Stacker,

My quote:

That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.

Sorry, not complete cods, in my view. I've encountered it many times in many circles, over a number of years.

Fair point about 'Army' helicopters in the province, I accept.

My point is that the position of the RAF as the UK's majority operator of military aircraft is not, and has never been, in serious doubt since 1918. Which makes the current subject of this thread all the more relevant. No one 'picked a fight' with CAS on ownership of military aircraft - he picked this one all by himself. Bizarre.

Best regards as ever

Engines

Engines,

Couldn't agree more that most people seem to think that all aircraft are operated by the RAF. I remember once being stood in front of a Lynx (with ROYAL NAVY in big white letters on the tail) at RNAS Yeovilton on Air Day when a member of the public asked me what life was like in the RAF!:ugh:

Strange as it may seem Jucky I and no doubt many more personnel who have served/are serving in the RAF can give you examples of the general populace mistaking them for Army personnel.

In one instance whilst at a town show I was asked how long I had been in the Army and even though admittedly I was in DPM clothing it had displayed upon it a large 'ROYAL AIR FORCE' badge, I was wearing an RAF blue/grey beret with RAF cap badge and was stood in front of a huge RAF careers stand, handing out RAF careers gizits.

Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex?

"Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex?"

THS

You try to mock us for being silly, but do you deny that the CAS has made a move to kill us off recently with his "one nation one airforce" crap?
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?

If you deny either you are a tit, and if you accept these to be the case then you must accept that our "paranoia" is perfectly reasonable.

The answer is an element of both. Firstly lets address public stupidity/ignorance.
Most of the work the RN does is out at sea over the horizon beyond the view of the public. It is fairly unglamorous work but essential none the less, but doesn't make any headlines unless the matelots have been taking drugs or fighting and wrecking the local town or getting captured by Iranians etc.
We now only have three main naval bases and two air stations (most of which are biased to the South and West of England) and unless you live near these you won't have much exposure to the RN. The RN has always been historically poor at PR and has only just woken up to this fact in the past few years. AFAIK the only Media Ops people we have are RNR or Civvy contractors.

Secondly, there is something much deeper that drives the RN persecution complex.
Historically when the RAF took control of aviation from the Admiralty, it wasn't long before maritime aviation was neglected and the Admiralty had no control over it. They then introduced the title of the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF in 1924 in an effort to re-establish some control over maritime aviation, however with the war looming the Admiralty took control of the Naval Air Branch in 1937 later to be renamed the Fleet Air Arm. Then later the 60's and 70's after the cancellation of CVA-01, the carriers and along with it FW aviation. We were lucky to be able to retain some FW capability with Sea Harrier.

So as you can see we have historical reasons to be worried about the early withdrawal of Harrier. I really don't believe that the RAF would be interested in looking after maritime aviation if the FAA no longer operated FW. There are a lot of other issues already touched on in terms of experience and force regeneration if we had a gap in FW activity between Harrier and Dave B.

The real answer is that we need the FAA, AAC and RAF as we all have specialist knowledge in different fields that we bring to the party. If the FAA or AAC were consumed by the RAF I feel that that RN and Army would not get the specialist services that the FAA and AAC provide their parent services. Disbanding the RAF would not work either as by the same token those at the top of the RN and Army who are not aviators don't really understand aviation and how to utilise it properly. Therefore the Government need to stop f**king around and start funding us properly if they want UK PLC to remain on the world stage as a major player, or we drastically reduce in size, become a small defence force capable of policing our own borders and not much else.
The Defence Chiefs also need to stop fighting each other, grow some balls and stand up to Comrade Brown and his cronies and demand the kit we need instead of tearing each other apart over the scraps (which I suspect the certain members of the Government just love).
The last time I checked I was British, as are most of you on the forum. I signed up to fight for Queen and Country (as well as to fly some great hardware) as I am sure most of you did. That means fighting alongside my brethren in the RN/RM, Army and RAF to protect the interests of the UK.

Tourist - You have just shown the parinoia I speak of in that last post and whilst you are not the Royal Navy at large your view is one I have heard from many within the senior service.

Far be it for a humble ex-stacker to question this but would you concede that there may have been a little more to the cancellation of CVA-01 than just a little bit of geographic licence? How about the newly-elected Labour government who realised that the UK was bankrupt and was trying to cancel as much as it could (which also included the P1154 and TSR2 as well as CVA-01)?

