Fleet Air Arm to go?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by NotmeChief, Dec 7, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It's 1918 all over again… Look how well the RAF providing the Fleets air assets worked out in the 20's and 30's.
  2. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    It would be alright as long as didn't need Crab air in bad weather, in the dark, out of hours (after 1630), to do something unusual or at the rush........
  3. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    Tis the season to leak planning round options, regardless of whether they are true or not! Expect a lot more of this over the next few weeks - its just a shame that most of the decisions are nowhere near being taken really!
  4. It may well be the silly season for ministerial leaks, but this isn't the first onslaught our alleged 'brothers in arms' have reportedly made recently.

    It's saddening to say that this dosn't surprise after Torpy in his annual oration to the RAF stated he believed the Crabs were as lean as they they could be and now they had to start building for the future. This was all reported whilst yours truely was operating out of a sandy place beginning with I, and I was utterly gobsmacked by the number of Crabs being put in harms way needlessly out there. Why do I say that, well, they had (have) hundreds of personnel there working there and have the grand total of ZERO A/C actually based there; 1 or 2 were FOB'ing, any others were flying in and out delivering or taking away- so why the huge numbers of Crabs, surely the RAF Regt dosen't need that much support does it? And having very recently returned from the other sandy place, I saw less of 'em but constantly heard of their attempts to make work for themselves with no thought of the problems they were causing the rest of us. Indeed an OpsO said to us he has enough of the w++kers, stating that whilst we're trying to fight a war they're building empires! Which I think sums them up quite well.

    If they have the manpower to start this sort of political infighting when we should all be pulling together then there's obviously far too many of them, and they should be culled.

    If they're that keen on making savings, they should offer the vast majority of the Fighter fleet, 'cos in their own words all the fighting will be taking place in AFG for the next 20 years- the T don't have any A/c so we don't need them- at least the Harriers can still move mud when req'd.
  5. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Love him or hate him Mark Lancaster has been asking some pretty deep and enquiring questions about the reasons for replacing Harrier with Tornado in Afghanistan, he is rightly concerned that the poison dwarf (if you've met the arrogant little toerag you know who I mean) is pulling off a political coup for the RAF rather than doing his job of supporting troops on the ground to his forces best ability:

    "If, however, the Tornado is pulled out of Iraq—it soon will be, hopefully—what exactly is it going to do? It will not be on operations, and it will not have an operational role. I am assured that the RAF is concerned that, all of a sudden, the Tornado fleet is beginning to look exposed. It believes that by ensuring that it has a role in Afghanistan, we can give the Tornado fleet and its future a degree of protection.

    If we are potentially accepting all the capability loss that I have explained, and coming up with arguments about harmony, simply because the RAF is concerned that it may take cuts to its Tornado fleet, that is outrageous. I shall not overplay my concerns, as I have limited experience of serving as a soldier in Afghanistan, but it is outrageous if we are prepared to take all the risks that I have outlined for that reason."

    Taken from here at 11am 19 Nov 2008: Hansard

    If half of what Mark Lancaster say's is correct and in context then someone should be strung up for putting our troops at risk to gain some form of a political one up. If you read the whole article be prepared to be outraged and saddened in equal measures; the inability of MoD to correctly answer simple questions is astounding.
  6. But Crabs dont like Flat Tops. They get seasick????? :w00t: :whew:
  7. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Back in 06 when I was out in Afghan they recced the strip at KAF and the support facilities for the Tonka force. One of the reasons they put forward was that the Harriers were needed back in the UK for Naval Strike generation and to give the airframes some TLC.

    I'm not a WAFU but it seems to me the Tornado even with its 27mm cannon and RAPTOR isn't as well suited to the CAS role that the Harrier is.

    As always I imagine politics and personal agendas will drive this forward more than common sense and military planning.
  8. What, is it secret like?
  9. Get rid of the Fleet Air Arm!!! Isn't about time we got rid of the RAF (the biggest bureaucracy in the country).
  10. I think the 90 year experiment should be drawn to a close. Conclusion, waste of time, effort and money!
  11. We (the fleet air arm) have lost this argument.
    1 No fixed wing aircraft.
    2 Very few expensive dud Merlins.
    3 No cat & trap carriers.
    4 No experienced mechanics.
    5 No experienced flight deck crews (chockheads)
    6 Only two airfields.
    7 No fighter, AEW, ECM, tank, transport aircraft.
    Just a few basic facts, in other words we have to build a new air force from scratch. In todays financial situation I can not see any government finding the money to build a new component part of the navy. I remember we had this circus in the sixties, same liebor government, but then we had a decent air force, good cabs, Buccaneer, Vixen, tank Scimiters, Gannets, Skyraiders, Wessex, quite a few carriers and lots of aerodromes and well trained personel, the pilots were obnoxious but good at thier job, in fact the best, and we still lost the case and the FAA as we knew it. We still had quite a few aviator admirals around at that time and I remember well Percy Gick and some old duffer crab air marshall arguing on TV like public school boys but we still lost, also would modern youth want to spend a life at sea, maintaining aircraft at sea is not easy for lots of reasons, and anyone that has been on a british warship knows that there is more segregation than any colonial country imposing apartheid. Not excactly the best of working conditions. A drinking friend of mine a killick AE had recently done a front line tour on Scimitars, he said to me "if I get another Scimitar front linner i'm off," he did and he went, never found out what became of him, pity, nice chap.
  12. Well said.

    I remember once on SAROPs the crabs cried "crew duty" time. (8 hours flying). My Observer came up on HF and called, "Navies here, we'll take the job, only been airborne eleven hours, just warming up!!!)

    Shut the crabs up. :thumright:

    On a serious note, the merging of the RAF and FAA has been on the cards since I left in 92. That or calling the FAA - Coastal Command. :threaten:
  13. "Navies here, we'll take the job,
    Was your obs Irish.
  14. Could have been :thumright: But also a F****king good egg and Waffu as well oppo :salut:
  15. Scouse baby, I don't get your drift. I was making a pun about Waspie's observer who said "navies here" relating to strong arm Irish people who built Englands railways. Did you know his obs?
  16. The RAAF did the same thing to the RAN FAA back in the early 80s. Taking advantage of a change in government and the Falklands conflict, they persuaded the powers that be that a new carrier and fixed wing aircraft were unnecessary and that they could provide all the fixed wing needs of the ADF.

    Our only remaining carrier was scrapped, the A4s flogged to the Kiwis at a knockdown price, the S2s left to fall apart slowly exposed to the weather in a forgotten corner of NAS Nowra and the Birdies all but disappeared, many to the RAAF. Then, to add insult to injury, it turned out the Crabs couldn't provide for the Navys requirements after all, so the A4s were leased back from the Kiwis at some significant expense!

    I hope you lot fare better than we did!
  17. The RAN's two new carriers may have crabs in her?

    Hang on the OZcrabs dont have helicopters do they? :dwarf:
  18. Just had a butchers in my dictionary, 'navvy' as in worker has 2 v's. Maybe I should have said 'navy's!!!! my mistook!! :thumright:
  19. I think that the RAF still have loads of completely pointlesss f*cking jobs. E.g. firefighter, enviromental technician, chemist? The army and RN seem to be able to manage without these pointless jobs, so why not RAF? The only RAF perosnnel who do a decent job are the aircrew, (both NC and commissioned). The rest of them seem to live on another planet tbh.

Share This Page