Air Force is utterly, utterly useless

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#2
It would be easy to pile in with jibes at the Crabs, but as we're completely lacking in context here, it probably wouldn't be fair. Can't tell whether he's talking about OAS, SH or what. More info needed.
 
#4
HERE


Leaked emails from a British serving officer in Afghanistan have revealed more of the armed forces' concerns about the fight against the Taliban.

The three emails - seen by Sky News - say some RAF pilots have been "utterly, utterly useless" in supporting troops on the ground.

They add more manpower is desperately needed along with extra helicopters for the mission to be successful.

The emails were written by an unnamed middle-ranking officer with 3 Para in the Sangin area of Northern Helmand.

Two refer to the death in combat of a colleague, Corporal Bryan Budd, and the soldiers' efforts to rescue him during intense fighting.

One talks about concerns for two junior colleagues who "look very frightened and slow to react".

"There is a fine line between giving them time to accept what has happened and adjust, and gripping them hard and forcing them to focus," the officer wrote.

The emails come after another officer serving in Afghanistan expressed strong reservations about the operation.

Major Jon Swift's comments were published in the internal Royal Fusiliers newsletter and placed on a regimental website.

The Ministry of Defence has denied ordering them to be taken down or trying to "gag" Major Swift.

Major Swift is believed to be based at the Naw Zad outpost in the volatile southern province of Helmand.

His 2 Platoons and Fire Support Group have been supporting the 3 Para Battlegroup.
 
#6
Which bit is utterly utterly useless.....

Crab Air - CAS/Gd attack. - A small elm of the overall AP picture.
Crab AIr - SHF - Swiss Tony got any Chinooks in stock today?
Crab Air - Stategic Lift - Swiss Tony when are we going to get AM400 etc
Crab Air - Regt - Doing their job.

What point is he trying to make?

The RAF need more equipment now, as a starter could we have:
20 x CH47's,
20 x C17's,
10 x AM400,
some A10's, improved C130's,

Sw
 
#7
I am always suspicious when a media outlet airs "leaked" documents without naming those from whom the documents came. They do not need to protect the names, giving the names will not compromise the 'Leaker' anymore than they are already compromised.

If they are leaked then, as the Beeb and Ch4 News have done in the past, they should give the authors name - which would authenticate the document. If the author leaked his own document he should have the balls to stand up and be counted.

Until it is proven otherwise it is my understanding that Sky News invented the emails
 
#8
My guess is that at the moment he is feeling pretty stressed out - it's an extremely difficult & dangerous operation, lives have been lost, and they're all operating in a harsh, unforgiving environment. Thus, he's feeling a bit frustrated at how things are going.
 
#10
We can only work with the tools that we are given, and I think that this 'leaked' email has been badly worded by the author. He may feel that the levels of support offered are useless, but I would bet that the aircrew giving that support are doing the best that they possible can. If it isn't enough, speak to the Cabinet Office!!!!
 
#11
TheCrab said:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-13543583,00.html?f=rss

Discuss!
This is flabby lazy journalism of the lowest order... must be a slow news day.

...maybe it was Borat... on attachment with Sky.
 
#12
In this respect he must only be talking about CAS, which is difficult at the best of times, let alone in this type of combat. I suspect 'utterly, utterly uselsess' may be hyperbole...

If, on the other hand, he's talking about Air Transport, I wholly agree with him.
 
#13
The initial live footage mentioned the RAF targetting their own troops, the reporter was in the rain outside the MOD (?) in london. That was shown as it was "breaking news", the web page and reports since seem to have been toned down.
 
#14
As someone who works with the Chinook fleet I appreciate, as I'm sure many of my RAF colleagues do the appreciative comments both on here and on other resources from rank and file personnel on the support offered in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I take this 'leaked' email with a pinch of salt though as I believe either the source has a definite axe to grind or is merely trying to stir up single service jingoism at a time when the three services actually appear to be pulling together pretty effectively.

Once again, thanks for all the appreciative comments and useful criticisms but no ta to 'utterly, utterly useless' type twaddle. I suppose the alternative to Chinny flights would be....?
 
#15
Sven said:
I am always suspicious when a media outlet airs "leaked" documents without naming those from whom the documents came. They do not need to protect the names, giving the names will not compromise the 'Leaker' anymore than they are already compromised.

If they are leaked then, as the Beeb and Ch4 News have done in the past, they should give the authors name - which would authenticate the document. If the author leaked his own document he should have the balls to stand up and be counted.

Until it is proven otherwise it is my understanding that Sky News invented the emails
BBC just aired this on the Radio 2 1500 news bulletin - they named a Para Coy Comd (Loudun?) as the author of the email.
 
#16
Having met and worked with a number of Harrier pilots and knowing how committed they are it saddens me to read such so called journalistic stories. I know for a fact that they are prepared to do whatever neccessary to help ground troops who require their assistance within the confines of friendly forces safety and the RoE.
Those pilots are up there on their own in very difficult conditions and in my "expert" opinion do a fantastic job.
The reporter should be out on the ground seeing what capability they really do deliver rather than standing outside MoD talking complete b0llocks!
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#17
I've read the e-mails, and understand that Chief of the Air Staff has done likewise - hence the crackdown. They need to be read in the context in which they were written, which is very much at the pointy, bloody end and thus they might appear parochial to some. The author is no idiot and these were personal e-mails which appear to have escaped their intended audience. I hope that another decent guy doesn't get hung out to dry for expressing a personal opinion while doing a damned difficult job.

If anyone gets hold of the originals, please DON'T post them on the net.
 
#18
Jailorinummqasr said:
Crab AIr - SHF - Swiss Tony got any Chinooks in stock today?
My ex-RAF pa-in-law tells me that there a a slack handful of same sitting at Boscombe Down, with the 'wrong' avionics fitted, (a procurement SNAFU he says) that haven't been flown in ages.

If that's true - then the answer from Swiss would have to be "Yes!" :D

Anyone out there able to take a stroll round the Boscombe hangars?
 
#19
My ex-RAF pa-in-law tells me that there a a slack handful of same sitting at Boscombe Down, with the 'wrong' avionics fitted, (a procurement SNAFU he says) that haven't been flown in ages.

If that's true - then the answer from Swiss would have to be "Yes!" Very Happy

Anyone out there able to take a stroll round the Boscombe hangars?
Not sure if it's Boscombe, but the story's essentially correct.

Link here:

Chinook cock-up
 
#20
Nibbler said:
My ex-RAF pa-in-law tells me that there a a slack handful of same sitting at Boscombe Down, with the 'wrong' avionics fitted, (a procurement SNAFU he says) that haven't been flown in ages.

If that's true - then the answer from Swiss would have to be "Yes!" Very Happy

Anyone out there able to take a stroll round the Boscombe hangars?
Not sure if it's Boscombe, but the story's essentially correct.

Link here:

Chinook c***-up
These eight were intended for sneaky beaky operations. As such, would they be used to aleviate the shortage or be given to the tasks for which they were intended
 

Latest Threads

Top