Navy and RAF fight over Harrier.Army knock heads together

#2
The only worthwhile use for both Navy and RAF is to move the Army to the battlefield the Navy need lots of RO_RO ships and the RAF need some big,long ranged ,go enywhere transport planes all the rest is crap
 
#3
tropper66 said:
The only worthwhile use for both Navy and RAF is to move the Army to the battlefield the Navy need lots of RO_RO ships and the RAF need some big,long ranged ,go enywhere transport planes all the rest is crap
Said the Government in 1939.

The Bomber will always get through, so why bother with fighters?
 
#4
tropper66 said:
The only worthwhile use for both Navy and RAF is to move the Army to the battlefield the Navy need lots of RO_RO ships and the RAF need some big,long ranged ,go enywhere transport planes all the rest is crap
Your understanding of your sister Services is truly amazing. Unfortunately, I doubt whether you understand your own part in the big scheme of things any better. Keep up the good work.
 
#5
tropper66 said:
The only worthwhile use for both Navy and RAF is to move the Army to the battlefield the Navy need lots of RO_RO ships and the RAF need some big,long ranged ,go enywhere transport planes all the rest is crap
When you've being bombed from the air and your supply ships are being torpedoed, I hope you'll keep that in mind.
 
#6
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
tropper66 said:
The only worthwhile use for both Navy and RAF is to move the Army to the battlefield the Navy need lots of RO_RO ships and the RAF need some big,long ranged ,go enywhere transport planes all the rest is crap
Your understanding of your sister Services is truly amazing. Unfortunately, I doubt whether you understand your own part in the big scheme of things any better. Keep up the good work.
The air defence of the UK id covered by 4 aircraft, thats all, 2 F3s up north and 2 typhoons down south thats all
 
#7
The sticking point for the RAF is that only half of the 150 British JSF are likely now to be ordered with the Navy getting the majority. This would mean the RAF would struggle to get a full replacement for fourth generation Eurofighter Typhoon leaving them without a cutting edge aircraft.
Journalistic confusion aside; is it true that only the planes for the carriers will be ordered?
 
#8
I notice the Crabs said that,
The RAF argues that with Afghanistan land-locked and the new carriers not coming into service until at least 2016 there is no current need to have carrier-borne fighters. Once the ships become operational, the RAF would be able to fly off them.

If they did say that then the man needs to resign now. Short-sighted or what? Who knows what will happen tomorrow, and the Navy should be able to respond.
Hope the general can talk sense into them. Of course he may need to use short easy words.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
parapauk said:
When you've being bombed from the air and your supply ships are being torpedoed, I hope you'll keep that in mind.
And when the cloud punchers are keeping the enemy air away, perhaps the steamies and flatties will stop arguing the toss.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
How sad that politicians and civil servants should derive satisfaction from inter-service squabbles instead of recognising that underfunding across the board is what causes this. If the Defence Secretary had any integrity he would sack the CDS and give the job to a senior officer able to put a long-term and balanced view, instead of one apparently using his turn in the chair to advance the parochial interests of his own mob. The RAF control of the FAA in the 1930s was a DISASTER in terms of sticking the FAA with poor aircraft and also, because the brightest juniors in 1918 went up the pale blue tree, the RN was starved of officers with aviation expertise. So later at Star level the RN had difficulty arguing its case (aggravated by the heavy chop rate of regular RN FAA officers early in the war). Scrapping the Sea Harriers and the earlier ban on FAA pilot recruiting in the 1960s & 70s had had a similar effect. Next prob is the overweight, short range, low payload VSTOL F35B instead of a pukka naval aircraft with the reach and load to do the job, and conventional gear in the carriers to enable it to do this.
 
#12
I am not sure whether this is apocryphal or not but there was a story going around during the height of the Cold War concerning arguments between the RAF and the Navy about nuclear weapons delivery systems.

Apparently, in a presentation to the government of the day the RAF used a map of the world which had been doctored to show that the USSR was within airstrike range from virtually anywhere in the world. Thereby justifying its claim that airborne was the better and cheaper option.

Finally, a number of RAF pilots I met during my service conceded that apart from long range strategic bombers their Service was surplus to requirements as helicopters were being flown very satisfactorily by the Army and Navy, and as fighters needed to operate from aircraft carriers and land the Navy might as well take over that role also.
 
#13
I´ve said it before....

The FAA,AAC and RAF should be able to operate off carriers*. We are too small a force nowadays, we need to be more like the USMC. Expeditionary and versatile.

*point a. Obviously I am not thinking of C-17s, just the helis and smaller aircraft.

*point b. We need to get a 5 star hotel built in to the carriers to accomodate RAF pax.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Perhaps Mr Torpy would like to explain what it is about Harriers that needs RAF expertise, rather than that of the RN whio have done rather well with them. Anyway if the RAF was cut down to the air defence of the United Kingdom their people could live out their entire career in Lincolnshire, guarded only by seven battalions of RAF Regiment, which arrangement would I am sure suit their mindset far better.
 
#15
Why not just get a load of REAPERS and fly them off ships , cheaper than JSF
 
#16
We need to look at the RAF and wonder if it is worth keeping.

RAF Regiment could be moved to the Inf with a new role "defensive Inf" or merge them with the RLC Pioneers to reform the RPC.

The RA have got the AD and UAV bit covered.

All the other bits get merged with their Army counterparts (I know, its like adopting a ginger kid) bar strategic air transport and refueling. The Navy get those.

Good news is the AGC would get more professional and military orientated.

They can have the fighters too, and then the RN defend UK (air and land) and the Army get taken abroad to slap people.
 
#17
chocolate_frog said:
We need to look at the RAF and wonder if it is worth keeping.

RAF Regiment could be moved to the Inf with a new role "defensive Inf" or merge them with the RLC Pioneers to reform the RPC.

The RA have got the AD and UAV bit covered.

All the other bits get merged with their Army counterparts (I know, its like adopting a ginger kid) bar strategic air transport and refueling. The Navy get those.

Good news is the AGC would get more professional and military orientated.

They can have the fighters too, and then the RN defend UK (air and land) and the Army get taken abroad to slap people.
I thought their role would be served by JPA...
 
#18
chocolate_frog said:
They can have the fighters too, and then the RN defend UK (air and land) and the Army get taken abroad to slap people.
Just as it was in the days of Nelson and Wellington?
 
#19
Balleh said:
I am not sure whether this is apocryphal or not but there was a story going around during the height of the Cold War concerning arguments between the RAF and the Navy about nuclear weapons delivery systems.

Apparently, in a presentation to the government of the day the RAF used a map of the world which had been doctored to show that the USSR was within airstrike range from virtually anywhere in the world. Thereby justifying its claim that airborne was the better and cheaper option.

Finally, a number of RAF pilots I met during my service conceded that apart from long range strategic bombers their Service was surplus to requirements as helicopters were being flown very satisfactorily by the Army and Navy, and as fighters needed to operate from aircraft carriers and land the Navy might as well take over that role also.
Believe that occurred in the 60's when our last large carriers, CVA, were proposed. RAF showed they could cover the fleet anywhere in the word using the doctored map that moved Australia several hundred miles.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Yes, ninja-lewis, and in 1982 a lot of sailors paid for that bit of RAF cheating with their LIVES.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top