What CAS really thinks of Fast Jet aircrew

#1
One for you pongos to laugh at although you probably already suspected what's written below.

I've always thought our senior leadership thought a little bit more of us.

How about this from a letter by CAS trying to justify why we need fast jet pilots in the
RAF:

"More than 50% of RAF pilots at SO1 and above are FJ pilots (indeed, exclusively at 3* and above at present). This is not by accident or 'tribal' design - the very intelecual and mental capacity attributes that help distinguish a FJ pilot, coupled with their direct experience of combat operations and the command and control of combat forces, drive these statistics."

Thanks CAS, using a Royal Marine catchphrse "99% of us need not apply" for suggesting we're nothing more than non-intellectual fodder then? I guess when all fast jets are gone we'll just have an RAF run by a 2* as we won't have anyone smart enough to make it further.

And as for direct experience of combat? Pathetic. How dare you suggest that tooling
around 20,000 feet above the action in your air conditioned office is direct combat.

Have you even done that?

Maybe you should actually get out to where direct combat is taking place and talk with your RAF Regiment gunners who daily take actual fire and risk death or maiming from IEDs as they clear the known perimter for you to get airborne.

Maybe you should speak with your Merlin or Chinook crews who pick up soldiers and marines from the battlefield with various body parts missing. Speak with the loadies who have to sweep out the blood and body parts from the back of the helicopter after the MERT has launched yet again.

Speak to your medics who see and deal with horrors of actual combat you will never, with your intellectual brain, have to deal with.

Speak with our ATC guys and girls or the MT drivers who waited in Basrah tower for the next volley of rockets to come over the wall.

Direct experience of combat my ar*e. Disgraceful and insulting.

TSRTOO
 
#2
That bit about the RAF Regt is amazing. Direct combat indeed. Who does he think he is. Or am I missing the point?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#3
Oh dear, the 100 year experiment is unravelling fast.
 
P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#4
My eyes glazed over around half-way through.......perhaps I don't care enough about what the RAF thinks about itself?
 
#5
You submitted this over on PPRuNe about 20 minutes ago too... but it's a 2 year out of date quote from someone who USED to be CAS, and who has long since retired.

"That bit about the RAF Regt is amazing. Direct combat indeed."

That's a bit out of order, they may not be in FOBs in great numbers but they've had casualties from IEDs and direct fire just doing their FP bit.
 
#6
My eyes glazed over around half-way through.......perhaps I don't care enough about what the RAF thinks about itself?
may be you should - it's symptomatic of single-service agendas that have been f#cking up our Defence budget!
 
#8
The RAF Pilots have always had their heads up their arrses,30 years ago I had one bragging how the next war would be won by airpower Blah Blah,then came the Falklands,he was pretty quiet after that and even with FJ and CAS there´s no headway in Afghanistan.No boots no Win.

That they´ve now effectivelly abollished the Fleet Air Arm´s fixed wing capability is really taking the piss,much better off getting rid of the RAF and expanding the Navy IMO.
 
#9
I totally agree with 'midnight' above. Fleet Air Arm operates world-wide, including on the 70% of 'world-wide' that is wet and soggy (or did until Dave fvcked it); RAF operates from airfields, except for the Harriers (oh! Dave has fvcked them as well).

This government has fvcked completely all the bits of the Armed Forces that the Blair / Brown / 'Jackass' Stirrup Terror did not ruin.
 
#10
This is a bit unfair.

The average fast jet pilot, despite the swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such emotions as love, affection, intimacy and caring.

These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
RAF Regiment gunners who daily take actual fire and risk death or maiming from IEDs
Man alive thats one rough NAAFI
 
#12
As pointed out this was posted on Pprune despite the fact that

1. It was written by the previous CAS, not the current one

2. The quote is taken wildly out of context

3. The CAS who wrote it won a DSO for operating at rather lower altitude that 20,000ft during Op Granby, with multiple AAA bursts going off in close proximity to his cockpit as some annoyed Iraqis tried to kill him.

4. Both the previous and current CAS know very well what SH crews, medics, etc do and have to put up with, since both of them have appeared at Staff College and spent a great deal of time saying to light blue audiences, plus - IIRC - at least one joint audience what an astounding job they think SH crews and medics do.

