Another rant from the Bearded One
https://raincoaster.com/2006/09/23/m...terly-useless/
Having read most of the book, there are a couple of things i don't understand.
First, after the Falklands War, why didn't the RN 'management' publicise their successes?
Second, with the new carriers, they are committed to F35B only. They cannot operate any other type of fixed wing air. Why?
Third, if the MoD were hell-bent on F35B, why not have built Invincible class ships, instead of QE2 class? Surely they could have had many more of the smaller vessels, allowing
more control of sea lanes etc, than they could with a single QE2 class?
If a person with no military background, and a GCE in Geography, can see this, why can't our professional military?
(Apologies if I'm raking over previous questions on these issues)
First, after the Falklands War, why didn't the RN 'management' publicise their successes?
Second, with the new carriers, they are committed to F35B only. They cannot operate any other type of fixed wing air. Why?
Third, if the MoD were hell-bent on F35B, why not have built Invincible class ships, instead of QE2 class? Surely they could have had many more of the smaller vessels, allowing
more control of sea lanes etc, than they could with a single QE2 class?
If a person with no military background, and a GCE in Geography, can see this, why can't our professional military?
(Apologies if I'm raking over previous questions on these issues)
If a person with no military background, and a GCE in Geography, can see this, why can't our professional military?
CG
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Invincibles were too small for F35b. A cut and shut was considered, adding a section just ahead of the bridge. But this was thankfully ditched, for being expensive and offering little extra life.
In the end the offer from the treasury was for 2 larger to replace 3 smaller. If the RN had insisted on staying small, it would have just ended up with 2 smaller, far less effective ships. The size of the QEs was (sensibly) based on what was required to deliver a predetermined capability.
In the end the offer from the treasury was for 2 larger to replace 3 smaller. If the RN had insisted on staying small, it would have just ended up with 2 smaller, far less effective ships. The size of the QEs was (sensibly) based on what was required to deliver a predetermined capability.
The through life cost of ships is mostly in the sailors. The capital cost is not that important and supports UK jobs, so is more palatable to Treasury.
3 new CVS would have consumed too many sailors. The QE'S were designed for low complements compared to other carriers. Hence things like the fancy weapon handling system.
Engines is the chap for F35B history, but at program inception the UK got onboard as a Tier1 partner because of BAe's expertise in STOVL, and RR experience with the sort of engine needed. The plan then was to operate the F35B from the Invincibles until the QE"s were ready.
The best laid plans....
N
I was there and events have been analysed and discussed thoroughly numerous times. What do you have that is new or do you just enjoy trying to deflect by casting aspersions with no basis in fact I (a bit like Sharkey does)?
Military UKIP
SW is akin to NF in that everyone can have their say against him, but lots of home truths come out in the process. Its a book, and this thread will ensure more copies are sold.
My opinion is that all military operations are basically always trying to cope with political overtones and equipment issues, however it does not take away anything from the 'people' who are tasked with carrying out these duties in demanding circumstances. The top end may well get wobbly, but the people at the sharp end always deliver as best they can. (just like 80 years ago)
My opinion is that all military operations are basically always trying to cope with political overtones and equipment issues, however it does not take away anything from the 'people' who are tasked with carrying out these duties in demanding circumstances. The top end may well get wobbly, but the people at the sharp end always deliver as best they can. (just like 80 years ago)
2006 / Afghanistan / aircraft type HARRIER!!!! Plus the Army major who said it had nothing but praise for the USAF.
https://raincoaster.com/2006/09/23/m...terly-useless/
https://raincoaster.com/2006/09/23/m...terly-useless/
Isn’t he also the guy who later, as 2IC of 3 Para, turned the deploying battalion right out of Kandahar Airfield towards Pakistan rather left towards Kandahar / Helmand? Utterly useless indeed...
To be fair to the 3 PARA major, he was writing only 2 weeks after the disgrace that was the Kajaki Dam incident. Wrong radios. No batteries. No CSAR. MoD's porkies. A Brigadier later taking it upon himself to personally reply to FoI questions, to ensure the truth about the batteries was known. And even then he didn't know the full story as he'd been lied to. The Major had every right to have a drip, but unfortunately very few know all the background and their aim is often off or they choose the wrong target.
Home Truths
Well JTO
He quite plainly credits the RAF with providing an excellent Harrier training regime for the Sea Harrier jockeys, and singles out various members as giving them an excellent introduction in to safe operations. That's a good start, even if it is only one of his less voluble 'trants'. He has written a book**, no one is forced to buy it and take an exam on the contents, it can be classed as entertainment, and judged against others that cover a similar subject.
** Now another one.
He quite plainly credits the RAF with providing an excellent Harrier training regime for the Sea Harrier jockeys, and singles out various members as giving them an excellent introduction in to safe operations. That's a good start, even if it is only one of his less voluble 'trants'. He has written a book**, no one is forced to buy it and take an exam on the contents, it can be classed as entertainment, and judged against others that cover a similar subject.
** Now another one.
Having read most of the book, there are a couple of things i don't understand.
First, after the Falklands War, why didn't the RN 'management' publicise their successes?
Second, with the new carriers, they are committed to F35B only. They cannot operate any other type of fixed wing air. Why?
First, after the Falklands War, why didn't the RN 'management' publicise their successes?
Second, with the new carriers, they are committed to F35B only. They cannot operate any other type of fixed wing air. Why?
