Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The Tornado F-3 had a poor Turning Circle which is a prequisite for a Fighter the Harrier FRS 1 was too short ranged and could only carry a light weapons load......
The Tornado was being asked to be a long-range interceptor of bombers. It did well what was asked of it.

The SHAR was as good a technology as you were going to get off a mini-carrier at the time. And you wouldn't want to get into a knife-fight with it. As the Aggressors at Alconbury would attest.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
BAE did a similar thing to the Harrier GR 1 as it did to the Tornado GR 1.....add a new/different Radar, make a few changes here and there and et voilá Britain has a new Fighter suitable for it's needs.
What radar did Harrier GR.1 have for BAE to replace?

It feells almost unsporting to fight a battle of wits with someone so hopelessly ill-armed...
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The RN only got them approved by the Labour Govt in the seventies by calling them through-deck-cruisers designed to carry ASW helicopters to protect US reinforcement convoys to Europe against Soviet Submarines.

The RN then managed to sneak in the requirement for the Sea Harriers to take out the Soviet Bear Recce aircraft. Wasn't the mix something like 15 ASW Sea King and 6 Sea Harriers.

This was because in 1966 the Labour Government had scrapped any replacement for HMS Eagle/Ark Royal - large Strike carriers because after the withdrawel from Suez we will never need large strike carriers again.

I think they were still officially called Through Deck Cruisers until after the Falklands when Maggies government said that they can be called Aircraft Carriers.
Hence my lined-through comment. 'See-through carriers', as that's in fact what they were, was the wry nickname.

The RN played a blinder (with a small 'B') in getting the Invincibles in under the radar.
 
Good for them, but Im not gay so I never joined them. They fucked off and literally hundreds more people moved into the camp. Unsurprisingly there were all sorts of bins.
So not an operational airfield then. Bingate sorted.
 
And a copy of the Rolls Royce engines, thanks to dear old Harold Wilson apparently.
Was it not Stafford Cripps, his boss? Wilson was a junior minister, doing what the Cabinet told him to.
 
You actually have no idea at all what you're talking about, do you?

Hardly surprising, but do you want to keep publicly humiliating yourself so thoroughly?
I bet good money he is 13, been banned from prune.
 
I bet good money he is 13, been banned from prune.
1593731317542.png



I'd respectfully suggest that the fact that all fighters can be interceptors but not all interceptors can be fighters is the point here. The Tu-128, Su-15, F-101B, Mig-25 and Mig-31 are all referred to as 'fighters' , but you'd not want to go up against anything manoeuvrable in any of them - you'd want to smack them at long range, and if that failed, run away bravely before the merge (unless you're an F-101B with a spare AIR-2 hanging beneath the fuselage, in which case you run towards it, launch and then run away smartly while chuckling about the nasty surprise the agile fighter(s) heading towards the AIR-2 are about to get.)

The F3 was of that genre, but with JTIDS, AMRAAM, ASRAAM, E-3 support, base cunning and downright unsporting behaviour on the part of the aircrew was a nasty opponent, even for F-15s, F-16s and Mirage 2000s. And MM has mentioned the guns kill on the F-15 on one Ex...
 
Later, the FA.2, with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, was for a while the best combination in NATO.
This is what's amusing when people talk about the "Gripen being a bit of a surprise to the unwary". Because the radar in the front of the Gripen A/B is the same as the radar in the front of the FA.2 (some minor physical differences, and different software*, but essentially exactly the same radar). And the radar in the front of the Gripen C/D is an upgraded version (they took advantage of Moore's Law to goose up the processors, while the FA.2 soldiered on to retirement with mostly the original kit) - in fact, the improved processor for Gripen C/D was part of the original bid for the Typhoon radar**

* You try working to programming manuals written by Swedes. Their written English was excellent, but... occasionally strange. Essentially, it was a jobshare - Ferranti built the mechanical / microwave stuff, Ericsson built the computers and compilers, both of us programmed them. We called ours "Blue Vixen", they called theirs "PS-05/A".
** As the development contract was being signed in 1990, we in Ferranti got bought by GEC-Marconi. They had a radar data processor design team hanging around, we got lumbered with them. And, as I remember the grumbling from their hardware types, promptly had to redesign much of it. So instead of a specialised form of Pascal (as for the FA.2), our software types had to learn Ada (for the Typhoon). I didn't care - our team switched from wierd-assed assembler to wierd-assed assembler and C (and eventually C++), so at least we had a career ahead of us 8)
 
Last edited:

Alamo

LE
I can’t decide if @Mölders 1 is: genuinely unknowledgeable, naturally argumentative and thick, or deliberately trolling. Whatever, he’s certainly a good advert for independent air forces.
 
I read an article by a retired Naval type in a miitary/navy magazine a few years ago in which he said that if we had had two of the old conventional large carriers like Eagle and Ark Royal in the Falklands in 1982 instead of the Harrier Carriers we would probably have lost. This was because in the sea states in the South Atlantic, the Harriers were able to launch off the decks in seas in which were not possible for conventional carriers with Cats and Traps.

He gave an example of a Nato exercise in which one of the Invincible class carriers was able to launch sorties in rough seas where the accompanying Nimitz class CVN was unable to.

Anyway, about Future Commando Force and all their Gucci new kit.
 