And the previous CAS told a tale about an MT driver on one visit to Staff College which had already been told to the audience previously by two be-starred FJ mates who wished to make clear to their audience that if they forgot how important to the overall effort those who don't fly FJ are they probably shouldn't aspire to high command.

Oh - and the source quoted is (or was until TSRTOO cast himself in the role of Pprune's own Julian Assange) protected and shouldn't be appearing on the internet...
 
#13
I totally agree with 'midnight' above. Fleet Air Arm operates world-wide, including on the 70% of 'world-wide' that is wet and soggy (or did until Dave fvcked it); RAF operates from airfields, except for the Harriers (oh! Dave has fvcked them as well).

This government has fvcked completely all the bits of the Armed Forces that the Blair / Brown / 'Jackass' Stirrup Terror did not ruin.
Could you elaborate abit more?

RAF operates as widely as the Air arm, as we have JHC now, and Chinooks amongst others get sent off on ships about the place. Besides, Fleet air arm works from airfields to in operations like Afghan and previously iraq, that will be pretty much exclusive from now on, as the JCA wont be in-service for a good few years.

Other then a threat that can be projected, what has the sea based units of the fleet air arm done lately out of interest?
 
#14
Other then a threat that can be projected, what has the sea based units of the fleet air arm done lately out of interest?
Have I missed something or is power projection not a huge part of their raison d'etre?
 
#15
Not really unique to the Navy, power projection is all of our games since the end of the cold war. I just dont get how people are saying the Fleet air arm should be expanded, and the RAF reduced, im not seeing how thats a benefit to our capabilities.
 
#16
Not really unique to the Navy, power projection is all of our games since the end of the cold war. I just dont get how people are saying the Fleet air arm should be expanded, and the RAF reduced, im not seeing how thats a benefit to our capabilities.
Because they have a much better approach to joint operations, have more capable Juniors, Seniors and Officers and don't have the 'Check in, Don't dig in' mentality and they operate when RAF crews are squabbling about who should claim captaincy of the sortie.



It could be argued that RAF single service politics/ineptitude/arrogance over the years have damaged 'our capabilities' massively.

With a user name like 'Squip' shouldn't you be on E-Goat?
 
#17
Because they have a much better approach to joint operations, have more capable Juniors, Seniors and Officers and don't have the 'Check in, Don't dig in' mentality and they operate when RAF crews are squabbling about who should claim captaincy of the sortie.

It could be argued that RAF single service politics/ineptitude/arrogance over the years have damaged 'our capabilities' massively.

With a user name like 'Squip' shouldn't you be on E-Goat?
I have never worked with them, so what is there approach to joint operations, and how is it different to ours? And how are they more capable Officers/Seniors/juniors?

It could also be argued that peoples mis-informed views will make them less inclined to fully co-operate in joint tasks, before that task has even started. If you turned up to a joint exercise with the impression you just gave there, even the most motivated would not be interested in working with you.

Well i could be, but there is alot more to read here, and we do the survival equipment aspect for the army to, parachutes, AAC kit and the likes. Besides, this is raf related, im sure someone in that area should be free to post an opinion, or ask a question here.
 
#18
I have never worked with them, so what is there approach to joint operations, and how is it different to ours? And how are they more capable Officers/Seniors/juniors?

The Navy is happy to listen and happy to act as a willing facilitator for Operations and Exercises rather than the 'we will pick you up/move you/assist/give top cover/carry out EO tasking/support your range package/ IF it suits our training. This was the case 15 years ago in Northern Ireland and its still the same now.

In addition their ranks are able, like the Army, to move away from the 'its not my job mate' attitude of the RAF even if they are a technical trade or the specific task is not in their sphere of normal operations.


It could also be argued that peoples mis-informed views will make them less inclined to fully co-operate in joint tasks, before that task has even started. If you turned up to a joint exercise with the impression you just gave there, even the most motivated would not be interested in working with you.

You are quite correct, in a utopia. there is an element of 'vicious circle' to this, but where do you think peoples personal opinions of working with the RAF come from?

I honestly don't mean this as a dig, however, ground trades (Less Regiment) in the RAF, are managed and not led.
The RAF is run closer to a commercial/corporate model than the other services.


Well i could be, but there is alot more to read here, and we do the survival equipment aspect for the army to, parachutes, AAC kit and the likes. Besides, this is raf related, im sure someone in that area should be free to post an opinion, or ask a question here.

