Banter
 

Maybe they are too thick to be able to set one up ;-)

And to be honest the RAF out of all 4 (including RM here) has the most lack lustre uninspiring image on the web out of all of them. In fact the RNLI is better and more inspiring.

In theory you should be able to appeal to a vast broad range of interest even the none pointy end of things. But no you completely ignore everything but a load of pics of fast jets.

Look at the others and the full range of drills and skills are case booked and positively promoted as being full team members. Individual regiments/boats have interesting sites which appeal to be read even if you have just found them by accident.

So it may very well be that the other services officers are more web site rated mainly because they have had to do it and got their backsides booted when its crap.

Or maybe they are too intelligent to worry about some ill-informed diatribe from some long retired seamen who know nothing about air power ;)

Could be that as well mind ;-)

As someone who served in neither it just comes across as a virtual online game of soggy biscuit.

Makes both services look like a pair of cnuts.

Did anyone else notice that the OP article, purporting to be written by two retired RN officers, refers to: Sir Trenchard and Sir Kennedy.
I can't believe they would misuse the title as printed.

The RAF website? Top marks for irrelevance mad jock. I can't really see how the RAF look like 'cnuts' when they're just the subjects of abuse from these tawts.

When I have been asked to review an academic paper (before my much cherished retirement from such tedious duties) I would look first at the aim.

Exploration is not an aim. Finding something is the purpose.

The intent of this paper is to cause discord. Having watched Sharky Ward perform in a Royal Air Force officer's mess many years ago, on numerous occasions, I realised that what I had first assumed to be a comic routine was a genuine display of hatred for the Royal Air Force.

Sadly, in my professional life after leaving the Royal Air Force, I encountered a good many Royal Navy officers who seemed to share Sharky's obsessive and nasty attitudes.

Frankly, if VSOs in any service continue to allow bandwidth commensurate with Commander rank to those who spurt such dissonant drivel, joint service activities will continue to be challenging rather than synergistic.

Certainly, I never encountered any British Army or Royal Air Force officers who were quite so childish. Ignore them. They won't go away!

What is it with these retired RN officers spouting off all the time? - VSF

Inferiority complex! Should have worked harder at school etc... - PA

The concurrent thread entitled
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...red-entry.html , whilst admittedly not about officer entry, presents an interesting contrast....:suspect:

Jack

Jack

As PA pointed out on the other topic, I think you will find that the bar is not being lowered below a minimum. When you have very few slots for a large number of applicants you can afford to have a higher bar; when you have more slots available you lower the bar but only back to your minimum level (may not even be down to the minimum level). It's all in how you announce these things and what your actual meaning is.

Time to lighten the mood:

As has been noted earlier, the recent bashing of the light blue by retired officers of both the RN and the army seems to be a symptom of all the cuts to assets and personnel across the three services (I won't say defence cuts implying less spends, we've heard plenty about still having the IVth largest defence budget on the globe). They're an utter disgrace trying to make the case against any one service. This won't result in a substantial increase in spending on army and naval budgets even if the R.A.F. is abolished entirely with the other two given full latitude to decide just what items of air power they want for themselves, they'll get sweet FA as the treasury rubs its hands with glee.:ouch:

FB:)

What is that? The RAF website is carp? Try looking at the new sooper-dooper "private raf"* website. :ok:

* Air Tanker. Actually, it is full of carp as well.:oh:

OAP

Melchett01, enjoyed your post, :ok: but I'll point out that including the B-2 in this discussion is out of touch. Nobody has one except the USAF, and this bun fight is mostly RN and RAF. ;)

The failed decapitation strike in 2003 at long last burst the bubble that the USAF had inflated during 1991 Gulf War. Sad but true.

Its not coming of as desired highlights the key practical and doctrinal issue that USMC/USArmy Fire Support-Artillery folks and USAF/USN/USMC/USArmy air to ground folks were all concerned about: the sensor-to-shooter link. Added to that is the matter of actionable intelligence, a related but separate nut to crack that ties in to the Mansur strikes.

A pity they didn't get the bugger ... but at least the fantasies of the Air Power a outrance Mavens of the modern age (the Douhets of the 21st century) were exposed for being just what they were.

Be fair to the 2 authors. They make a very good point that the RAF lacks a SEAD capability. Freeing up some money from the RN budget would allow the UK to address this shortfall.

The more worried the Army and RN get, the more we will see this sort of posturing.

SDSR may turn out to be quite brutal

Er, Content

Was that ok?

Was that ok?

Yes thank you, Sats old fruit, I'm incredibly content with some of the "posturing" on this thread!:ok:

Jac