Treacherous fishhead berates F-ing crabs
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Age: 53
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Jacko
You may be the diamond in the rough, but the rest are rough as F%ck.
This whole thread is generated from a journo copying a throw away line in the crewroom that the boys thought wouldn't get published - bad luck that they were quoted, but shame on GQ that made the RN, and the forces in general, look bad in this instance for want of more coverage.
I, for one, am p*ssed off that I am seen by the public as a tax burden and that the money that is paid to me and everyone else in the services would be better served going into schools, hospitals, the homeless and other social services. Isn't the freedom we endevour to uphold the most social service there is?
(to anyone cynical enough to say "what freedom?", we still have english as the primary language to our country, dont we?)
Why do the press, and public at large, see us as a liability and would rather shoot us down than praise us? Jacko, over to you!
Sorry for the burst transmission, but I've just got back from the USA where the forces are treated in a different way to us!
PS: Apart from the rare exception, I would not trust a journo as far as I could throw him ( which is a pretty long damn way!
)
any spelling mistakes are because it is waaaaaaay past my bedtime
You may be the diamond in the rough, but the rest are rough as F%ck.
This whole thread is generated from a journo copying a throw away line in the crewroom that the boys thought wouldn't get published - bad luck that they were quoted, but shame on GQ that made the RN, and the forces in general, look bad in this instance for want of more coverage.
I, for one, am p*ssed off that I am seen by the public as a tax burden and that the money that is paid to me and everyone else in the services would be better served going into schools, hospitals, the homeless and other social services. Isn't the freedom we endevour to uphold the most social service there is?
(to anyone cynical enough to say "what freedom?", we still have english as the primary language to our country, dont we?)
Why do the press, and public at large, see us as a liability and would rather shoot us down than praise us? Jacko, over to you!
Sorry for the burst transmission, but I've just got back from the USA where the forces are treated in a different way to us!
PS: Apart from the rare exception, I would not trust a journo as far as I could throw him ( which is a pretty long damn way!
)any spelling mistakes are because it is waaaaaaay past my bedtime
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really enjoying this thread. The banter has been fierce, and some of it at a relatively high standard, even from the Sailors.
ARXW
Regret to inform you that I will not be publishing my logbook to prove my earlier claims. Couldn't give a cr@p if you believe me or not. I will however point out to you that the British military have in fact been involved in a number of armed conflicts since the Falklands war, indeed, at least one of those is pretty much into double figures of years. Mr Ward may yet get an opportunity to go "****ing sausage side" (that sounds like 2 naval chaps going at it face to face to me, didn't even occur to me that you fellas could do it that way).
I believe that you missed my point entirely; I was not for one minute claiming to be some super hero in light blue (indeed if that were the case, I am sure that you and all your spotter friends would have bought the book that I would have published, and help pay for my mortgage), but merely pointing out that the RAF, using all types of aircraft, have been involved in flying in the badlands of several countries for a number of years. I would also add very successfully, and often without the help of the FAA (shock horror, no!). If Lt T doesn't trust us, its a good job that he hasn't been an advisor to the UK MOD and Tony B, nothing would have gotten done!
I digress, very many RAF aircrew will have done a very significant number of operational sorties each, many in more than one theatre, where quite often real bullets are coming at them, and they are releasing live weapons. The weapons that they are releasing in anger may not be Sidewinders but they still count in the grand plan.
If I remember correctly, the last time that the FAA released weapons in anger, the poor dude was on the receiving end of a Serb missile, 0 for 1. Read that book pal.
ARSSE
Your banter is extremely good, I have to say initially I mistook it for the bitter waffling of some deranged homosexual (not that there is anything wrong with that in these PC days) who had in fact failed so miserably at RAF selection that he had been told 'never darken these doors again, errr, unless the Navy send you'. How I laughed outloud when I re-read, and then read again, that classic line about how the other 2 services think that the RAF is a joke. How long did it take you to come up with that gem? Brain a little fuzzy at the moment? I guess you must have laughed yourself a migraine. Perhaps you are an Admiral.
