Falklands 25 Years - No RN Fixed Wing

#21
No, no no! I'm very aware the situation out here at present, but it is simply untrue to state that 800 have flown more sorties out here than anyone else. I am not knocking the good work that 800 put in out here, but statistics are often mis-interpreted and they have been in this case.

By the way, I'm not a crab or a fish-head. But please keep mis-quoting numbers that someone once told you if it makes your willy seem bigger. :grin:
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#22
hoverstop said:
No, no no! I'm very aware the situation out here at present, but it is simply untrue to state that 800 have flown more sorties out here than anyone else. I am not knocking the good work that 800 put in out here, but statistics are often mis-interpreted and they have been in this case.

By the way, I'm not a crab or a fish-head. But please keep mis-quoting numbers that someone once told you if it makes your willy seem bigger. :grin:
Believe me, I am sat here at my desk in JFH, the figures are in front of me! and I am not mis-interpreting them :wink:
 
#24
chieftiff said:
hoverstop said:
No, no no! I'm very aware the situation out here at present, but it is simply untrue to state that 800 have flown more sorties out here than anyone else. I am not knocking the good work that 800 put in out here, but statistics are often mis-interpreted and they have been in this case.

By the way, I'm not a crab or a fish-head. But please keep mis-quoting numbers that someone once told you if it makes your willy seem bigger. :grin:
Believe me, I am sat here at my desk in JFH, the figures are in front of me! and I am not mis-interpreting them :wink:
I think you forgot the line, 'stick that in your pipe and smoke it'. Isn't it funny that 'official figures' (AEMIS etc) are always 'mis-interpreted' when losing an argument?
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#25
hoverstop said:
Flown more sorties per month, or flown more sorties?
Flown more sorties, which is what RM2Phd said, I am aware their detachment was longer than the previous dets, I don't have the figure for ordnance for some reason that doesn't seem to be readily available. The current rate of flying in Afghanistan is becoming an issue for all the jets, I don't expect 1 Sqn's flying will be any less, or 800's when they return! :sad:
 
#26
The Naval Strike 'Wing' might have flown more sorties but they were there longer than the RAF Sqns and had more people and more aircraft in theatre than any RAF Sqn ever had before (not including current/future Dets - agreed CT)! :cool: The RAF Sqns have still flown more sorties/ ac than the RN, and don't forget they've been there since Sep 04. :lol: Anyway WAFUs never let the truth get in the way of a bit of crab-bashing! :smile:

The only sensible comment on this thread is the fact that being the busiest Sqn/Wing in the gan is hardly something to be pleased about! :cry:

As for a Sea Jet in the flypast, perhaps you could ask Culdrose to arrange a taxy past!

Why have a Sqn when you can have a Wing? :lol:
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#27
RAF_Eng said:
The Naval Strike 'Wing' might have flown more sorties but they were there longer than the RAF Sqns and had more people and more aircraft in theatre than any RAF Sqn ever has!
Oh dear, not another of the misinformed! when you get back to work on Monday and have a look at 1 Sqdn's stats for A/C and consequently personnel I will expect a retraction of that statement, I can't say why this is the case but your comments about the wing suggest you are current so you should know that I am correct, bearing in mind OPSEC. That Wing thing, what a load of bollox, embarrassing :oops: I expected to see some drips on here about it but the boys are obviously happy with it.................... not!
 
#29
I like most am up for a bit of inter-service banter but to be honest this ''crab bashing'' is going a little too far.I came back from Iraq in Novemeber last year and I have nothing but praise for the RAF fast jet crews.I worked with II Sqn GR4's from RAF Marham,the amopunt of support these guys provided to all forces on the ground was amazing.
They would come to to low level as soon as you asked them (the US by doctrane would not come below 3000 ft).So I for one am very grateful to the RAF.Ref Afgan well its role specific and there are a whole lot of factors to be taken into account before you just look at stats.

There is no doubt that what has happened to the FAA fast air is shocking, however SHAR is a very old airframe, money should of been made available to update it/replace it.Lets not forget that the RAF fast air crews are very very good and seem to get a bad press. The blame for this bad press lies with the tight fisted government and not the RAF.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#30
Deeps said:
I like most am up for a bit of inter-service banter but to be honest this ''crab bashing'' is going a little too far...............
I hope you aren't including me in that Deeps, I serve but to correct the misinformed! Remember I work for the RAF and some of them work for me. The ones who currently work for me are amongst the best, professional, knowledgable and skillful all fully aware of the big picture and striving to support it. I know exactly what the crabs are like, in general all good blokes trying to do the best job they can under the circumstances, same as the RN, and the same as the RN there are some not so good blokes with their own agenda, the Army is I suspect no different.

