that I now want to devote my life to making up for the enormous mistake I made by wearing the wrong shade of uniform. How could I have known what a massive mistake I was making?
I was on a deployment once in 1952 when all the RAF pilots wanted beds to sleep in, but the Navy pilots said they didn't need to sleep because they were too busy flying. Everyone thought they were great and we were all tossers. I hated that and wished I'd joined the Navy instead.
I was on a deployment once in 1952 when all the RAF pilots wanted beds to sleep in, but the Navy pilots said they didn't need to sleep because they were too busy flying. Everyone thought they were great and we were all tossers. I hated that and wished I'd joined the Navy instead.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Sailor.
Has it occurred to you that the Javelin crews may have wanted time to acclimatise to the tropics (I very much doubt a month, on the choppers during Bersatu Padu we got about three days), whereas the Navy, not travelling as fast as a Javelin, had already become acclimatised.
Further to your complaint about accommodation, I don't believe a word of it and, I think if you are honest, neither do you.
Has it occurred to you that the Javelin crews may have wanted time to acclimatise to the tropics (I very much doubt a month, on the choppers during Bersatu Padu we got about three days), whereas the Navy, not travelling as fast as a Javelin, had already become acclimatised.
Further to your complaint about accommodation, I don't believe a word of it and, I think if you are honest, neither do you.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gentlemen, you have a megatroll in your midst. It will continue to make random posts with no interaction for as long as you react. Don't feed the troll. Resistance is futile.
Where did you learn to fly, Sailor, and what colour was the uniform?
Re. Torrey Canyon, I seem to recall that the FAA dropped all the 1000lb bombs, missing the stationary undefended target with 25% of them.....
It was the highlight of Westward News at the time - as was the controversy of the RAF's use of napalm to try to ignite the oil rather than letting it scatter.
Sad that a few vocal ex-FAA types seem to have such colossal chips on their shoulders....
It was the highlight of Westward News at the time - as was the controversy of the RAF's use of napalm to try to ignite the oil rather than letting it scatter.
Sad that a few vocal ex-FAA types seem to have such colossal chips on their shoulders....
Sailor,
As you ignored it the first time, I invite you again to answer my response to you at Post#34.
Or are you incapable of engaging in reasoned debate?
As you ignored it the first time, I invite you again to answer my response to you at Post#34.
Originally Posted by Courtney
Sailor,
I didn't just accuse you of ranting, sailor, I accused you of writing "a hell of a TRIBAL rant." But if you refute my accusation, that's alright then.
Well, it would have been a refutation had you presented any evidence to support your position that the loss of the Harrier was a result of "a gross abuse of authority" and that, somehow, it was a Royal Air Force conspiracy (sorry, "skulduggery"). Judging by your declared age, assuming that there are facts in your profile, you were retired long before all your "actual factual events" took place; you weren't in the Forces, let alone the Headquarters when all these "events" took place, I was. You didn't see the joint effort that went into forming JF2000 and its successor at all levels. You didn't see the determination from both shades of blue to make it work for the good. There was no subterfuge.
You overlook the part your own 2-Star and other senior Naval Officers played in the Harrier disposal. Shifting the blame to the RAF is cynical and unfounded and is rather typical of your whole position; conveniently ignoring the bits of each "fact" that does not support your position. When the choice was between Harrier (300nm combat radius, 3650kg weapons) and Tornado (870nm combat radius, 9000kg weapons) the military and the politicians went for the obvious choice. The RAF had a lot to lose in the Harrier, so was certainly not what they would have chosen had it not been a "one or the other" choice. Again, the RN did not fight that hard, largely because the choice was that obvious and they had already set their gaze on two new carriers and a new VSTOL airframe.
I don't think anyone would disagree about the advantages of having a carrier with an embarked air wing for out of area ops if there are no land bases available. Your reference to Libya is completely, and I suspect deliberately, cynical. The RAF was not just sitting in Gioia del Colle launching the occasional mission that arrived too late to do any good. The national contribution to the coalition effort included 10 Typhoon and 16 Tornado, Sentinel R1 and Nimrod R1, VC10 Tankers and AWACS. The Royal Navy deployed 2 frigates, two attack submarines, a destroyer and a minesweeper. But all that was a small part of a massive coalition force and assets were tasked by the coalition.
There is no certainty that the UK's carrier with its air wing (had it existed) would have been employed in the manner you suggest. For example, despite the fact that the French deployed Charles de Gaulle, it was l'Armée de l'Air that flew the greatest number of strike missions in the operation - 35% of all the NATO strikes. Your suggestion that if the UK had been able to field a carrier it would have been deployed to the Libyan coast and negated the coalition need to use anything else is, frankly, naive and unfounded. It would have been deployed as the coalition saw fit and would have been tasked accordingly along side the USAF's A-10s, B-2s, Harriers, F-15Es and F-16s. Not an exhaustive list and I certainly don't intend to spend more time attempting to catalogue them all here.