Anyway, if indeed it is the case that these 2 young fella's were just a bit pissed in the Wardroom and happened apon a couple of GQ journalists, who promised oh so sincerely that 'whatever you tell us (journalists), is in the strictest confidence'. I can just picture the scene now:
"so about those crabs, bunch of tossers eh son"
"thats true sir, my daddy is a war hero you know, my friend here says he likes girls"
"er yes, anyway, tell me about how that amraam thingy works, 'nother gin son?"
"super"
"can I quote you on that?"
In all seriousness though, as I asked before, what was the point of the article from the Navy's view?
I'll add another question, do they think that it is worth it?
(yes yes I know its good crab banter, but I am asking a serious question).
Finally, do you navy chaps think that any of us really give a cr@p about how many aircraft you have shot down, the RAF is doing the job now, 'sausage side' Mr Ward and his friend will soon realise that all they will ever be is a support asset, I think the more important point is whether or not we should trust them?
ARXW
Regret to inform you that I will not be publishing my logbook to prove my earlier claims. Couldn't give a cr@p if you believe me or not. I will however point out to you that the British military have in fact been involved in a number of armed conflicts since the Falklands war, indeed, at least one of those is pretty much into double figures of years. Mr Ward may yet get an opportunity to go "****ing sausage side" (that sounds like 2 naval chaps going at it face to face to me, didn't even occur to me that you fellas could do it that way).
I believe that you missed my point entirely; I was not for one minute claiming to be some super hero in light blue (indeed if that were the case, I am sure that you and all your spotter friends would have bought the book that I would have published, and help pay for my mortgage), but merely pointing out that the RAF, using all types of aircraft, have been involved in flying in the badlands of several countries for a number of years. I would also add very successfully, and often without the help of the FAA (shock horror, no!). If Lt T doesn't trust us, its a good job that he hasn't been an advisor to the UK MOD and Tony B, nothing would have gotten done!
I digress, very many RAF aircrew will have done a very significant number of operational sorties each, many in more than one theatre, where quite often real bullets are coming at them, and they are releasing live weapons. The weapons that they are releasing in anger may not be Sidewinders but they still count in the grand plan.
If I remember correctly, the last time that the FAA released weapons in anger, the poor dude was on the receiving end of a Serb missile, 0 for 1. Read that book pal.
ARSSE
Your banter is extremely good, I have to say initially I mistook it for the bitter waffling of some deranged homosexual (not that there is anything wrong with that in these PC days) who had in fact failed so miserably at RAF selection that he had been told 'never darken these doors again, errr, unless the Navy send you'. How I laughed outloud when I re-read, and then read again, that classic line about how the other 2 services think that the RAF is a joke. How long did it take you to come up with that gem? Brain a little fuzzy at the moment? I guess you must have laughed yourself a migraine. Perhaps you are an Admiral.
Anyway, if indeed it is the case that these 2 young fella's were just a bit pissed in the Wardroom and happened apon a couple of GQ journalists, who promised oh so sincerely that 'whatever you tell us (journalists), is in the strictest confidence'. I can just picture the scene now:
"so about those crabs, bunch of tossers eh son"
"thats true sir, my daddy is a war hero you know, my friend here says he likes girls"
"er yes, anyway, tell me about how that amraam thingy works, 'nother gin son?"
"super"
"can I quote you on that?"
In all seriousness though, as I asked before, what was the point of the article from the Navy's view?
I'll add another question, do they think that it is worth it?
(yes yes I know its good crab banter, but I am asking a serious question).
Finally, do you navy chaps think that any of us really give a cr@p about how many aircraft you have shot down, the RAF is doing the job now, 'sausage side' Mr Ward and his friend will soon realise that all they will ever be is a support asset, I think the more important point is whether or not we should trust them?
JACKONICKO.....
I heard that your experience is limited to UAS/PPL. Is this correct?
I on the other hand am an RAF pilot with 3 A-levels who chose not to go to university as it just creates debt.