As well as the Governments financial "oversight" it is worth looking a little closer to home, I witness some of the most incredible "politically" driven decisions made by senior people of both services every day, if I were cynical I would say some of those decisions were made for cynical reasons. It is an unfortunate world in which we live where the Services are currently forced to compete for both finances and publicity, remember in the Armed Forces peoples' loyalty and sense of responsibility, whilst ultimately falling to their Country, often fall to their own service, I have seen a lot of that here, and it gets frustrating. It is also not helping the ethos of jointery!

Deeps said:
There is no doubt that what has happened to the FAA fast air is shocking, however SHAR is a very old airframe.........
Actually if you believe that then you are one of the hoodwinked, some of the FA2 airframes were younger than some of the GR7 airframes there wasn't much in it. It was the savings which could be made by not supporting two airframes and some politicians naive understanding of the difference between what a true multi-role aircraft can do compared to a strike aircraft which led to both the FA2's demise and our loss of a Fleet defence capability for what looks to be another 8-9 years yet, it was to say the least short sighted.
 
#31
Ref SHAR airframes, yes I have been hoodwinked by a chap that should know better (RAF GR7 pilot) .Also Chief tiff non of my points were aimed at you at all .I always stick up for the RAF and I always will. Having the US as our biggest friend in the world (bringing there A/C with that friendship) has crippled out outstanding RAF.I do have a problem with a lot of the ground based RAF due to there ignorance and the way they think there so much better than us pongoes.
 
#32
Chieftiff,

May I offer a slightly alternative perspective? However, before I do may I just say that, although I'm Crab aircrew, I'm a very strong advocate of carrier airpower, sincerely hope we get CVF, and believe that the demise of the SHAR was a major gamble, especially given how immature the JSF programme is.

Nevertheless, I would question a few of your points. Firstly, whilst the SHAR was theoretically a swing role asset, it was extremely limited in the air-ground role. A very limited payload and endurance, and specifically the inability to carry EPW/LGB and it's lack of a targeting pod meant it would be very difficult to employ it in this role. Whilst it could 'iron-bomb' very accurately, this would normally have to be in a dive profile to meet modern Collateral Damage Estimate (CDE) requirements. However, base altitude limitations and weather would often preclude this. Certainly, I would not describe the FA2 as a 'true multi-role aircraft' in the modern sense. Even back during the Bosnian NFZ, we would only use SHAR as a last resort against ground targets.

Similarly, whilst many FA2 airframes were very young, the design was based upon 1960's technology (albeit with some superb avionics and AMRAAM strapped to it). From your handle I suspect you're a technician so you're probably more qualified to speak than me on this particular aspect. However, I am informed by RN AEOs that the FA2 was very difficult to maintain in comparison to the GR7/9. Moreover, as a very small fleet, the FA2s maintenence costs were magnified further.

The real cost to the UK as you say is the HUGE gamble that we will not need an organic Naval AD capability before JCA arrives in 2015ish. Blue Vixen/AMRAAM was a superb combination although the FA2 again had many drawbacks in the AD role. I sincerely hope that the GR9 avionics upgrade will allow JTIDS/ASRAAM to be fitted. GR9, utilising the 'BVR-lite' capabilities of ASRAAM when in receipt of a SKASaC/AWACS or AAW JTIDS picture would close some of the gap left by the demise of the SHAR until JCA appears.

In reality, it's a shame both services didn't see the writing on the wall in the early 80's when the FRS1 upgrade and GR3 replacement programmes were being planned. We may at that stage have been able to develop a UK 'AV-8B+' with Blue Vixen at something like a realistic cost, certainly less than the combined procurement of the FA2 and GR5/7.

That said, I have heard at least one senior RN FA2/GR7 pilot say that binning the FA2 probably 'saved the FAA from a decade of irrelevance' (his words not mine). Whilst that is possibly an overstatement, what has passed has passed. At least JFH will enable mutual benefits to be accrued by both the FAA and RAF which should really bear fruit once JCA arrives (whether we get the B or C variant).

I think the RAF and RN have an excellent working relationship overall at nearly all levels. I hope that that continues.