Third, if the MoD were hell-bent on F35B, why not have built Invincible class ships, instead of QE2 class? Surely they could have had many more of the smaller vessels, allowing
more control of sea lanes etc, than they could with a single QE2 class?
more control of sea lanes etc, than they could with a single QE2 class?
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islandlad
Maybe they would rather there was not a closer look into some of the events in GW1?
Maybe they would rather there was not a closer look into some of the events in GW1?
Ok, I'll bite....meaning exactly what?
I was there and events have been analysed and discussed thoroughly numerous times. What do you have that is new or do you just enjoy trying to deflect by casting aspersions with no basis in fact I (a bit like Sharkey does)?
I was there and events have been analysed and discussed thoroughly numerous times. What do you have that is new or do you just enjoy trying to deflect by casting aspersions with no basis in fact I (a bit like Sharkey does)?
New? Nothing at all. It has been done before. But do you really want to bite? I'm sure you will get all hot and bothered about it. After it was all over and the numbers came out it was interesting reading. Just the numbers. It rather makes Sharkeys point. Answer me the following.
What % of aircraft did the RAF contribute?
What % of sorties did the RAF contribute?
What % of those combat aircraft were casualties (lost RAF combat aircraft excluding F3s)?
And why they were lost?
Would (political aside) it have made an atom of difference to the outcome of GW 1 if the RAF had not turned up at all?
Compare that to the Sharkey arguments and the FAA in the Falklands War if you want.
Islandlad,
It wouldn't have made an 'atoms difference' to the operational outcome of GW1 if ANY other force other than the US had turned up seeing as the massive mismatch in numbers and resources, and that includes the RN. The coalition was a political alliance and that was the importance. The US could have handled each and every single coalition military endeavour since 1945 entirely on their own if they wished, they chose not to, for political and cohesion reasons.
Your stab at the RAF does you no service whatsoever.
As to your questions, go to Google and find out for yourself, you may be a little surprised by THE FACTS as opposed to your obvious agenda.
It wouldn't have made an 'atoms difference' to the operational outcome of GW1 if ANY other force other than the US had turned up seeing as the massive mismatch in numbers and resources, and that includes the RN. The coalition was a political alliance and that was the importance. The US could have handled each and every single coalition military endeavour since 1945 entirely on their own if they wished, they chose not to, for political and cohesion reasons.
Your stab at the RAF does you no service whatsoever.
As to your questions, go to Google and find out for yourself, you may be a little surprised by THE FACTS as opposed to your obvious agenda.
Islandlad,
A few things to ponder. Firstly, the RAF contributed a significant proportion of the aircrew deployed on Corporate. Not only the GR3 and Chinook crews, but also a number of SHar pilots and RN rotary pilots (including one that later became CAS…). Add in the Vulcan/Tanking (whatever value you may or not perceive in that enterprise), MRR by both Victors and Nimrods, long range resupply of crucial parts/people to the TF via C-130 and a number of other more covert activities, it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could. Sharkey's myopic, misinformed, error strewn and clearly not proof-read paper would be comedic if it wasn't so supinely supported by the usual cohort of RN Grandees, most of whom likely still think the Navy won at Jutland and can't quite understand why 'shiny guns' are not as accurate as German ones….
A few things to ponder. Firstly, the RAF contributed a significant proportion of the aircrew deployed on Corporate. Not only the GR3 and Chinook crews, but also a number of SHar pilots and RN rotary pilots (including one that later became CAS…). Add in the Vulcan/Tanking (whatever value you may or not perceive in that enterprise), MRR by both Victors and Nimrods, long range resupply of crucial parts/people to the TF via C-130 and a number of other more covert activities, it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could. Sharkey's myopic, misinformed, error strewn and clearly not proof-read paper would be comedic if it wasn't so supinely supported by the usual cohort of RN Grandees, most of whom likely still think the Navy won at Jutland and can't quite understand why 'shiny guns' are not as accurate as German ones….
Islandlad,
A few things to ponder. Firstly, the RAF contributed a significant proportion of the aircrew deployed on Corporate. Not only the GR3 and Chinook crews, but also a number of SHar pilots and RN rotary pilots (including one that later became CAS…). Add in the Vulcan/Tanking (whatever value you may or not perceive in that enterprise), MRR by both Victors and Nimrods, long range resupply of crucial parts/people to the TF via C-130 and a number of other more covert activities, it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could. Sharkey's myopic, misinformed, error strewn and clearly not proof-read paper would be comedic if it wasn't so supinely supported by the usual cohort of RN Grandees, most of whom likely still think the Navy won at Jutland and can't quite understand why 'shiny guns' are not as accurate as German ones….
A few things to ponder. Firstly, the RAF contributed a significant proportion of the aircrew deployed on Corporate. Not only the GR3 and Chinook crews, but also a number of SHar pilots and RN rotary pilots (including one that later became CAS…). Add in the Vulcan/Tanking (whatever value you may or not perceive in that enterprise), MRR by both Victors and Nimrods, long range resupply of crucial parts/people to the TF via C-130 and a number of other more covert activities, it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could. Sharkey's myopic, misinformed, error strewn and clearly not proof-read paper would be comedic if it wasn't so supinely supported by the usual cohort of RN Grandees, most of whom likely still think the Navy won at Jutland and can't quite understand why 'shiny guns' are not as accurate as German ones….
Incidentally, weren’t all but one of the Chinooks destroyed with the Atlantic Conveyor owing to the deplorable lack of air cover?
As someone who was seariding in HMS GLOUCESTER when she shot down the Iraqi ASM during GW1, I’m not sure I entirely agree with your synopsis about the efficacy of our ships.