May I humbly suggest that UAS bashing is great sport for ANYONE, not just those "too thick to get in". Do you lump pilots like myself in that second category? Or do you regret your previous, idiotic assertion?
I on the other hand am an RAF pilot with 3 A-levels who chose not to go to university as it just creates debt.
May I humbly suggest that UAS bashing is great sport for ANYONE, not just those "too thick to get in". Do you lump pilots like myself in that second category? Or do you regret your previous, idiotic assertion?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best pi$$ing contest I've read on here for ages. So many wounded egos and so much invective under the guise of 'banter'.
The three greatest lies:
1. "I'll still love you in the morning."
2. "The cheque is in the post."
3. "Off the record? Of course it is."
The three greatest lies:
1. "I'll still love you in the morning."
2. "The cheque is in the post."
3. "Off the record? Of course it is."
DESPERATE
>Regret to inform you that I will not be publishing my logbook to prove my earlier claims. Couldn't give a cr@p if you believe me or not.
You are the man!
But I was just curious to find out, you know - more out of historical interest (and accuracy above all) than anything else -but what the f***. Of course you don't need to reveal stuff for the benefit of any f***ing spotter anyway -lo and behold if you ever do that.
>I believe that you missed my point entirely;
Don't flatter yourself.
>I was not for one minute claiming to be some super hero in light blue (indeed if that were the case, I am sure that you and all your spotter friends would have bought the book that I would have published, and help pay for my mortgage)
You specifically claimed to be more qualified than CDR Ward + LT Ward put together. We do know where the RAF deployed after the Falklands, around the globe. So what point did you make? I guess like an ex USN frog (with THREE combat tours in the jungles of SE Asia between 1967-1974) used to say: here's another case of a "self-imporant a$$hole" right here.
And I am not a spotter either (I told you not to flatter yourself)...and I certainly wouldn't give a flying f*** what's in your logbook (or not).
>If I remember correctly, the last time that the FAA released weapons in anger, the poor dude was on the receiving end of a Serb missile, 0 for 1. Read that book pal.
I've read that book and I, also, couldn't care less if the FAA was as amateurish as any plane spotter group but...what a cheap attempt against them. At least the dude (LT Richardson) was indeed in the line of fire...You are becoming worse than Lts T and W (if I assume it was their mistake in the first place).
>Regret to inform you that I will not be publishing my logbook to prove my earlier claims. Couldn't give a cr@p if you believe me or not.
You are the man!
But I was just curious to find out, you know - more out of historical interest (and accuracy above all) than anything else -but what the f***. Of course you don't need to reveal stuff for the benefit of any f***ing spotter anyway -lo and behold if you ever do that.
>I believe that you missed my point entirely;
Don't flatter yourself.
>I was not for one minute claiming to be some super hero in light blue (indeed if that were the case, I am sure that you and all your spotter friends would have bought the book that I would have published, and help pay for my mortgage)
You specifically claimed to be more qualified than CDR Ward + LT Ward put together. We do know where the RAF deployed after the Falklands, around the globe. So what point did you make? I guess like an ex USN frog (with THREE combat tours in the jungles of SE Asia between 1967-1974) used to say: here's another case of a "self-imporant a$$hole" right here.
And I am not a spotter either (I told you not to flatter yourself)...and I certainly wouldn't give a flying f*** what's in your logbook (or not).
>If I remember correctly, the last time that the FAA released weapons in anger, the poor dude was on the receiving end of a Serb missile, 0 for 1. Read that book pal.
I've read that book and I, also, couldn't care less if the FAA was as amateurish as any plane spotter group but...what a cheap attempt against them. At least the dude (LT Richardson) was indeed in the line of fire...You are becoming worse than Lts T and W (if I assume it was their mistake in the first place).
This nonsense is just about reaching the PPRuNe PLE!
There has always been reasonably healthy banter between the FAA and RAF FW worlds, particularly in the days when the RN had real aircraft carriers. Each respected the other, but equally would tease them at the slightest opportunity..."It takes skill to land a Vixen on Victorious" was countered by "It takes intelligence not to need to". The FAA probably had more time for the RAF than they did for the non-aviation branches of the RN, in fact.....
