Fault delays Afghan troop plane - RAF "Pleased"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Dubb_al_Ibn, Feb 19, 2009.

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. Fugly

    Fugly LE DirtyBAT

    What's your point?

    Would you rather see the news "RAF Trooping flight shot down because of unservicable defensive aid suite", followed by confirmation that the system was reported unserviceable but they went "fuck it, we're going anyway"?

  2. Of course not, Fugly.
    The point is that the Sqn Ldr's comment put a positive spin on what could be seen as a negative event. Good for him.
  3. Fugly

    Fugly LE DirtyBAT

    It's more like a positive spin on a non-story. Aircraft sometimes go unserviceable, fact of life.
  4. Aircraft fault - rare event my arrse.

    Newsworthy story would be "UK Govt to replace ancient aircaft"
  5. Well, that's another point. BBC Oxford probably had a slow day and saw the story as an easy "have a go at the RAF" but they (the RAF) have not backed down.
  6. If BBC Oxford want to have a go - I would rather deflect blame to where it is due.

    Damn - I have just publicly defended the RAF, pass the Mess Webley
  7. We groundcrewmen were always told that spotting a fault was a good thing. Stopped cabs falling out of the skies and things.
  8. First post, but I couldn't let this by.

    I am afraid that it is far worse than the BBC story implies - and, sadly, if there hadn't been Journos on that flight, nothing would ever have come out this time. It’s an all too familiar situation - in Afghanistan now there are hundreds - and I do mean hundreds - of servicemen and women who are being mucked about either at the end of tour or going on R&R - for several days, in some cases. The RAF most certainly DO have some explaining to do - and I shall attempt to show why.

    1. Bad weather in UK I can appreciate. But why is there a requirement to fly directly to Afghanistan? I realize it’s slightly shorter, but the system used by the US, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and pretty near everyone else is to use commercial/charter flights to a base somewhere close by, and trans-ship passengers to Hercs or C17s or something vaguely military and defensible and then fly them in - exactly as we did in Basra for some time. Why fly directly in with Tristars? The answers I've been given by various RAF are vague, as apparently non-RAF – in fact, non-movers - would not understand. Fair enough – but what I do know is that a system like that would entail some more RAF having to do - shock horror - 3 month Tours away from BZN, and that is not acceptable to many (seriously, that's the single comprehensible reason I was given).

    2. DAS - essential, yes. But what is the threat? A few DShKAs and maybe - just maybe - an ancient SAM7? Doesn't need a top-of-the-range DAS, and anyway they are on the C17s and Hercs already, surely? There are plenty of commercial flights going in and out of Afghanistan, they seem to be OK. So, DAS yes, but why in Tristars? Oh, sorry, my mistake – because then we would not need to keep so many Tristars flying. We could use commercial carriers, who are bloody cheap at the moment.

    This is not simply a case of the RAF having to use old and crappy kit - in fact, almost the opposite. It's mainly a systematic problem with them, that they must be seen to justify themselves at every opportunity - when there is really no need as their Harriers (along with the RN, of course) and Chinooks are doing that pretty well already.

    Oh, and those of you who detest movers (yes, I know there are a few….) will be unsurprised to learn that those waiting for flights have not exactly been kept up-to-date as regards info on when they may fly. In fact, they’ve been pretty much left to fend for themselves for most of the time. Plus ca change………………
  9. Wg Cdr was "defending" the reliability of the defensive warning system - not the reliability of the aircraft as a whole. But deliberately allows the reader to conflate the two.

    Clever piece of misdirection clearly taken in by most readers.
  10. During a discussion with a an RAF Offrvabout recent trial of flights I proposed flying commercial to/from Cyprus, basing the Tristars there and using them with their defence suites just into and out of the danger areas.

    The reason I was given for not doing that is the pilots wouldn't wear living outside of the nice Oxfordshire/Gloucestershire/Wilts triangle. Better to flog the old birds all the way round the world than upset some poor delicate pilots
  11. Chassepot - poor first post - too many errors and misinformed bits in there to deal with right now.

    Herrumph - bolleaux. It isn't anything to do with crew - it is more to do with avoiding poor practice.

    If you have to change aircraft en route, you have to have a full offload and full onload whilst re-frigging the load for the different aircraft type. This is a massively inefficient way of doing business and would probably add days of delays because of it. The Movements Trade is already overstretched and you would probably have to double the Trade, equipment and facilities to allow such practices. In any line of logistics you try to avoid re brigading the load etc mid-journey - it is just a bad idea.
  12. If you are really concerned about the SAFIRE threat in the 'Stan and are serving, then contact your J2 staff and ask to see the latest ATA.

    Read it and weep. :roll:

    Or, you can always pm me with your post title and I'll see if I can email you a copy on DII? 8)
  13. Well done for spotting the fault.

    How's that for a positive stance on the story :wink:
  14. One problem is that the RAF in general and movers in particular are very, very bad at communicating the reality of what they do. Your average squaddy looks at his experience of commercial flights where he and all his kit change aircraft and wonders why the RAF make such a fuss over what civvy airlines do without breaking sweat. What is it about swapping his suitcase for a bergen that makes things so difficult ? If the RAF will take "days" to swap between flights and BA do it in hours then who should we be using ?

    And then there's the whole money argument .... when the cost under discussion is a Eurofighter or two. Again, your average squaddy doesn't understand why the RAF can't focus on supporting current wars by cutting long term procurement as the Army has been forced to do.

    And as for DAS, the Tristars putting into Kabul operate alongside civvy jets with SFA in the way of DAS. How risky is it really, compared to 6 months out in the cuds trading shots with Terry ?

    And you'll never get the Army spending 6 months at a time in platoon houses and the like to believe the current RAF deployment schedule is arduous and can't be lengthened.

    So come on, educate us.