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

More nonsense from Nigel - who has written a new book!

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.

More nonsense from Nigel - who has written a new book!

Old 27th Jun 2020, 18:10
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 277
I am not certain that he is a polemicist.

I do think that he is a fanatical believer in his own position which has coloured his judgement beyond reason and so he writes the irrational stuff that he writes.

No father should have to bury his son - especially one that he must have been immensely proud of - and rightly so - but his ramblings preceded that, so perhaps he can now not let go.

I make no excuse for him - but I do believe that his controversial positioning makes him vulnerable to logical criticism.

His activities during the Falklands were no "braver" than those of many others who received less recognition. I am not saying that he was not "brave" and a "good leader" - but there were many of those in all three Services.

In my opinion, he loses credibility for his own achievements by his continued ramblings.

I do not know - but I doubt that his son would have approved.
ex-fast-jets is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2020, 22:44
  #62 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,055
Originally Posted by ex-fast-jets View Post
His activities during the Falklands were no "braver" than those of many others who received less recognition. I am not saying that he was not "brave" and a "good leader" - but there were many of those in all three Services.

In my opinion, he loses credibility for his own achievements by his continued ramblings.
I think that his consistent sniping at anyone and everyone who wasn't 801 erodes the respect he would otherwise deserve.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 08:51
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,760
I wonder if he's banned from his local pub (in normal times)? I can't bear to think what an evening there with him would be like...... and like Groundhog Day as well - over , and over, and over, and
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 14:20
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by FODPlod View Post
I can understand some cause for bitterness. Given that the RAF assumed the mantle of air defence of the Fleet following the decommissioning of HMS Ark Royal in 1979 and the cancellation of her replacement, CVA-01, something seems to have gone wrong during the Falklands conflict. Thatís how many baffled South Atlantic Medal holders see it, anyway. Unlike Dunkirk, RAF fighter cover wasnít merely operating out of sight of the dark blue jobs and PBI either.

The Harrier carriers were designed as platforms for ASW helicopters and one can only surmise how much worse things would have been without their lash-up conversion, albeit without AEW.
The Invincible class CVS was designed and built from the start of construction to be able to embark Harriers, the decision to proceed with V/STOL aircraft capability in the Ships design was actually made by Denis Healey in January 1970 . The original Naval Staff Requirement (NSR 6451) for the Sea Harrier was formally drafted in early 1972, before the construction of HMS Invincible was approved. The Aircraft turned out to be very close to what was proposed, bar the carriage of Anti Radiation Martel which was in the original draft of the NSR (which would have been a godsend in 1982). Defence Sales were in fact all for the aircraft being developed as they could see at least 5 other Navies being interested in buying a Maritime Harrier and its one of the major reasons that the project survived. (of those five, one actually bought it and another had its Air Forces decimated by it). Fun Fact, when the Navy were trying to push through the start of construction for Invincible in 1972 at the Chiefs of Staff Committee, they had suggested that operations in the South Atlantic were an ideal reason for the ship to be built. The main resistance to this idea came from the Army, not the RAF.
MAINJAFAD 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 - 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.