Stoking inter-service rivalries is a tried and tested tactic of the government in order to provide easy targets for cancellation as it seems that with the treasury where there is doubt there is no doubt. Unfortunately the Royal Navy plays straight into the government's hands everytime. Rather than plan for the future the RN is guilty of what many accuse the RAF of with Typhoon, planning for a war that has already passed.

Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset.

Cue someone mentioning carriers will be needed to fight a war that happened nearly 27 years ago?

All in my humble opinion of course.

Well has he resigned yet? Or as usual just the usual bluster and hot air!

THS.
"Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset."

That's why so many nations are currently either building carriers or getting the ones they have servicable is it?:rolleyes:

Jucky - Since the RAF SHF (and RN CHF) was merged into the JHF and its budgeting passed to LAND its priority has been dropped and the Army for which they both provide a service to is consequently arguably getting a poorer service than it would have had SHF/CHF still been budgeted from their parent services.

Tourist - You obviously missed this bit then,

Paranoia
 

Just because you may be paranoid does not mean that there is no-one out to get you.

But paranoia is better than mononoia - in that case there is definitely one person out to get you, everyone else knows who it is but is not telling you.

Well THS, as one of the worlds 5 or 6 largest economies depending on who you ask, I think we qualify.

Having the funds and having a government willing to use those funds for certain ends are, I'm sure you are well aware, two completely different things.

Reference protecting carriers (and I am not necessarily a 'carrier basher'), I'm sure the following has already been posted somewhere on pprune...

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online

If you invest in carriers, and I'm noy saying you shouldn't, then you need to protect them properly. And for all the RN guys who come on here saying how difficult they are to sink, talk to your own submariners - they will tell you with total confidence that they believe a well crewed and commanded SSN or SSK can penetrate a screen and sink the carrier! So one part of your own organization (the RN) knows/believes they are vulnerable.

Wiretensioner

Simple answer - No. And I don't think he ever had any intention to - I even suspect the "threat" didn't even originate from his office - more MOD MB staff officer rumour mill, overheard in the Red Lion etc! But he may well win either way. My reasoning - I don't think there has ever been any intent to totally scrap the Harrier. IMHO the Harrier will be reduced in numbers with the FAA/RAF manning reduced accordingly. CNS will then be able to claim "victory" at seeing of the nasty Torpy bloke and his secret disband the FAA plan and thus be seen as a "hero" amongst his men, retire gracefully (Apr 09?), be elevated to the HofL etc etc.

If only some of the contibutors to this thread could get themselves into a position (or even join the military!) where they could influence such debates then life would be so much easier. And yes I have been in that position (for my sins) before anyone asks. And yes I am RAF but still believe a reduction in Harrier (given the creek the MOD are up with no paddles in sight) is the only way the carriers and carrier borne fixed wing aviation will survive the next few planning rounds. It is only going to get more brutal - if Tornado GR4 has survived because of its intending deployment to AFG it is only a stay of execution! And, again, I don't care what colour cloth the drivers are - as long as they are the best person for such a task.

I'd like to think it's all going to get get better in 2009 but I don't think reducing one op will do anything more than offer up more for the salami slicing machine. Happy New Year anyway!

Oh, it's the RAF's fault you drove into Norfolk Island a few years back. We obviously moved it when you weren't looking and didn't change the charts (not that anyone seemed to be reading them at the time).

minigun

That's right, because nobody in the RAF has ever fecked up and crashed because they were stupid eh?

Add up the cost of all the RAF a/c lost due to pilot error or negligence, and I assure you that it will be more money than the surface fleet have cost due to running aground.
..............then again, that probably goes for the FAA as well..:uhoh:


I can't believe I just defended the fisheads..........:ooh:

Tourist: You must defend the fishheads; solidarity and all that.

You'll be pleased to hear that Mrs Ex seems to think all helicopters should have RN painted on them. I wonder where she got that idea from...

Tourist

Given the RAF is a mere 90 and a bit years old, and as everyone keeps telling us the Navy is the Senior Service, I'm sure that a good spin doctor could (hopefully!) dispute that statement!:p

Maybe Tourist's 'assurance' should now be supported by the figures he must have had in order to make that post?!

THS

Indeed 'tis very strange... I'd have thought you were more likely to be mistaken for members of the RAC with that uniform :}

Mmmmmm, as opposed to flares, a tea towel round the shoulders and a kiss me quick hat?

MGD -

That uniform is for the oiks (:ok:), but yes - they never get confused for any other service in that rig.

