Excellent Commentry from Max Hastings - Gaurdian 2 Aug 07

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Jailorinummqasr, Aug 3, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

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

  1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2139719,00.html

    Despite being a Crab....there is a lot thruth in his analysis.....we need a big fcuk off shiny fleet of C130's, C17's and/or A400M's......the jet jockeis can re-trade as Truckdrivers or go and work for BA!
  2. Keep the A400Ms away for Gawd's sake - C17/C130 proven aircraft. A400M a political mish mash and now already years overdue. Eurofighter farce anyone?

    Corrected the link above

    Article here
  3. Eurofighter farce?

    How about Rafael farce? French aircraft, started production before the Typhoon, still not in operational service due to many glitches although a token force has been deployed on board a carrier to wave the flag.

    How about Grippen farce? Swedish aircraft, also beset by glitches, one in particular that has caused a complete loss of control authority on more than one occasion and has led to the loss of aircraft.

    What about F22 farce? US built aircraft that although 'superior' to the Typhoon was only designed to replace the F15C so as it stands only has an air-to-air role. Its also so expensive that the order has been cut by over half and so few will be delivered that the US, the most powerful military in the world, will have less of them than Typhoons the RAF will have.

    It is a very naive person who believes that the few problems that the Typhoon (Eurofighter) has had during development (mainly caused by German feet dragging for 2 years) are unique to this aircraft. All modern fighter aircraft have had development problems.
  4. all modern anything have problems, the fact is under current, and probable future deployments what we need is feet on the ground, so for christs sake spend money on the kit, pay and resources we need for well supported ground ops!!
  5. No offence to any of the senior service - but spending money on carrier's that we probably aren't going to see for 5yrs (that's being optomistic), isn't giving better protection to the troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. What about more money for better combat body armour and armoured vehicles that will save lives now?

    Or more money to the Defence Medical Services so they can support the deployed troops with the best equipment on earth, thus saving lives! :pissedoff:

  6. I'll drink to that Ronin... but I won't hold my breath!!!
  7. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    I was about to warn you for fear of offending the light blue jobs but they seem to circle and pounce on any opinion that doesnt fit with their own. I'm for more pay and better kit oh and more bns of infantry!
    Can I have my regiment back please, its not the same since it was maffia'd!
  8. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    My bold mucker, will the Raf have enough Pilots to play jet jockey or will they be stacked on the shelves?
  9. Eurofighter -no guns. oops.

    "so few will be delivered that the US, the most powerful military in the world, will have less of them than Typhoons the RAF will have." But 1 x F22 can take out 15 x F15/Typhoons so the USAF are getting value for money..... :cool:

    Even in the mid 80s my poor old man (on 8 Sqn) spent many a day whilst servicing Shackletons dreaming up ways to sneak into the Battle of Britain Flight to steal the main wing spars from the Lancaster stores! Poor old RAF never did have enough spare parts for anything as we also see today with the regular disruptions to the Basra/Stan Airbridge etc.
  10. I thought the troops in Iraq were pretty appreciative of the ground support capability provided from the US carriers in the Gulf. Apparently, the aircraft are more readily available than those on land, use in-flight refuelling to maintain constant top cover, and need no resources ashore to accommodate them, maintain them, defend them and keep them supplied with all they need to keep going.

    I know our new carriers won't be available for a few years but that's not the RN's fault. The need was identified in SDR in 1998.
  11. No gun = no aircraft.

    I'm sure many ARRSErs will support me when I say that the sight and sound of "God Farting" on the enemy made me less scared.
  12. That’s a clever trick as it only carries 8 AAMs and a 5 second burst. Or have you been reading the company propaganda. :oops: But the kill figures must have inflated like the cost. Seem to remember the yanks said the M1 was the best thing since sliced bread.
  13. While Hastings' article is getting towards the quality of his older stuff, it's important to recall that what he knows about air power can be written on the back of a postage stamp. On which you've already written your shopping list.