From their ivory towers they dont consider jiff jobs, because they have other civilians to do them as well.
This is the thing I find puzzling. My civvy employer pays me a decent wage to be an engineer. It took several years of education and training before I got to the point where I might be useful, so my employer wants to make use of that. My employer doesn't want me spending my time cleaning the lavvies, or stagging on in reception to answer the door. They want me fixing software; so they pay other people to clean the toilets, empty bins, wash down the kitchen. It works. Yeah, I'll help wash up if there's stuff needing done, or open doors for deliveries, but these are jobs that take a couple of seconds - no problem, glad to help.
  • If the civilian contractors arrive, and it's promptly discovered that the contract doesn't cover stuff like weekend maintenance, whose fault is that? Oh yes, the Army. Not the contractor.
  • If a sensible amount of flexibility wasn't written into a contractorised service (say, late meals / early opening of the Stores), whose fault is that? Oh yes, the Army. Not the contractor.
  • If the troops are suddenly Excused Duties like dixie-diving / stagging on, surely that means they can focus on their primary task - training to Smite Her Majesty's Enemies? Getting into the gym, onto the ranges, even making it down to the Education Centre? Whose fault is it, if they aren't training efficiently enough that there's all that spare time for obsessive-compulsive RD types to insist on area cleaning? Oh yes, the Army. Not the contractor.
For all you rave about the wonderful era of instant flexibility where you could just drag a chef out of their billet / a storesman out of the NAAFI, I'm sure that they were really happy about the ****-About Factor which, let's be honest, often arose because idle b**tards hadn't bothered to plan ahead.
 
View attachment 486727


I'd respectfully suggest that the fact that all fighters can be interceptors but not all interceptors can be fighters is the point here. The Tu-128, Su-15, F-101B, Mig-25 and Mig-31 are all referred to as 'fighters' , but you'd not want to go up against anything manoeuvrable in any of them - you'd want to smack them at long range, and if that failed, run away bravely before the merge (unless you're an F-101B with a spare AIR-2 hanging beneath the fuselage, in which case you run towards it, launch and then run away smartly while chuckling about the nasty surprise the agile fighter(s) heading towards the AIR-2 are about to get.)

The F3 was of that genre, but with JTIDS, AMRAAM, ASRAAM, E-3 support, base cunning and downright unsporting behaviour on the part of the aircrew was a nasty opponent, even for F-15s, F-16s and Mirage 2000s. And MM has mentioned the guns kill on the F-15 on one Ex...
Hey I was a young 13 year old being shown the magic F3 around Leeming on the AEF when the weather was below minimun, which in the late 80’s and early 90’s was always the case.
However that 25 m range was a happy refuge for a failed fast jet pilot, slow jet pilot, rotary pilot.

Made me the man I am today, 45 year old mediocre JTAC.
 

Greenfly

On ROPS
On ROPs
Some gen,

I am down at CTC this week. It’s official that PRMC is now dead & won’t be coming back. An extra 4 weeks have been tagged onto the start of phase 1 called ROP (Recruit Orientation phase). Candidates must pass a virtual fitness test via zoom to secure a place. They then need to pass the 4 week ROP to move onto being a nod.
ROP concludes with an exercise. Ex first step. They can bin the ROP at any time, and once they have requested that desire to leave, they cannot change their mind, they're out the gates
Lads have earned their place on the ROP by doing minor bits of phys in the comfort of their own home. When you get to lympstone, expect to be very uncomfortable, particularly when in the field.

C8s will start rolling out from Jan 2021 apparently.
 
Sooooo, last night happened then.
 

Cromarty

Old-Salt
This is the thing I find puzzling. My civvy employer pays me a decent wage to be an engineer. It took several years of education and training before I got to the point where I might be useful, so my employer wants to make use of that. My employer doesn't want me spending my time cleaning the lavvies, or stagging on in reception to answer the door. They want me fixing software; so they pay other people to clean the toilets, empty bins, wash down the kitchen. It works. Yeah, I'll help wash up if there's stuff needing done, or open doors for deliveries, but these are jobs that take a couple of seconds - no problem, glad to help.
  • If the civilian contractors arrive, and it's promptly discovered that the contract doesn't cover stuff like weekend maintenance, whose fault is that? Oh yes, the Army. Not the contractor.
  • If a sensible amount of flexibility wasn't written into a contractorised service (say, late meals / early opening of the Stores), whose fault is that? Oh yes, the Army. Not the contractor.
  • If the troops are suddenly Excused Duties like dixie-diving / stagging on, surely that means they can focus on their primary task - training to Smite Her Majesty's Enemies? Getting into the gym, onto the ranges, even making it down to the Education Centre? Whose fault is it, if they aren't training efficiently enough that there's all that spare time for obsessive-compulsive RD types to insist on area cleaning? Oh yes, the Army. Not the contractor.
For all you rave about the wonderful era of instant flexibility where you could just drag a chef out of their billet / a storesman out of the NAAFI, I'm sure that they were really happy about the ****-About Factor which, let's be honest, often arose because idle b**tards hadn't bothered to plan ahead.
What you don't understand or won't accept is that you need a certain amount of "spare" service personnel.

The RAN lost many trained and experienced personnel because they had no shore billet to go to anymore. The thinking being civvies were cheaper and we'll just keep sailors at sea. This gets old very quickly and the only option is to hand in your papers.

You now have to recruit, train and wait 10 years to regain that experience. This is fine if it's one or two but not when it's en masse.

You end up with a false economy where you spend more money for less capability.
 
Last edited:

Cromarty

Old-Salt
What you get with "spare" service personnel not currently smiting HM the Queens enemies, is a disciplined force available at short notice. This may be to reinforce or expand in thier specialty or as a scratch unit with various trades and experience to cover just about any task and live rough while doing it.

I did have a much better, longer post written out but it wouldn't load!
 

Latest Threads

Top