It may seem like a silly rig, but it's because the RN has real history and tradition :}

The bell bottoms were designed to make it easier to roll up the trouser legs when swabbing down the decks, the tea towl was to stop the main uniform getting soiled by the tar used to tie back a sailors hair, the cap - I admit, who knows, but it's no worse than the RAF thunderbirds hat :}:}

Soddim

I will show you mine if you show me yours......

Get me the RAF statistics for pilot error or negligence (outside wartime to make it fair on you) for the last 90 yrs, plus approx cost per airframe and I will get the figures for the same period for warships lost or damaged. I will even assume that all warship accidents are human error rather than mechnical failure.
I will lay a £50 wager to charity of your choice that the RAF has cost more through avoidable accidents.

I would even make a gentlemans wager that the FAA has cost more than the surface fleet.

Care to take the wager?

This accusation appears to be one of the main influences for the modern navy's contempt for the RAF. However, the argument does not really stand-up to scrutiny.

Let's start by accepting the simplistic view that it was an either/or between carriers and a long-range land-based strike force, which by then was going to be the F-111K. The view that the carriers were cancelled because RAF lied about theoretical land-based air coverage of the Indian Ocean conveniently ignores the fact that the Wilson Government decided to withdraw from East of Suez, so any touted capabilities in that area were irrelevant. Moreover, despite the F-111K's continued relevance to a NATO-area only policy, it was still cancelled on cost grounds a year or so later. I cannot see any way that CVA-01 would have survived the withdrawal from East of Suez, even if the F-111 had been cancelled first.

The RAF lost it's hold on the strategic role when Skybolt was cancelled and the UK ordered Polaris. The air marshals of the 1960's had been brought up as practitioners of strategic bombing and the loss of this role together with the demise of TSR2 must have been a bitter blow for them. Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature.

Tourist - you were the person who posted the assurance - how could you make such a statement if you had no access to the figures?

I am certainly not going to even try to bail you out of the position you are now in - come on, give us the facts that led to you posting your assurance.

I have not argued with your point - you might be right - but I want to see the figures from which you were prepared to assure everybody that you were right.

You did not make a wager - you assured everybody, so put up or shut up.

Soddim

Just think of the fun you can have if I am wrong...

There are many things in this world that I know to be true without having the figures to hand, and would willingly stake my life on them.

I assure you that I cannot jump as high as the worst pro basketball player, even though I have never measured my jump, nor know how high they jump.

I assure you that the average helicopter pilot spends more time in the hover than a harrier pilot, but I don't know the figures.

Do you honestly believe that it is necessary for me to prove either statement for them to be reasonable?

You should either accept that my original assurance re RAF costs due to pilot error/negligence is a reasonable statement, or zip up your man suit and take the wager............




.............wet pants:ok:

Brain Potter

"Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature."

I am almost speechless.
You seem to consider lying to the government about military capability solely to win an argument against the RN a perfectly acceptable action. As far as I am concerned, bickering between services is perfectly justified as long as you truly believe that your service can offer the best results. To knowingly mislead about abilities, and thus lose a capability to operate in an area is tantamount to treason in my eyes.

I will gladly remain immature and honourable, and hope our staff officers never start doing "enough work":mad:

Tourist - you're simply not going to turn this one around without justifying the assurance you gave.

I say again - put up or shut up.

Wow,

all this fom an innocent jibe about Norfolk Island and the RN. In the spirit of New Year, why don't you both take the moral high ground and just agree to disagree?

...before this thread finds itself consigned to Jet Blast :eek:

Oh, and by the way, a Happy & Prosperous New Year to all Ppruners :ok:

There's no argument from me - I simply want Tourist to justify his 'assurance'.

A man of integrity would not post an assurance he was unable to substantiate.

The point he makes might be right but without producing the figures he appears to be unable to give his assurance.

So, has he resigned then?

Tourist,

Every military equipment project, indeed probably every government project, involves a certain amount of manipulation of facts to suit a particular viewpoint. If you are so naive that a revelation of such "staffing" techniques leaves you speechless then it is fortuitous that you don't work in procurement because you would be mute.

Moving Australia was a fairly underhand tactic, but you seem determined to focus on that particular "outrage" in the face of all the other reasons that the RN carriers were cancelled. Primarily, the UK was almost broke and the Govt had decided to withdraw from the post-colonial responsibilities East of Suez to concentrate on the very real threat from the Soviet Union in NW Europe and the North Atlantic. In the years preceding that particular White Paper the Navy, in the shape of Mountbatten, made strong assertions about minimum ship size and numbers in pursuit of a replacement carrier fleet. In effect they priced themselves out of the market with their own ambitions, which in-turn encouraged a poverty-stricken HMG to seek other solutions until finally facing facts and deciding to withdraw from a global role. Once that decision was made HMG knew that bases such as Gan would disappear, and arguments about theoretical air coverage of the region were irrelevant.