As for the remainder of your two contributions to this thread, I would say only this. I think the first one is a tribal rant because it is clearly dripping with bile and is a disjointed collection of unfounded statements that appear to show how badly the RAF does things - despite describing some RAF Harrier pilots as individually "not all bad... ...very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem". Very magnanimous of you. Your considerable effort to refer to the RAF as "crabs" as many times as possible and the use of other disparaging phrases makes your contribution look more like hate mail than reasoned argument.
One last thing. I don't know what things were like in your old days, but the Forces have moved on a lot in the (what, 25, 26?) years since you left and your idea of fighting the other services more than the enemy is, thankfully, confined to the history books - although I'm sure there will be a few dinosaurs here that will be able to contribute more on that.
I didn't just accuse you of ranting, sailor, I accused you of writing "a hell of a TRIBAL rant." But if you refute my accusation, that's alright then.
Well, it would have been a refutation had you presented any evidence to support your position that the loss of the Harrier was a result of "a gross abuse of authority" and that, somehow, it was a Royal Air Force conspiracy (sorry, "skulduggery"). Judging by your declared age, assuming that there are facts in your profile, you were retired long before all your "actual factual events" took place; you weren't in the Forces, let alone the Headquarters when all these "events" took place, I was. You didn't see the joint effort that went into forming JF2000 and its successor at all levels. You didn't see the determination from both shades of blue to make it work for the good. There was no subterfuge.
You overlook the part your own 2-Star and other senior Naval Officers played in the Harrier disposal. Shifting the blame to the RAF is cynical and unfounded and is rather typical of your whole position; conveniently ignoring the bits of each "fact" that does not support your position. When the choice was between Harrier (300nm combat radius, 3650kg weapons) and Tornado (870nm combat radius, 9000kg weapons) the military and the politicians went for the obvious choice. The RAF had a lot to lose in the Harrier, so was certainly not what they would have chosen had it not been a "one or the other" choice. Again, the RN did not fight that hard, largely because the choice was that obvious and they had already set their gaze on two new carriers and a new VSTOL airframe.
I don't think anyone would disagree about the advantages of having a carrier with an embarked air wing for out of area ops if there are no land bases available. Your reference to Libya is completely, and I suspect deliberately, cynical. The RAF was not just sitting in Gioia del Colle launching the occasional mission that arrived too late to do any good. The national contribution to the coalition effort included 10 Typhoon and 16 Tornado, Sentinel R1 and Nimrod R1, VC10 Tankers and AWACS. The Royal Navy deployed 2 frigates, two attack submarines, a destroyer and a minesweeper. But all that was a small part of a massive coalition force and assets were tasked by the coalition.
There is no certainty that the UK's carrier with its air wing (had it existed) would have been employed in the manner you suggest. For example, despite the fact that the French deployed Charles de Gaulle, it was l'Armée de l'Air that flew the greatest number of strike missions in the operation - 35% of all the NATO strikes. Your suggestion that if the UK had been able to field a carrier it would have been deployed to the Libyan coast and negated the coalition need to use anything else is, frankly, naive and unfounded. It would have been deployed as the coalition saw fit and would have been tasked accordingly along side the USAF's A-10s, B-2s, Harriers, F-15Es and F-16s. Not an exhaustive list and I certainly don't intend to spend more time attempting to catalogue them all here.
As for the remainder of your two contributions to this thread, I would say only this. I think the first one is a tribal rant because it is clearly dripping with bile and is a disjointed collection of unfounded statements that appear to show how badly the RAF does things - despite describing some RAF Harrier pilots as individually "not all bad... ...very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem". Very magnanimous of you. Your considerable effort to refer to the RAF as "crabs" as many times as possible and the use of other disparaging phrases makes your contribution look more like hate mail than reasoned argument.
One last thing. I don't know what things were like in your old days, but the Forces have moved on a lot in the (what, 25, 26?) years since you left and your idea of fighting the other services more than the enemy is, thankfully, confined to the history books - although I'm sure there will be a few dinosaurs here that will be able to contribute more on that.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rockets et al.
Jindabyne - suggest you read High Stakes: Britain's Air Arms in Action 1945-1990
By Vic Flintham partic. page 252, amongst other sources, to see how wrong you are.
BEagle - so 75% bombs on target does not seem a good result to you ?
I would say it is streets ahead of the "successful" lone Vulcan near-disaster PR stunt that won the Falklands war - one bomb on the hardstanding near the runway was it?
No chips on either shoulder but still a well balanced chap putting some facts before some who may not know them and many who still deny them !
Bill Mac - that place off the A19 by York because the light blues had finaigled the monopoly of all flying training. Subsequently honed into proper shape by the nautical boys to produce yet another ace of the base ahead in time of that other well loved beardie Sea Harrier solo Falklands war winner.
