RAF Unsuitable for Carrier Operations - Chris Bolton
 

http://linkis.com/********.com/Jzy6l

Well at least he doesn't bring up moving Australia on the map.

But it's not very purple is it?

Has saint Sharkey of Ward been given a crayon again?

Guff
 

I know nothing of the intricacies of carrier vs land-based operations. But I know how to read and analyse a scientific paper. By such criteria, this paper is tendentious guff.
I shall now crawl back into my hole.

Wow, I just love the sweeping generalisation about RAF aircrew lifestyle just sitting at home feet up working Mon-Fri 9-5.

The author could do with a visit to Odiham and Brize to get a dose of reality. I'm sure the Chinook Force would love never to embark again, I'm not sure if the marines would be happy with that though!

What a load of tosh.

Wow. This must be the most elaborate fishing for a bite ever written.

Scientific it is not, blinkered and bereft of substance it most certainly is.

' The pilot is responsible for the aircraft and it's crew'! Really. Yer learn something new...........
Some enlightening stuff about the sea being dangerous too!

And that carriers are different to airfields too?


'The carrier at sea represents an entirely different world to a shore-based airfield'

I remember reading 'Sea Harrier at War" and ended it by throwing it across the bedroom. Chips on both shoulders and an almost fanatical hate of the RAF. Does not warrant the oxygen of any attention. Nuff from me.

"Minister, by simply absorbing the FAA into the RAF the differences between the two services would be removed".

I wonder which peer group was paid to review that before publishing!

Don't worry too much. In any future 'peer' conflict Carriers (of all sides) will last about 48 hours. Remember the Battleships in WW2; well Carriers are the modern equivalent.

The article is from 2013. I'm pretty sure we all gnashed our teeth over it back then.

The man did an awful lot that he can be proud of many years ago but let's not give him the satisfaction once again of thinking we either believe anything he has to say or even give a sh1t about it.

BV

Bloody HELL - this is really the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE - 'Sharkey' resurrected from about 04 April 2011. Article was published at 'phoenix think tank' about then however the site has moved from original article URL to here:

The Phoenix Think Tank > Articles | Independent Naval & Maritime Thinking | A Platform for Naval and Maritime Authors. Click on 'CVF, F-35 and other carriers' to see article title: The Phoenix Think Tank > Articles > Alan Hensher > Defence of the Realm

But of course nothing there either. Regurgitating old old material is Shirley unwise. The 2011 date is known from a post about it on F-16.net at that time.

Here is a UK Parliament Submission Shark Attack submission post repeat from 03 Aug 2011: scroll down a lot to...

Annex A FLYING FROM OUR NEW CARRIERS—THE RN OR THE RAF ETHOS

http://www.publications.parliament.u...61/761vw39.htm

I thought I'd read it for a laugh. I got to this point and gave up (threw up?).

Me too, fascinating guff, out of interest how many fast jet deck qualified and current pilots does the Royal Navy actually have? It must be in single figures, which makes all this patronising verbiage even more unpalatable.

Isn't it strange how when they finally get themselves a new ship all this guff rises to the surface again, as said shades of Sharkey Ward.... At least with an airfield one hit and it doesn't sink.

Isn't it strange that some blogger resurrects some six years old Sharkey Ward post for what purpose? ClickBait. Now what person wants to harrumph about it all over again? What next?

The blogger resurrected Sharkey's work in response to the visit of CAS, with 1SL, to Rosyth on Friday.

...and then you started a thread, with a link, to complete the clickbait cycle.

Wonderful.

CLICK!

Recollect Army friend, upon my comment re RAF walking up hill, out in the sticks, in the rain, at night, remarking: "That's a curious place to go looking for an hotel!" ;)

Anyway, I thought this, from the report, was a particularly good example of sleight of hand which disingenuously compared apples with oranges.
Perhaps someone should tell him about tactical rotary, ASR, what Hercs do, maritime ops, close air support etc etc . . . .

Perhaps the report should also note that "the expectation of a would-be RAF officer is to only visit OASC once......"

Old news. Done to death. Sharkey had his moment in the sun (and we should be forever grateful of his leadership and service), but the caribbean sun now seems to have finished him off as a sensible commentator on military affairs. There was a time when I had more embarked time and Day/Night/NVG/CBRN DLs as a CH-47 pilot than an awful lot of my CHF friends - it's just the way the Op/Tasking cycle goes. The key thing is not the flying, it's the planning; the RAF need to accept that a CV is not a floating airfield, and the RN need to admit that landing on 65000 tons of steel isn't that hard if you "stop then land" in a modern VSTOL FW, Tilt Rotor or capable helicopter. The hard ship/TAG integration piece is where you need experts and where the more experienced FAA crews are essential - we need to ensure we continue to nurture and grow them. That CAS/1SL went to see QE together should be applauded, not used as the touch paper for another round of the p1ssing contest. And as for moving Australia? Well, if the RN had got their Staff Work right in the mid 60s it wouldn't have been an issue....economics and politics killed CVA-01, not the RAF.