The FW FAA has peformed extremely well in recent conflicts, given the silly little boats from which they're forced to operate. However, that's more because dim-witted politicians abandoned an 'East-of-Suez' capability years ago and reduced both the capabilities and deployed bases for RAF FW aircraft to the UK and a few bases in Germany. So if a surge deployment is suddenly needed to go and protect Toady Bliar's diamonds, there's no real option but to send HMS Indescribable, Indecipherable or whatever with a few bona-jets as first option. Then, when suitable concrete has been identified, off go the RAF FW elements (apart from the bona-jets which went by boat).
There are also, I understand, horrid clattering things built by garage door manufacturers. Best left to the dung-eaters (unless being mothballed) or to the specialist RN applications.
There has always been reasonably healthy banter between the FAA and RAF FW worlds, particularly in the days when the RN had real aircraft carriers. Each respected the other, but equally would tease them at the slightest opportunity..."It takes skill to land a Vixen on Victorious" was countered by "It takes intelligence not to need to". The FAA probably had more time for the RAF than they did for the non-aviation branches of the RN, in fact.....
The FW FAA has peformed extremely well in recent conflicts, given the silly little boats from which they're forced to operate. However, that's more because dim-witted politicians abandoned an 'East-of-Suez' capability years ago and reduced both the capabilities and deployed bases for RAF FW aircraft to the UK and a few bases in Germany. So if a surge deployment is suddenly needed to go and protect Toady Bliar's diamonds, there's no real option but to send HMS Indescribable, Indecipherable or whatever with a few bona-jets as first option. Then, when suitable concrete has been identified, off go the RAF FW elements (apart from the bona-jets which went by boat).
There are also, I understand, horrid clattering things built by garage door manufacturers. Best left to the dung-eaters (unless being mothballed) or to the specialist RN applications.
But BEagle, isn't the thing that makes the CVS concept work the Sea Harrier?
Also the Sea Harrier dropped bombs in Bosnia in 1995 (over a year after one of them got splashed by a SAM). Not sure if they released any weapons over Kosovo
Not all WAFUs see themselves as seperate from the rest of the Navy, in his book Cdr Sharky Ward reserves the term "Fisheads" for Seaman Officers (other branches are exempt, supposedly) and Pilots and Observers often command ships later in their careers, including a couple of Sea Harrier drivers who have become frigate captains.
Also the Sea Harrier dropped bombs in Bosnia in 1995 (over a year after one of them got splashed by a SAM). Not sure if they released any weapons over Kosovo
Not all WAFUs see themselves as seperate from the rest of the Navy, in his book Cdr Sharky Ward reserves the term "Fisheads" for Seaman Officers (other branches are exempt, supposedly) and Pilots and Observers often command ships later in their careers, including a couple of Sea Harrier drivers who have become frigate captains.
Training Risky,
I don't regret my "previous, idiotic assertion" about non-UAS chaps being 'too thick for Uni'. There's no such thing now, is there? Can't anyone get in these days?
Not going to Uni can be a great choice and the right choice, but I was doing my darnedest to stoop to the level of idiocy demonstrated by that fish-headed nerk 22/7 in his assertion that UAS people were all: "universally hated by the full time mess members of their Officers' Mess for three years".
Looks like I succeeded.
I do however apologise if I caused YOU offence.
I don't regret my "previous, idiotic assertion" about non-UAS chaps being 'too thick for Uni'. There's no such thing now, is there? Can't anyone get in these days?
Not going to Uni can be a great choice and the right choice, but I was doing my darnedest to stoop to the level of idiocy demonstrated by that fish-headed nerk 22/7 in his assertion that UAS people were all: "universally hated by the full time mess members of their Officers' Mess for three years".
Looks like I succeeded.