Good for joining this site, it is a wealth of informed and not so informed discussion on military matters. Very nice to see the SE trade represented, there are some threads in Aviation that would benefit from your input.
I stand by my comment that It could be argued that RAF single service politics/ineptitude/arrogance over the years have damaged 'our capabilities' massively.

Your integrity and enthusiasm is an example to your service, it is a shame that there is an element in the RAF that sees self preservation as a higher priority than the greater good of the Armed Forces as a whole.

It is people like you who need to educate the remainder that the Army and the Navy are not the poor relations and the RAF way of doing things is not the only or best way of doing things.


The usual suspects for this are generally crusty 20yr Sgts, Flt Sgts and crusty Sqn Ldrs who still lament the glory days of Bucks, Jags, Phantoms and no Joint Ops.
 
#19
I stand by my comment that It could be argued that RAF single service politics/ineptitude/arrogance over the years have damaged 'our capabilities' massively.

Your integrity and enthusiasm is an example to your service, it is a shame that there is an element in the RAF that sees self preservation as a higher priority than the greater good of the Armed Forces as a whole.

It is people like you who need to educate the remainder that the Army and the Navy are not the poor relations and the RAF way of doing things is not the only or best way of doing things.


The usual suspects for this are generally crusty 20yr Sgts, Flt Sgts and crusty Sqn Ldrs who still lament the glory days of Bucks, Jags, Phantoms and no Joint Ops.
Im not sure if people go on op's out of trade through choice like you say the navy do, but within the RAF we have DWR's, which can be for anything that the air force need, top cover, force protection, driver or trade related roles out on op's, there are alot of people who go out of role to afghan, but you wont hear of it much as they are IR's rather then anything formed. I believe the navy are more ready to deploy on op's in 'other duties' as they have no operational role. What need is there for a marine engineer in a landlocked country? By trade, the guys in the navy have to re-role if they want to go anywhere near Afghan, the RAF already has a fixed role there.

I dont know what goes on over the other side of the fence (the guys getting our kit, maybe even you), but i have been in a position where the recipient of my work was almost specifically army. When you are dealing with things like packing parachutes, or anything else to do with survival, when they demand more of you then quality will allow, you have to say no, no matter how special they are and what they are used to getting when they demand.

The problem is realistic limits, we get some kit, Whether it be a Typhoon or a Chinook, and its deployable limit will be set. A Year or so later our users will ask for just one more to be added on deployments or exercises, or maybe 10 or so extra tradesmen. Then after 6 or so years, the realistic limit has been bent so many times that some part of the engineering or logistics chain is going to break. Then you get things like Parachutes not opening, Nimrods falling out the sky and anything else you can think of. You can usually trace it back to human error, then even further to supply and demand on humans and equipment.

This is why there needs to be tight regulation on the kit these CAS pilots are using, and the pilots themselves. It may seem like a shit human factors approach to operations, but if a pilots exhuasted and his aircraft is falling apart and he or it fucks up, we will be left with the question 'why did we let it get so bad'?

But i do agree, i think a basic and closer connection to the army would benefit us, get a basic training package that is the same military wide, along with the fitness levels, things as simple as that could help us operate more fluidly im sure.
 
#20
Im not sure if people go on op's out of trade through choice like you say the navy do,
I dont mean that at all.

I am referring to the individual services attitude to achieving the aim of an exercise or operation.
Real life example:
-RAF det, can you provide 2 men as drivers for the upcoming unit move?
-No, we are not here to be drivers.
-Do you have airmen who are trained to drive vehicle XYZ?
-Errrr yes
-Well, thank you for your help.....

How many times have you been on CCS and someone has come out with the classic 'We don't do guns, thats the Regiments job'

This is why there needs to be tight regulation on the kit these CAS pilots are using, and the pilots themselves. It may seem like a shit human factors approach to operations, but if a pilots exhuasted and his aircraft is falling apart and he or it fucks up, we will be left with the question 'why did we let it get so bad'?
That is the same throughout the more modern technical armed forces. The other services seem to do well while not working to rule and being able to apply lateral thinking to situations.


Bottom line, it is easier to work with any other unit or service than the RAF who in some respects have become a self licking lollypop.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top