    First, the Typhoon has a gun. The crustacean types fought a cunning rearguard battle to ensure that the beancounters didn't bin it entirely from the Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 airframes, and having achieved that, have been fighting a further battle to get the beancounters to provide it with ammo; they've now won this battle as well. In Afghanistan, from next year, Typhoons doing CAS (which they will be doing) will have a fully functioning gun.

    By the by, the JSF in UK service may not have a gun. It's not fitted to either the F-35B which we are currently planning to buy, or to the F-35C which we will buy if we go down the conventional carrier route. There are to my certain knowledge some chaps who are working like bugg'ry to get the beancounters to appreciate the need to buy the aircraft with the gun pod...

    Second, Typhoon was designed as a multi-role aircraft. It is not, as Hastings keeps bleating, being 'modified' to do air to ground. The plan to introduce the type into service was for it to be fitted with its air-to-air kit first, because the other three partner nations are more concerned to have it as an air defence aircraft. More hardball from the light blue was required in negotiations to get the air-to-ground capability cleared earlier than planned. It's not modifying a Lambo to be a people carrier, which is perhaps the most pernicious of his misrepresentations of the aircraft to date (and that's saying something)

    Third - Liam Fox's '1942 vision' of naval warfare is, if he bothers to look, a model of warfare that still applies. A rubber boat or a small flotilla of them wired to go 'boom' would make a mess of a CVF. Park a frigate between the CVF and Abdul and his explosives laden speedboat and the equation changes in favour of the RN. And quite how some of the second rate (as in the old RN term) vessels he calls for would be able to do some of the jobs they'd be needed for isn't clear.

    Hastings would, based on past articles, like to see the RN with about six carriers and almost nothing else - he can't see that he's advocating a Royal Navy that would be, in effect, a coastal defence force with some big boats with aeroplanes which would have to fulfil the roles currently done by Type 23s (because the vessels Hastings advocates couldn't do the job).

    He is correct that spending priorities are wrong, but fails to hit the target The government spends cash like water on frivolous and unnecessary things. British Potato Council or CBA? Music and Dance Scheme Advisory Group or some C-17s? We spend £123 Billion on these things, yet Hastings blames the air staff and the Typhoon.

    I know calling for a radical cut in the funding to quangos would irriate some of Sir Max's friends who enjoy serving the public for a couple of days a year for a retainer of several thousand, but perhaps it's about time for him to have the courage to accept some snide remarks at Glyndebourne next time he visits and to call for the government to get its spending priorities correct - not how to divide the money we have now, but to get the money that's required to meet the needs of the services. But it's far easier for him to fall back on his prejudices and ill-informed comprehension of air and naval power and luxuriate in the knowledge that people think that the man who liberated Port Stanley knows what he's talking about, while the three services are on their chinstraps, waiting for someone to get a grip and get the funding sorted, instead of coming out with the really hard-hitting sort of piece that might actually achieve something.

    And breathe...
  14. Britian's Defence Policy baffles me.
    I have always believed in a Strong Navy for an Island power.
    The bulk of the FIGHTING is done, as always by the ground forces, for whom the Euipment is by comparison cheap, compared with the high budget items for the Fly guys and mataloes.
    Talks on this board about troops not having sufficent ammo, body armour or other basics are a national disgrace for which the high command of the military and above all the utter contempt of the politicians, who send their Men on their Political Wars, leave me to wonder about the future of UK and her Armed Forces.
  15. Well said Archie. You've saved me a potentially exhausting polemic. The bottom line is that we DO need carriers and escorts. We DO need Typhoon (and you'll be glad of it when it appears overhead in the 'Stan). We DO need lots of boots and the right kit. We need it all if we're going to large it around the world. Either that or disappear up our own arrses and spend money where it really matters: gay ethnic lesbian advisory teams for the (fcuking) Olympics!