Hmmm...I suspect the correct word is adequate.
As I'm reasonably confident that the marginal successes we've managed to achieve in not having an absolute disaster in Iraq & Afghanistan have been more to do with the capability at the Company Minus level to make it work. Some of the Company + planning was frankly delusional. Trying to engage hostile forces wearing flip flops and dish-dashs whilst we're carrying everything and a kitchen sink was the height of insanity...
So what we’re saying is that Generals (and Admirals and Air Chief Marshals) are human too?
That’s a long-winded way of describing the cu nt.
One of his worst moments was his outrage when the crew of the downed Herc were repatriated from Iraq - one of the chaps was an Aussie by birth, albeit serving in the RAF rather than the RAAF. His coffin was draped with the Australian flag during the ceremony at Basrah. Next thing we know, the SAM is yelling that QRs have been breached, since the only acceptable flag for a coffin is the Union Jack.To be fair, the senior individual making the analysis of the SAM did follow that up with something like 'or, to put it another way, he's a ****'. He then went on to analyse some of the SAM's later career in language which Phil Osborn might have found a tad strong. I don't think he was a fan (but was anybody?).
One of his worst moments was his outrage when the crew of the downed Herc were repatriated from Iraq - one of the chaps was an Aussie by birth, albeit serving in the RAF rather than the RAAF. His coffin was draped with the Australian flag during the ceremony at Basrah. Next thing we know, the SAM is yelling that QRs have been breached, since the only acceptable flag for a coffin is the Union Jack.
Twat. Utter, utter, twat.
And yes, air defender - Lightnings, then Phantoms.
most of my flying was operational, which kinda rules out the F3 Tornado.
Which one? The Harrier or Strikemaster pilot?
Indeed there are. In fact it does make a change to talk about the good eggs, which I like to think are in the majority.I suspect that your view gets currency mainly because it's the knobs like Cowan and Jones that get the column inches. There's no publicity in being a good senior officer - and there are a lot out there.
I’d agree with that, both could be prickly but in essence well intentioned. We lost a bloke in Afg a couple of months before you arrived, when Stu A was the 1*. He came and spent the day with us and was absolutely brilliant with the blokes. I could recall that 8 years later when getting the “gobstopper” treatment!Maybe......
Atha or Stirrup...
I actually found both quite decent despite the fact they were both aircrew.
So rather than who would we like to see fail next, who would like to succeed? Who do we think should be at the top, who would make the changes for the better and set the example for others to aspire too?
It's a question of time. They don't get enough of it to make a difference, that is incapable of being undone by their successor. What I find interesting here is that by the stage you're at that rarefied atmosphere, it's a relatively small cohort of individuals, so is there much to choose from in terms of personality?
Unless I am well wide of the mark, the Scottish Officer flew F-4s?
What was it about the F-4 fleet, they almost prided themselves in breeding c**ts.
I agree fully, I suspect that the issue is that great leaders (of which the Army has many) do not progress as well as their more 'politically astute' brother officers.
It is the same in many environments, the best salesman/ mechanic or whatever rarely gets promoted to run the office/ workshop. Such a promotion requires totally different skillsets.