I do however apologise if I caused YOU offence.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Royal Navy is the best fighting force the Earth, indeed the entire Universe, has ever and will ever see and to anyone whose post/s do not concord anything but absolute and unconditional belief in this statement, and to anyone who intends to post a reply disagreeing with any part of this statement; I have a simple, patently clear and final reply- I am right, and you . . .are wrong.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Landed or transitioned or whatever you do when you're dunhovrin ..........
Thought Seaman Stains was in Captain Pugwash's crew? Along with Roger the Cabin Boy. As they were pirates I dont think either of them ever served in the Navy so your last post was incorrect.
Put a fair wind behind the oggin dust m'hearty!
Oggin
Thought Seaman Stains was in Captain Pugwash's crew? Along with Roger the Cabin Boy. As they were pirates I dont think either of them ever served in the Navy so your last post was incorrect.
Put a fair wind behind the oggin dust m'hearty!
Oggin
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Mental" and "slightly more stable". SUAS finest if Im not mistaken. A bigger pair of arrogant little cocknockers I have never met.
Last edited by The Brown Bottle; 25th Nov 2002 at 20:25.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T B B,
What a shame that you chose to insult them personally on open forum! They are both essentially good guys, if misguided and a little juvenile. I am certain they will be regretting their little outburst, but what young jockey in similar circumstances wouldn't take the chance to overload the banter in print?
This will bite them on the arse for a long time to come around the bazaars - punishment enough probably.
They could always visit the thread, of course, and come clean???
What a shame that you chose to insult them personally on open forum! They are both essentially good guys, if misguided and a little juvenile. I am certain they will be regretting their little outburst, but what young jockey in similar circumstances wouldn't take the chance to overload the banter in print?
This will bite them on the arse for a long time to come around the bazaars - punishment enough probably.
They could always visit the thread, of course, and come clean???
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrrr, I got their names from this thread. However I concede Im probably out of order and thus apologise to the previously mentioned officers. That said they were a pair of arrogant etc.etc. They've hopefully calmed down since uni.
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, and I thought heli-vs-fixed brought out the worst in
pilots...
For the record, my idiot son buys GQ and its ilk, so I
don't think that anyone with an opinion that matters
on merits of RN/RAF/FAA will admit to having seen the
article in question.
-- Andrew
pilots...
For the record, my idiot son buys GQ and its ilk, so I
don't think that anyone with an opinion that matters
on merits of RN/RAF/FAA will admit to having seen the
article in question.
-- Andrew
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
The only the CVS did during Op ALLIED FORCE was get in the way of the other assets! It was deployed after buckets of pressure from CINCFLEET, and pretty much floated around the Southern Adriatic, with the SHARs protecting the 'Group' (if you can call it that) from an utterly negligible air threat. IMHO it was deployed only for the RN to show what a useful asset a carrier could be. It was eventually ordered out of the JOA, much to FLEET's chagrin....
What other point could there be for putting the CVS there - and all of the bring-back/restricted sortie length problems etc - when we were already using Gioia Del Colle successfully? If the Coalition needed the SHARs (which is highly debatable considering all the other AMRAAM-shooters which were already there) then why not base them on-shore?
Please don't try to tell me that it was due to lack of ramp space, there were other Italian air bases that could have been used.
Pointless, utterly pointless.
CV
The only the CVS did during Op ALLIED FORCE was get in the way of the other assets! It was deployed after buckets of pressure from CINCFLEET, and pretty much floated around the Southern Adriatic, with the SHARs protecting the 'Group' (if you can call it that) from an utterly negligible air threat. IMHO it was deployed only for the RN to show what a useful asset a carrier could be. It was eventually ordered out of the JOA, much to FLEET's chagrin....
What other point could there be for putting the CVS there - and all of the bring-back/restricted sortie length problems etc - when we were already using Gioia Del Colle successfully? If the Coalition needed the SHARs (which is highly debatable considering all the other AMRAAM-shooters which were already there) then why not base them on-shore?
Please don't try to tell me that it was due to lack of ramp space, there were other Italian air bases that could have been used.
Pointless, utterly pointless.
CV