RAF Unsuitable for Carrier Operations - Chris Bolton
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'd be easier to add booms to our fleet of voyager than request a bespoke set of F-35A mods. Benefits to the former include, interop with US/Aus and many other typical-coalition tankers, higher fuel flow, easier to tank when heavy, at night. Suddenly UK tankers become hugely more beneficial to the USAF and USN, not just USN, on Combined ops.
Point is, it's possible and the balance of investment will decide, if indeed it has to.
Point is, it's possible and the balance of investment will decide, if indeed it has to.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
38. The expectations of a young RAF officer are
c) That all personnel within the RAF are there exclusively to support their pilots (other matters are of little import).
39. The expectations of a young Naval officer are
c) That in spite of his expertise he is just one small cog (albeit an important one) in the Fleet Weapons System and needs to integrate fully with that weapons system.
The above statement is correct though isn't it?
What is the point of the RAF if not to launch pointy things into the Air? and likewise there is no point in having an aircraft carrier without the people who can sit in said pointy things! the clue is in the name!!!
c) That all personnel within the RAF are there exclusively to support their pilots (other matters are of little import).
39. The expectations of a young Naval officer are
c) That in spite of his expertise he is just one small cog (albeit an important one) in the Fleet Weapons System and needs to integrate fully with that weapons system.
The above statement is correct though isn't it?
What is the point of the RAF if not to launch pointy things into the Air? and likewise there is no point in having an aircraft carrier without the people who can sit in said pointy things! the clue is in the name!!!
Jayand.
Yes it is. For what its worth.
I personally wouldn't bother trying to analyse anything in the Sharkey rant though. It's a bit like trying to point out all the factual errors in Top Gun. We all know its drivel and it doesn't need saying.
BV
Yes it is. For what its worth.
I personally wouldn't bother trying to analyse anything in the Sharkey rant though. It's a bit like trying to point out all the factual errors in Top Gun. We all know its drivel and it doesn't need saying.
BV
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree Jayand, it isn't.
An aircraft isn't the weapon system, a pilot isn't the weapon system, indeed, without the rest of the bits of the machine, even the weapon isn't the weapon system. Our young RAF officers are taught that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is needed and plays its part to support the delivery of EFFECT, whatever that might need to be. Logistics and support are just as crucial to the end result, often more so, as history has shown many times.
Frankly, Sharkey's incredulous and crass ignorance betrays his excellent performance in the South Atlantic. His lamentable offerings to the Phoenix Think Tank are as much an embarrassment to the FAA and RN, as they are to those in the RAF. That view came almost verbatim out of the mouth of a very senior and well-respected RN officer.
An aircraft isn't the weapon system, a pilot isn't the weapon system, indeed, without the rest of the bits of the machine, even the weapon isn't the weapon system. Our young RAF officers are taught that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is needed and plays its part to support the delivery of EFFECT, whatever that might need to be. Logistics and support are just as crucial to the end result, often more so, as history has shown many times.
Frankly, Sharkey's incredulous and crass ignorance betrays his excellent performance in the South Atlantic. His lamentable offerings to the Phoenix Think Tank are as much an embarrassment to the FAA and RN, as they are to those in the RAF. That view came almost verbatim out of the mouth of a very senior and well-respected RN officer.
Last edited by MSOCS; 21st Mar 2017 at 14:33.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS, I'm not for one minute saying the support systems and people aren't very important but the end product is aircraft punching holes in the sky. The article was suggesting that the other vessels involved in supporting carrier ops were as important as the end result of carrier aircraft flying. Yes they are vital to the end result but, there sole purpose is to allow those planes to fly. Without the planes and their jockeys then the rest of the group might as well go home.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Jayand, I still argue the "Jockey" still supports the end effect - bomb, missile or whatever, in meeting its target. To that end, it isn't about the plane or jockey as you say. I'm pretty pleased to report that my view of many a young RAF officer today is that their outlook is very much aligned with that thinking. Jockeys are cogs in a wheel too, and they appreciate that.
Ultimately, both QECs will be another Sovereign way of projecting power, from the sea. Jets, AH, Marines....all power. Providing sense prevails and no sS willy waving starts to dictate deployments, all will be good. Defence Tasks and priorities should dictate where and when the QE-at-readiness embarks and it should always be available in times of crises where and when it's needed in the world. Thankfully we have a Joint Steering Group for such decisions.
Ultimately, both QECs will be another Sovereign way of projecting power, from the sea. Jets, AH, Marines....all power. Providing sense prevails and no sS willy waving starts to dictate deployments, all will be good. Defence Tasks and priorities should dictate where and when the QE-at-readiness embarks and it should always be available in times of crises where and when it's needed in the world. Thankfully we have a Joint Steering Group for such decisions.
"Continuous Carrier Strike" calls for QE to be working, whilst PoW is working up/doing maintenance packages etc and vice versa.
That is the key element. The RN is haemorrhaging people at a frightening rate. I was on a surface platform emerging from refit only yesterday and was shocked at the number of guys who had 'put their papers in.' MEs, WEs, Warfare, Chefs it does not seem to be any particular branch.
The principle reason seems not to be money, or length of deployments, but simply that they bounce from one crisis to another and nobody knows what is going on.
QE/PoW will only work if there are personnel of all branches to man it and keep it at sea.
No airfield, no need for aircraft!
Regards
Mortmeister
Sorry all but I was being deliberately vague (hence using the term platform).
But I don't think it matters which one.
Regards
MM
