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

RAF Unsuitable for Carrier Operations - Chris Bolton

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.

RAF Unsuitable for Carrier Operations - Chris Bolton

Old 18th Mar 2017, 17:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: It's Fairyland!
Posts: 8
RAF Unsuitable for Carrier Operations - Chris Bolton

http://linkis.com/********.com/Jzy6l

Well at least he doesn't bring up moving Australia on the map.

But it's not very purple is it?

Last edited by Thomas Woodrooffe RN; 18th Mar 2017 at 18:32.
Thomas Woodrooffe RN is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 18:38
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 40
Posts: 733
Has saint Sharkey of Ward been given a crayon again?
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 19:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Guff

I know nothing of the intricacies of carrier vs land-based operations. But I know how to read and analyse a scientific paper. By such criteria, this paper is tendentious guff.
I shall now crawl back into my hole.
Caramba is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 19:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 246
Wow, I just love the sweeping generalisation about RAF aircrew lifestyle just sitting at home feet up working Mon-Fri 9-5.

The author could do with a visit to Odiham and Brize to get a dose of reality. I'm sure the Chinook Force would love never to embark again, I'm not sure if the marines would be happy with that though!

What a load of tosh.
Door Slider is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 20:36
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 195
Wow. This must be the most elaborate fishing for a bite ever written.

Scientific it is not, blinkered and bereft of substance it most certainly is.
llamaman is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 20:39
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 82
Posts: 1,380
' The pilot is responsible for the aircraft and it's crew'! Really. Yer learn something new...........
Some enlightening stuff about the sea being dangerous too!
goudie is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 20:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 629
And that carriers are different to airfields too?


'The carrier at sea represents an entirely different world to a shore-based airfield'


Treble one is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 21:04
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 67
Posts: 194
I remember reading 'Sea Harrier at War" and ended it by throwing it across the bedroom. Chips on both shoulders and an almost fanatical hate of the RAF. Does not warrant the oxygen of any attention. Nuff from me.
MACH2NUMBER is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 21:08
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Midlands
Posts: 114
"Minister, by simply absorbing the FAA into the RAF the differences between the two services would be removed".
Planet Basher is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 21:08
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Okay A Bit East
Age: 75
Posts: 122
I wonder which peer group was paid to review that before publishing!
cliver029 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 21:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wilds of Warwickshire
Posts: 174
Don't worry too much. In any future 'peer' conflict Carriers (of all sides) will last about 48 hours. Remember the Battleships in WW2; well Carriers are the modern equivalent.
KiloB is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 21:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,666
The article is from 2013. I'm pretty sure we all gnashed our teeth over it back then.

The man did an awful lot that he can be proud of many years ago but let's not give him the satisfaction once again of thinking we either believe anything he has to say or even give a sh1t about it.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 21:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Bloody HELL - this is really the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE - 'Sharkey' resurrected from about 04 April 2011. Article was published at 'phoenix think tank' about then however the site has moved from original article URL to here:

The Phoenix Think Tank > Articles | Independent Naval & Maritime Thinking | A Platform for Naval and Maritime Authors. Click on 'CVF, F-35 and other carriers' to see article title: The Phoenix Think Tank > Articles > Alan Hensher > Defence of the Realm

But of course nothing there either. Regurgitating old old material is Shirley unwise. The 2011 date is known from a post about it on F-16.net at that time.

Here is a UK Parliament Submission Shark Attack submission post repeat from 03 Aug 2011: scroll down a lot to...

Annex A FLYING FROM OUR NEW CARRIERS—THE RN OR THE RAF ETHOS

http://www.publications.parliament.u...61/761vw39.htm

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 18th Mar 2017 at 21:51. Reason: add extra URL
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 22:45
  #14 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,015
8. The RAF aviator lives in the mess or at home with his wife and family and enjoys all the social amenities that would be expected in any other form of life. This alone provides for a lower overall stress factor in his or her life; being able, for example, to resolve domestic problems in the home at all times, walk the dog, go to a pub, spend weekends with friends and so on.
I thought I'd read it for a laugh. I got to this point and gave up (threw up?).
Herod is online now  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 02:37
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,370
Me too, fascinating guff, out of interest how many fast jet deck qualified and current pilots does the Royal Navy actually have? It must be in single figures, which makes all this patronising verbiage even more unpalatable.

Isn't it strange how when they finally get themselves a new ship all this guff rises to the surface again, as said shades of Sharkey Ward.... At least with an airfield one hit and it doesn't sink.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 02:53
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Isn't it strange that some blogger resurrects some six years old Sharkey Ward post for what purpose? ClickBait. Now what person wants to harrumph about it all over again? What next?
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 08:08
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: It's Fairyland!
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
Isn't it strange that some blogger resurrects some six years old Sharkey Ward post for what purpose? ClickBait. Now what person wants to harrumph about it all over again? What next?
The blogger resurrected Sharkey's work in response to the visit of CAS, with 1SL, to Rosyth on Friday.
Thomas Woodrooffe RN is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 08:24
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,891
...and then you started a thread, with a link, to complete the clickbait cycle.

Wonderful.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 12:41
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 962
Perhaps the report should also note that "the expectation of a would-be RAF officer is to only visit OASC once......"

Old news. Done to death. Sharkey had his moment in the sun (and we should be forever grateful of his leadership and service), but the caribbean sun now seems to have finished him off as a sensible commentator on military affairs. There was a time when I had more embarked time and Day/Night/NVG/CBRN DLs as a CH-47 pilot than an awful lot of my CHF friends - it's just the way the Op/Tasking cycle goes. The key thing is not the flying, it's the planning; the RAF need to accept that a CV is not a floating airfield, and the RN need to admit that landing on 65000 tons of steel isn't that hard if you "stop then land" in a modern VSTOL FW, Tilt Rotor or capable helicopter. The hard ship/TAG integration piece is where you need experts and where the more experienced FAA crews are essential - we need to ensure we continue to nurture and grow them. That CAS/1SL went to see QE together should be applauded, not used as the touch paper for another round of the p1ssing contest. And as for moving Australia? Well, if the RN had got their Staff Work right in the mid 60s it wouldn't have been an issue....economics and politics killed CVA-01, not the RAF.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 15:25
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 778
BZ Evalu8ter - as a dyed in the wool RN aviation engineer, proud of my Service, I recognise and understand that:

1. The future is Joint
2. It belongs to the young professionals, not us old has beens
3. As long as there's a joint understanding at VSO level that 'doing' aviation at sea isn't the same as on 'doing' aviation on land, we can leave it to the young crop of aviators to sort out the details.
4. This inter-service p*****g stuff is just a total waste of f*****g time and effort.

Best regards as ever to those talented professionals doing the joint stuff for real

Engines
Engines is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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