You say:

but you are missing the fundamental point. The government made a conscious decision to cease operating in that area. That saved them the expense of maintaining bases, personnel and equipment (including carriers) required for such operations. Withdrawal from East of Suez did not take place because of an inability to provide air cover, it was a political decision mainly motivated by financial constraints. The RAF also lost a tremendous amount of capability as a consequence, including about half the transport fleet.

All three services exist to execute whatever policies the government decides to pursue. From the late-sixties through to the end of the cold war UK forces were deliberately configured to fight in the NATO area. The surface Navy's role became ASW in the G-I-UK gap and thus a strike carrier force was not needed. History seems to suggest that the primacy of the small-ship rankles within certain circles in the Navy who regard it as less prestigious. It seems to suit those with such a viewpoint to perpetuate the myth that the RAF engineered the demise of the carrier force, rather than to accept that the nation's defence posture as laid down by the government did not require such vessels.

Still, it is easier to maintain a sense of outrage at "The RAF" than at the dead or forgotten politicians of the Wilson government.

Back to the thread title...has he resigned yet? Thought not.....:hmm:

Kandahar Runway
 

What a load of rubbish about Kandahar runway being too short - too short for what?

In the mid 90s we used to regularly fly both a G-III & a G-IV into Kandahar taking Gulf state VIPs there to hunt houbara.

At cruise height and approaching the Pakistan airspace boundary we called Kandahar ATC on HF. The sole ATC person immediately replied on a car battery driven HF set ... "cleared to land".

Some 20-30 minutes or so later having descended we scouted the area for the resident Migs - do it yourself ATC - then landed on the 6,000 feet or longer runway. (Memory fades and no Jeppeson to hand.)

The Afghani English speaking ATC chap was always very helpful and operated from the semi derelict tower close to the sometime beautiful air terminal. The arching building had perhaps 90% of the windows broken or missing and no passenger traffic.
Occasionally the resident Mig pilots came to see our aircraft and showed great interest in the G-IV glass cockpit. Plenty of common aviation gesticulations were observed and made but language was a major problem. Coffee and a few cakes & sandwiches from our hosties ensured that all were happy!

The Afghan Migs regularly flew in and out OK and enjoyed flying low over our parked aircraft. There were battle wrecked Russian 4 jets all over the airfield, some within yards of the taxiways, but the airfield was quite useable.
However, on one departure we saw several men who had been painting the white centre line markings move off the runway as they heard and saw us taxying. On the take off roll at 120 kts or so we came across paint buckets and planks left on the runway in the ready to paint positions ... a little shift to the left half width of the runway and we were on our way to Quetta to pick up fuel and some pax. (A 'pairs' take-off without the other aircraft.)

PS 2008 - Google now lists and shows runway as 05/23 10,500' x 148' asphalt and at 3,317' amsl

At last, Brain Potter finally brings some intelligence to what is possibly the most puerile thread I’ve ever read. I don’t know what is sadder. The hoop that is being posted here or the fact that some grown men had nothing better to do on Christmas Day than to add to it! Unbelievable.

Tourist, Bismark and Gullwings in particular have demonstrated quite breathtaking levels of hypocrisy by posting biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate information; the very failings they so vociferously accused other posters of. Indeed, I’m beginning to suspect that one of you is Lewis Page!

May I suggest that you at least have the courtesy to research your subjects correctly prior to posting. If you cannot remain objective in a debate, you add nothing to it.

BP has hit the nail on the head with his post regarding the usual ‘the nasty Crabs moved Australia/Diego Garcia/Gan* 50/100/200* miles to undermine CVA-01’ claim.

To further his comments, this urban myth has been subjected to a fair degree of academic scrutiny of which I believe at least one contributor to PPRUNE has been privy to. As with the Hansard verbatim records of contemporary official debates, the CVA-01 saga was well documented and is available for public scrutiny. Interestingly, nowhere in the official documentation of the period is there recorded any suggestion that the RAF moved land masses to undermine CVA-01. Nor, to my knowledge have any of the RN personnel involved in the debate at the time ever made similar claims.

