Sea Jet
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a need to distinguish between practice and training.
We tend to 'practice' existing procedures (SOPs) because we are comfortable with them - and we have the assets to simulate the right threats for them.
'Training' to fight a war is different and requires a realistic scenario (for both TTPs and operational/strategic decision chains). I spent some time trying to incorporate an asymmetric maritime threat into maritime scenarios but the response was 'how much can we save if we don't provide this type of threat?'
Q. Are COMAOs for practicing SOPs or training for war?
The bottom line is that humans are lazy by nature which leads to inertia. What we need is more momentum and less inertia. Unfortunately this means change - and we all hate to change (especially as we age i.e get more senior).
We tend to 'practice' existing procedures (SOPs) because we are comfortable with them - and we have the assets to simulate the right threats for them.
'Training' to fight a war is different and requires a realistic scenario (for both TTPs and operational/strategic decision chains). I spent some time trying to incorporate an asymmetric maritime threat into maritime scenarios but the response was 'how much can we save if we don't provide this type of threat?'
Q. Are COMAOs for practicing SOPs or training for war?
The bottom line is that humans are lazy by nature which leads to inertia. What we need is more momentum and less inertia. Unfortunately this means change - and we all hate to change (especially as we age i.e get more senior).
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may, as a civilian make a comment, it is that "heretics" in the military seem eventually to be proved correct, especially in the UK. I would be inclined to take more notice of his views than Mr Hoon MP, if only because he doesn't seem to be playing politics with this issue. Tomorrow, Mr Hoon could be filling another Cabinet position, where he would bring his "skills" to the Home Office or Education. WEBF appears to know what he is talking about. Given the choice of putting procurement decisions in WEBFs' or Mr Hoons' hands, I know whom I would chose.
maxy101,
"WEBF appears to know what he is talking about"
Do some research, then SEEK HELP.
"WEBF appears to know what he is talking about"
Do some research, then SEEK HELP.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Yes.
Blue Game was due to get a slating from the Norwegian press until they saw that the terrorist threat had been introduced.
But how many other exercisies are like BG04? In fact, will BG05 (Loyal Mariner) follow the same format as BG04? Already there has been a lot of man hours spent trying to avoid paying for the asymmetric threat.
Also WEBF - we use JSATO not because they provide a realistic threat but becasue we have always used JSATO and we don't want to put them out of business (and face bad press - and lose votes etc etc).
I believe that our entire training system needs to be revisited - if not for an overhaul then at least for an MOT.
Yes.
Blue Game was due to get a slating from the Norwegian press until they saw that the terrorist threat had been introduced.
But how many other exercisies are like BG04? In fact, will BG05 (Loyal Mariner) follow the same format as BG04? Already there has been a lot of man hours spent trying to avoid paying for the asymmetric threat.
Also WEBF - we use JSATO not because they provide a realistic threat but becasue we have always used JSATO and we don't want to put them out of business (and face bad press - and lose votes etc etc).
I believe that our entire training system needs to be revisited - if not for an overhaul then at least for an MOT.
Bag man,
You are talking out of your Bomber. JSATO do much more than just pretend to be missile platforms
Also, please get of your horse about your overgrown cows udder!
You are talking out of your Bomber. JSATO do much more than just pretend to be missile platforms
Also, please get of your horse about your overgrown cows udder!
Suspicion breeds confidence
I see the Indians are now fitting the Derby missile to their FRS51s and a pulse doppler radar, giving it an equivalent capability to the FA2s. No engine upgrades. I'm not at all convinced that this much hyped upgrade was ever needed. Sounds like a nice to have and an excuse for Strike Command to axe the Shar when it was told to get rid of a combat a/c type. The Shar could continue for another 6 years in its present form without any major money being spent on it. More new Liabour cr@p.
Here
Not to worry, we've still got an old bomber with short range missiles to defend the fleet, not to mention the Harrier GR9.
I was talking about it to some USN folks in Philadelphia over the weekend and they think we are stark raving mad to be losing not just a platform but a complete capability.
Here
Not to worry, we've still got an old bomber with short range missiles to defend the fleet, not to mention the Harrier GR9.
I was talking about it to some USN folks in Philadelphia over the weekend and they think we are stark raving mad to be losing not just a platform but a complete capability.
Last edited by Navaleye; 14th Mar 2005 at 16:45.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Well I can tell you what Adm Woodward thinks in the latest edition Warships IFR. Comments like
"Their will be blood on their hands."
and he goes on to berate the decision to cancel the Shar saying
"...and of course from 2006 until the first new aircraft carrier is in service, the UK's expeditionary force will lack an air defence capability. It will actually be less than that contrived against the Argentinians in 1982."
Government lies, and negligence run at the core of his well written article.
<edited to correct typo>
"Their will be blood on their hands."
and he goes on to berate the decision to cancel the Shar saying
"...and of course from 2006 until the first new aircraft carrier is in service, the UK's expeditionary force will lack an air defence capability. It will actually be less than that contrived against the Argentinians in 1982."
Government lies, and negligence run at the core of his well written article.
<edited to correct typo>
Last edited by Navaleye; 21st Mar 2005 at 17:04.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
I have to say that in recent issues the quality of this publication has gone downhill.
I have been disappointed in this as it used to be a good read.
Cheers
BHR
I have to say that in recent issues the quality of this publication has gone downhill.
I have been disappointed in this as it used to be a good read.
Cheers
BHR
Suspicion breeds confidence
BillHicksRules, To be fair, i would say that the last two issues have improved greatly. I stopped buying it a couple of years ago, but may start again.
On another thread it has been said that 899 NAS disbanded today. A terrible blow for the FAA.
On a different note, there are suggestions that the Aussies are considering operating some STOVL versions of the JSF from the new amphibious ships in the pipeline. See here.
Two questions:
1. Would they be operating them purely for ground attack, in support of a landing, or will they be capable of air defence as well?
2. If they were for air defence as well as ground attack, how come so many nations think they need organic air defence but our Government does not?
It is, as BEagle says, nothing short of criminal negligence.
On a different note, there are suggestions that the Aussies are considering operating some STOVL versions of the JSF from the new amphibious ships in the pipeline. See here.
Two questions:
1. Would they be operating them purely for ground attack, in support of a landing, or will they be capable of air defence as well?
2. If they were for air defence as well as ground attack, how come so many nations think they need organic air defence but our Government does not?
It is, as BEagle says, nothing short of criminal negligence.
WEBF,
Of course they are capable of air defence as well! The F-35 is primarily a strike asset but it will have a good BVR AD capability. No one has said that it will not be used as such by the UK, just that a calculated risk has been taken that an AD capability will not be required between then and now.
Of course they are capable of air defence as well! The F-35 is primarily a strike asset but it will have a good BVR AD capability. No one has said that it will not be used as such by the UK, just that a calculated risk has been taken that an AD capability will not be required between then and now.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Its good to see the RAN getting back into the carrier game again, albeit in a limited way. Expeditionary warfare requires that you take offensive and defensive capabilities with you. A fact lost on our Liabour govt. If I was in the service, I would not like anyone taking calculated risks with my life and of those I serve with. I agree with Pr00ne that the F35 will be very capable in the fighter role. The GR7/9 is almost useless by comparison.