Herod - a full month before nightflying; more bar time acclimatisation nothing else and the accommodation details were factual; whether you wish to believe them or not is of little interest but you should not deny them.
Courtney Mil - your post # 41 - spot on lad ! Glad the veil has been lifted from your eyes at last - must be the benefit of local vino and garlic where you are.
Chances are the Senior Service would not have allowed you in, so my sympathies are with you on your second choice !
Your post # 34 - if I had the time I would participate in reasoned debate to a greater extent, but I have no desire to aim for the more than 5000 posts you have clocked up as I have better things to do with my time. The phrase get a life springs to mind regarding your prolific output; seems someone may be trying to relive their past.
I reiterate - CDS abused position by bending PM's ear privately and having previous agreed keep the Harrier decision reversed; try doing some research yourself on this fact.
Tornado radius of action is no advantage when instead of being more than an hour away in Italy your seaborne runway is a short hop away from the target which therefore cannot disperse before you get to it. Close support means many sorties providing greater weapon load in a given time - not wasted in transit cruise from a base a million miles away and costing a fortune in the process in fuel, runway rental and expensive accommodation for all involved, instead of a wardroom and messdecks which do not require another country's agreement to use.
Heathrow Harry - and the rest of the light blue brigade who are still in denial; I draw your attention to the obituary in the Daily Telegraph of a great Admiral who died recently, Admiral Sir William O’Brien who succinctly put his view of crab knavery thus:-
" Promoted to rear-admiral in 1964, he became Naval Secretary, dealing with officers’ career planning, promotions and awards. This was the time of a “carrier battle”, of which he wrote: “That the land-based national Air Force should have supported the politicians in stripping its sister service of this essential ingredient is sad. That this Air Force should have argued that all maritime requirements could be met by shore based aircraft is dishonest; that it should have been believed is astounding”.
So I am not alone in my views and could not have put it any better myself.
By Vic Flintham partic. page 252, amongst other sources, to see how wrong you are.
BEagle - so 75% bombs on target does not seem a good result to you ?
I would say it is streets ahead of the "successful" lone Vulcan near-disaster PR stunt that won the Falklands war - one bomb on the hardstanding near the runway was it?
No chips on either shoulder but still a well balanced chap putting some facts before some who may not know them and many who still deny them !
Bill Mac - that place off the A19 by York because the light blues had finaigled the monopoly of all flying training. Subsequently honed into proper shape by the nautical boys to produce yet another ace of the base ahead in time of that other well loved beardie Sea Harrier solo Falklands war winner.
Herod - a full month before nightflying; more bar time acclimatisation nothing else and the accommodation details were factual; whether you wish to believe them or not is of little interest but you should not deny them.
Courtney Mil - your post # 41 - spot on lad ! Glad the veil has been lifted from your eyes at last - must be the benefit of local vino and garlic where you are.
Chances are the Senior Service would not have allowed you in, so my sympathies are with you on your second choice !
Your post # 34 - if I had the time I would participate in reasoned debate to a greater extent, but I have no desire to aim for the more than 5000 posts you have clocked up as I have better things to do with my time. The phrase get a life springs to mind regarding your prolific output; seems someone may be trying to relive their past.
I reiterate - CDS abused position by bending PM's ear privately and having previous agreed keep the Harrier decision reversed; try doing some research yourself on this fact.
Tornado radius of action is no advantage when instead of being more than an hour away in Italy your seaborne runway is a short hop away from the target which therefore cannot disperse before you get to it. Close support means many sorties providing greater weapon load in a given time - not wasted in transit cruise from a base a million miles away and costing a fortune in the process in fuel, runway rental and expensive accommodation for all involved, instead of a wardroom and messdecks which do not require another country's agreement to use.
Heathrow Harry - and the rest of the light blue brigade who are still in denial; I draw your attention to the obituary in the Daily Telegraph of a great Admiral who died recently, Admiral Sir William O’Brien who succinctly put his view of crab knavery thus:-
" Promoted to rear-admiral in 1964, he became Naval Secretary, dealing with officers’ career planning, promotions and awards. This was the time of a “carrier battle”, of which he wrote: “That the land-based national Air Force should have supported the politicians in stripping its sister service of this essential ingredient is sad. That this Air Force should have argued that all maritime requirements could be met by shore based aircraft is dishonest; that it should have been believed is astounding”.
So I am not alone in my views and could not have put it any better myself.
... as well as hijacking an otherwise worthy thread.
CdG is bringing a great boost to French firepower in the region. It will be hard for the AAF/FAF to take on the baton when it is time to bring CdG back, but I guess they are working on it.
Whatever the actions over the end of the CV01 programme were, let's hope we have learned from it (and I think we have).