In fairness, I suspect that TSR2/F-111K* performance data for the aircraft was manipulated by both sides to add weight to their arguments. I suspect that therein lays the genesis to this particular conspiracy theory as factors such as ambient temp, payload, cruise speed and sortie profiles can easily impact upon stated range figures by hundreds of miles.

What has been acknowledged by numerous sources (including Baron Healey’s autobiography) however is that there were other factors in the demise of CVA-01 which far overshadowed any nefarious intentions my own Service may have had. Moreover, I would suggest that the RN itself was the chief (naval?) architect regarding the demise of CVA-01.

As intimated by BP, the Wilson Government had correctly identified that the UK was unable to support its existing overseas commitments. Accordingly they sought to withdraw ‘East of Suez’ and focus upon NATO. Whilst carrier based air power was (and in my opinion remains) not at variance to such a Eurocentric policy, the RN showed little flexibility in negotiations regarding CVA-01 (and the associated Type 82 DDG) requirements. This intransigence alienated Healey as well as the Treasury. The Senior Service’s position was further weakened by poor staffing resulting in unconvincing and flawed arguments for fixed wing carriers.

During a similar period, the RN was manoeuvring to assume the nuclear deterrent in the form of Polaris. As with Trident and SSBN(F), this procurement involved enormous cost and inevitably eroded the wider capabilities of the RN, notably any hope of retaining an expansive fixed wing carrier fleet. Indeed, I would suggest that the procurement of Polaris was utterly disastrous for the Senior Service in the long term and was arguably the most significant reason for the demise of CVA-01.

Whilst I would certainly agree that the RAF and RN were engaged in mutually and exceptionally damaging inter-service politics during the 1960s let’s cut all the propaganda that it was one sided. Mountbatten (as CDS) and the RN argued vociferously against several major RAF projects at the time, notably TSR2 and HS681. Indeed, the then CDS personally intervened with an RAAF delegation to kill off Australia’s consideration of an export order for the former. This stance was ultimately crippling for the UK aerospace industry and it has never recovered.

Worryingly, when you look at the CVA-01 v F-111K tombstones, it is easy to see parallels with today. CVA-01/CVF. T82/T45. Polaris/Trident replacement. F-35/P1154RN and RAF. It all seems rather familiar. In addition, having heard several flag officers state that ‘I don’t care who flies the aircraft, as long as we get CVF’, I sometimes wonder if the wider RN care one jot for the FAA beyond it being a leverage to obtain some big carriers.

I sincerely hope that the Treasury do not succeed in the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics again. Regrettably, the bias of some posters on this thread only garners ammunition for the civil servants.

For my part, I hope that we do not adopt the Israeli practice where AF aircrew operate all manned aircraft, whether it be from land or sea.

XT668

I have my own thoughts and opinions on each of my sister services. However, I would never lower myself to publicly referring to one as a ‘farce’ and you would do well to remember the conditions which all 3 services are operating under at this time. Conditions which you will be unable to appreciate just as I am unable to appreciate the conditions you served under several decades ago. Posts such as yours are disrespectful to those members of my Service who have died on current operations and those who continue to place our lives on the line. Frankly, such comments do a disservice to your own former Service, many of whom operate alongside the RAF on current ops with mutual respect.

As a former Wessex aviator, you may be interested in viewing this and this link covering the evacuation of a mortally wounded soldier in Afghanistan by an RAF Chinook crew. If you still consider the RAF a farce after having viewed it then that is your prerogative. However, please have the good manners to keep such sentiments to yourself.

Google is your friend curvedsky. You may find that there has been a minor conflict which directly affected Afghanistan and Khandahar airfield between 1998 and 2005 when the GR7s first deployed.:ok:

Regards and best wishes for a safe 2009 to all.

MM

* Proponents of CVA-01 conspiracy theories should delete as appropriate and insert their favoured option.

Magic Mushroom

Which of all of my comments have apparently demonstrated such breathtaking levels of hypocrisy, are biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate?

The only reason why I started replying in this thread was simply because of the obvious need to counter some of the very RAF biased and ridiculously unfair statements that were being made about the other UK Forces by some people in this thread. It is important to highlight the other side of an argument in threads such as this one and I have tried to do that honestly based on personal experience and observations.

All of the services have important roles and it is very sad when some people try to put the RN/FAA and Army/AAC levels of training, capabilities, experience and roles down unfairly.

Hansard
 

MM, Unfortunately Hansard is not verbatim. The exact words can be changed by the recorders / editors in conjunction with the person who said what is being recorded.

http://education.niassembly.gov.uk/i...ial_Report.pdf has an explanation of how it works.