Regards,
MM
 
#33
Oh, and one final thing (which may also get the thread back on topic!). It's a huge shame that one example of the most important aircraft of the Falklands Campaign could not be kept airworthy for the flypast. I hope they have one on static somewhere or taxi one of your deck handler school jets down the Mall!

Regards,
MM
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#34
M_M
You are (as usual) absolutely correct and your assessment of the FA2's demise has probably covered the whole subject accurately, nevertheless it was really a financial decision which gambled with Fleets' defence capability and in my opinion they lost! Whichever JCA variant we get it will not be in service until 2015 at the earliest which means our nice shiny carriers (if we ever get them) will probably be operating the GR9 for a while, even with ASRAAM (again if we get it) the GR9 will not have the defence capability we lost with the FA2.............. I suspect we will be operating our new carriers in fairly safe waterways (an impotent Carrier Expeditionary Capability?) until we again have an effective Fleet defence capability in the form of JCA, we will probably also then be retrofitting a mag/ lev catapult system as I can't see the GR9 needing it during that capability gap.

Nevertheless as you say it's all water under the bridge and we have to make do with what we have. As for the rest............... well we are on the same wavelength
 
#35
Also summed up in the Defence Select Committee's report on the Sea Harrier decommission:

'Our witnesses translated that declining focus on open-ocean air-defence into a reduced reliance on the particular capabilities of the Sea Harrier. Sir Jock told us that —

The carriers are about the projection of offensive power in which the Sea Harrier plays a very small part and a reducing part as the technology, in terms of offensive power, moves on. ...It is true of the carriers that we have now, as it will be of the carriers that we will have in 2012. That is the primary role. We have for a number of years now embarked GR7s, and we will be embarking GR9s, on carriers to carry out that role ... Why we have carriers in the first place ... is not to provide air defence for the Fleet; it is to provide projection of offensive power.[221]

More bluntly, Lord Bach added that—

the role of the Royal Navy carriers is not primarily now to defend the fleet, but it is in line with the expeditionary doctrine that underpins our defence policy, much more about the ability to project power at a distance. ... The Sea Harrier makes little contribution to this, frankly. The GR7 makes a much more substantial one and will make an even greater one when it is upgraded to the GR9'
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#36
RAF Eng,
I have until now refrained from pointing this out: you are an ass with little understanding and a fundamentally flawed viewpoint, you have taken two perfectly valid quotes (albeit gratuitously hacked to serve your purpose) and chosen to use them totally out of context!

The purpose of the Sea Harrier was never to defend the Fleet, who the hell do you think the Fleet are, when using the term Fleet in this context we are referring to the Carrier Battle Group, how can you operate GR9's from a sinking vessel! The purpose of the Sea Harrier was to extend the defensive capability of the group whilst also projecting power- Multi-role!! The GR9 is incapable of Fleet defence, even with ASRAAM it's ability is limited, but exactly why it is limited I don't think we should be discussing, it is! Bach's understanding of the situation is frankly idiotic, Carriers haven't been used to defend the Fleet since our last major Sea Battle, they proved their role of projecting airpower in the Falklands, that's old news. If you intend to start a battle of misquoted idiocy we can both play at that game, consider the context in which "Sir Jock" made this statement, he was fighting to justify the retirement of the Sea Harrier, there are plenty of Admirals and Senior Naval Officers who argued against it, do you want me to quote them to suit?

The point is whilst we do now have in the GR9 a better ability to bomb the nasty people it is risky to do so from a carrier, with the timelines as they currently stand that risky bit, we call it a "capability gap" is bigger than predicted when the decision was made. Our new CVS's will be kept nice and shiny and new, only to be floated out for the press to gaup at until JCA is brought into service. If not we risk watching them, and their contingent of very capable GR9's slowly sinking to the bottom of some nasty warm (or cold) Ocean (or Sea)
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#38
Yeh I know, it was probably over the top but I have had a bad day and the whole tone of his post was designed to cause friction so I thought I may as well oblige :lol:
 
#40
chieftiff said:
Yeh I know, it was probably over the top but I have had a bad day and the whole tone of his post was designed to cause friction so I thought I may as well oblige :lol:
Your getting old. In my day chief tiffs never had a bad day. Gave me a few though. We had a CREA one Bagsy Baker of waxed mustache fame. Used to give a bollocking to the first PO he met each day when he was feeling liverish (most days) A mate and I used to take it in turns (some of the younger POs were more than a little afraid o f him) to be on the receiving end. No problems though an hour later he was talking to you like an old mate. Wonder if he's still around. :smile:
 

Latest Threads

Top