Regards
Batco
CdG is bringing a great boost to French firepower in the region. It will be hard for the AAF/FAF to take on the baton when it is time to bring CdG back, but I guess they are working on it.
Whatever the actions over the end of the CV01 programme were, let's hope we have learned from it (and I think we have).
Regards
Batco
Was the Torrey Canyon attacked at night? No.
Were the attackers exposed to hostile threats? No.
Did the PK of Op Black Buck 1 match theoretical predictions? Yes.
Was it a mistake to cancel CVA01? Yes.
Was it a bigger mistake to cancel TSR2? Yes.
As for dirty tricks, it was Mountbottom as CDS who was probably the most guilty in trying to promote the interests of his navy boyfriends over the national interest....
Were the attackers exposed to hostile threats? No.
Did the PK of Op Black Buck 1 match theoretical predictions? Yes.
Was it a mistake to cancel CVA01? Yes.
Was it a bigger mistake to cancel TSR2? Yes.
As for dirty tricks, it was Mountbottom as CDS who was probably the most guilty in trying to promote the interests of his navy boyfriends over the national interest....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without getting into the battle about the facts, I can confirm that, rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of the aircrew in the FAA believe what sailor is saying to be true.
Obviously that does not fit with the RAFs perception of reality.
My point is purely that sailor is not a lone lunatic raving or bitter, he is merely relating what the crewrooms of the RN believe to be true.
We all have personal knowledge of various aspects of this narrative, and these will influence our beliefs re the facts.
We will never agree, so not much point arguing again.......
Obviously that does not fit with the RAFs perception of reality.
My point is purely that sailor is not a lone lunatic raving or bitter, he is merely relating what the crewrooms of the RN believe to be true.
We all have personal knowledge of various aspects of this narrative, and these will influence our beliefs re the facts.
We will never agree, so not much point arguing again.......
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally
Tourist - thanks for your perspicacious observation; both sides dyed in the wool beliefs sums it up.
Back to the original topic - carriers and their aircraft are very good news !
Back to the original topic - carriers and their aircraft are very good news !
Last edited by sailor; 1st Mar 2016 at 17:19. Reason: spelling
Although their engines are fitted with thrust de-rating devices, are the Shar FA2s at Culdrose otherwise maintained in airworthy condition?
Although the very idea would cause MAA to have palpitations, perhaps the feasibility of restoring a number of the jets to flying condition should be studied? Presumably there are a few RN pilots on Typhoon who could be trained to fly the Shar FA2 from the Queen Elizabeth - even just in an operational training role?
It will be a national disgrace for the QE to be commissioned without a FW aircraft element, pending the eventual arrival of the F-35B.
Although the very idea would cause MAA to have palpitations, perhaps the feasibility of restoring a number of the jets to flying condition should be studied? Presumably there are a few RN pilots on Typhoon who could be trained to fly the Shar FA2 from the Queen Elizabeth - even just in an operational training role?
It will be a national disgrace for the QE to be commissioned without a FW aircraft element, pending the eventual arrival of the F-35B.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely agree BEagle. But let's put things in a little perspective.
QNLZ will arrive without having had any aircraft onboard. Initially she will look at clearing RW ac and then the FW will come in around 2018 - these testing evolutions will produce the required evidence to support a Release to Service recommendation. Kinda vital really. MAA would agree!
After RtoS, an embarkation period will be needed to qualify the F-35 pilots to fly; to give the maintainers and deck hands and (well) all the ship's company the exposure to working together, Jointly. This will all be a build up to declaration of Maritime IOC.
The UK has stated a Maritime IOC date of 2020 but they'll make best endeavours I'm sure, because you never get two new toys and learn to fight and operate them together overnight.
That's the perspective I wish to bring to this discussion, now that it seems to have come back to a topic more related to the thread.
QNLZ will arrive without having had any aircraft onboard. Initially she will look at clearing RW ac and then the FW will come in around 2018 - these testing evolutions will produce the required evidence to support a Release to Service recommendation. Kinda vital really. MAA would agree!
After RtoS, an embarkation period will be needed to qualify the F-35 pilots to fly; to give the maintainers and deck hands and (well) all the ship's company the exposure to working together, Jointly. This will all be a build up to declaration of Maritime IOC.
The UK has stated a Maritime IOC date of 2020 but they'll make best endeavours I'm sure, because you never get two new toys and learn to fight and operate them together overnight.
That's the perspective I wish to bring to this discussion, now that it seems to have come back to a topic more related to the thread.
In addition, it is likely we will see USMC F-35Bs operated from the QE2 Class carriers which will assist with the workup of the ships' crews.
DSEI: U.S. Marine F-35Bs Will Operate From British Queen Elizabeth Carriers - USNI News
DSEI: U.S. Marine F-35Bs Will Operate From British Queen Elizabeth Carriers - USNI News