Naval Scheming?
 

This appeared to me today Commons Submission

There doesn't seem to be much objectivity in it. If it's been posted before my apologies but it's definitely new to me.

Did Sharky write it for them?

According to the first line of the document, your answer is YES

Yes. Look at every Select Committee inquiry or similar where there might be a slight chance to bash the RAF and he’s in there with a variation on this submission. Indeed, if it’ll be the submission’s 10th anniversary appearance (although now minus the implication that the RAF Tornado chaps who died during Granby did so as the result of their own incompetence, which was how the first such stab at doing this read [in fairness, I don’t think he meant it to]).

Ah, the Bearded Bullsh!tter strikes again...

So Sharkey, just remind me on your b0110cks statement about the Sea-Going Jumping Bean again?

Iraq. Policing the no-fly zone.
Bosnia/Kosovo. Policing the no-fly zone

What is the difference compared to the F3 doing the same? Oh yes, no kills for the Shar too and also the F3 flew the OCA protection for the rescue package that went in to pick up the Shar pilot that got shot down over BH. He mentions 8 aircraft lost with the Tornado in Gulf War One and then fails to mention in the same list that a Shar was lost on DENY FLIGHT. Also he fails to mention that the Shar couldn’t land back on with its bomb load if it failed to drop (which it did) during the summer months. It either had to land at an airfield or ditch the bomb over the side before it landed on the through-deck cruiser.

The whole thing is utter garbage and the guy needs to go back to his care home...Nurse?...Nurse?...The Screens! :bored:

PS. There were 171 Tornado F3 and 228 Tornado GR1 - totally different to his figures too!

PPS. Also, no infrastructure costs at Yeovs for the Shar, which is another omission, the very visible Ski Jumps are a start as are the modifications to allow VTOL too. I am sure there would have been new engine facilities, hush houses, etc... There are so many holes in this paper, that it looks like a 10 year researched it!

Still, it's pretty hard to dismiss the large imbalance between investment in carrier capable and non-capable aviation.

Anyway, I think it's high time the RAF were closed down, and the assets (such as they are) absorbed into the FAA. It's been an interesting experiment but clearly it's run its course. A floating runway is a lot more useful than a runway in the wrong country, and it's kinda nuts that the RAF is allowed to deliberately buy aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy. Can't RAF pilots cope with bracing airs and sea sickness? I know they can't spot when snowmen have been built around concrete bollards.

(Tin hat on, ducking for cover behind the keyboard, fly swat at the ready :}).

Considering policy at the time was war in Europe and UK air defence it's positively worthless to buy overly large floating targets.

Ho Ho!

if I'm reading para 37 correctly it proposes having a QE and T45 permanently deployed 1300 miles from the UK to protect the country from ALCM?

Never heard the F3 called a Vehicle either.......a few other things maybe.

While not wishing to run down what the Harrier force did in Afganistan and Iraq, I don't think the GR4 force were slacking. 27mm, Brimstone, Paveway, Lightening and Raptor anyone?

msbbarratt
 

Why should anyone pay attention to your comments when you simply cannot make proper use of the English language..........

You are probably Russian, or Chinese, or even American............

"high time the RAF were closed down" - should be "was"........

" it's kinda nuts" - very American - certainly not English...........

"to deliberately buy" - split infinitive - not acceptable..........

"aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy" - what FAA aircraft does like getting its wheels soggy?.............

I shall build up the enthusiasm to respond to the important content of this thread after I have had a good night's sleep.

I'm not convinced that concrete runways can be moved out of harms way. Though these days I'm not sure what's more dangerous, a 1000lb bomb or a property developer. I know it's a lot harder to build a housing estate on an aircraft carrier...

No wonder the country is a mess if this is the standard of submissions that get through to the decision makers! I can't be bothered to Google the list of supporters but I trust there are no serving RN officers on it. Embarassing all round.

I like the way the author got all those officers from the Sea Cadets to support their case....

Sink one aircraft carrier no floating airfield, smash one land airfield plenty of other places to operate from.

I apologise for that utter bilge.

I'm an Oxfordshire lad, though possibly one of poor education and a terrible TV habit. Grew up in Abingdon, sniffing Jag engine fumes every time they ran one on the test stand.

"What FAA aircraft does like getting its wheels soggy?" Ones that can land on a wet deck...

Neddie Seagoon; re the defence of England."Build a full scale cardboard replica of England...
Anchor it off the coast of …. Then when the … have invaded it, we tow it out to sea - and pull the plug out."

The gist, with apologies, taken from 'The Goon Show', BBC radio, many years ago.
http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_s...ho_won_the_war"

Enter Bluebottle wearing doublet made from mum's old drawers;
Bluebottle, waits for audience applause... not a sausage; or strikes heroic pose, but trousers fall down and ruin effect. "Thinks...".
Little Jim; " He's fallen in the wah-taa! "

Para 37 is moderately intriguing (Russian bombers carrying lots of 1600 mile supersonic cruise missiles). They have omitted to mention that a long term 24/7 naval solution to that task would probably require 4* dedicated carriers, 4 T45s, and a lot of aircraft, all of which would probably cost more to run than buying a few more MRTTs and EJ200 spares. And I think they'd also struggle to find a patch of ocean to put them in that's up-threat and out of range of a NATO friendly airfield somewhere or other...

On the whole I think that naval aviation is a good thing; there are scenarios where a properly equipped floating runway is the best answer. However, naval aviation is not going to flourish if weak arguments like this are put forward.

* Just like there's 4 V boats - one on station, one in workup, one in the workshop, etc.

Ah....ye olde Sharkey Ward "Bring ye back ye Harrier" again.

He really has a chip on his shoulder doesn't he.
(Actually more like a whole sack of spuds)

Ttfn