RAF / USAF ranting and expostulating

[Andy Zarse]

So if I've got this straight what you're saying is that you do give a toss that I know that you don't give a toss?

That's quite enough tossing for one day!

[monkey]

So if I've got this straight what you're saying is that you do give a toss that I know that you don't give a toss?

That's quite enough tossing for one day!

errr, correct.   

[Perdu]

We should diversify this here, mebbe.

Not only should the MOD continue to fund the Reds, they should also pull the Hawks off 'em and stick the guys into the Eurofighter thingy that is very fast (with reheat!) and probably a better display aircraft than a fighter.

Can't shoot very much with concrete ballast instead of the gun can it?

 

[Boorish Grobian]

Some good points by all here.  Would love to see the Red's kitted out with the new Eurofighter, they could expand on a already outstanding display.  As far as pilot talent goes, I think all patriotism aside, there's very little difference in the ability of these blokes (or in the case of the Thunderbirds, there's a bird flying as well). These are all the best of the best.  I know first hand that there's a huge amount of mutual respect among all the demonstration team pilots, one of my neighbors has a nephew who flew with the Angels.  He has a great story about the Dayton Air Show a few years ago when the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, and Snowbirds all perormed each afternoon.  He said on the Sunday night after the show was wrapped up, all three teams invaded one of Wright-Patterson AFB's watering holes and there was carnage...the good kind.  But apparently there wasn't much booze left in the place the next morning.
Fax

[Nobby Diesel]

Too true Fax.
The brother of one of my long time friends is Richard Patanous. I think he is called "Red 1" or "Red Leader". Either way, I gather he is a pretty big cheese in the Red Arrows.
I have heard a tale or two regarding the above mentioned "mutual respect" that exists. And rightly so.

[oldtimer]

Well when was the right time?...

I'm disappointed too about the making of infantile comments about Gerry Anderson..

It really doesn't matter when the rigt time WAS, it is surely that NOW is an insensitive time to be 'bigging-up' the USAF.

As for the Gerry Andersen reference... no bol*ocks can't be bothered to answer that one.

You also, in another entry within this thread, comment about the rudeness shown to CA colleagues.  Admirable sentiment.  Perhaps you should consider the degree of rudeness you insert into your posts before criticising others on that score 

And Fax -  as intimated above it is the timing of this particular debate that has hit a rather raw nerve with some of us over here... I made my posts to indicate that.  They were not meant as a rant.  There are many topics on this site that people really do rant about like whether they can take their inflatable swimming pools onto a LM campsite (should anybody really give a f*ck about that?) or whether the allocated space on those campsites is slightly smaller than it used to be and so on, I suppose if my posts really were rants then better to rant about soemthing of some real importance.

[Andy Zarse]

Leaving aside the presumably indefensible Gerry Anderson comment, as suggested, I have indeed considered the degree of rudeness I insert into my posts before criticising others on that score. Here is the result of my investigation:-

Firstly let me give you my definition of rude- peremptory, illconsidered, uncivil and ill-mannered as to be bordering on abusive. Secondly, I may on occasion make "sharp tongued" posts at times but I don't think they are ever gratuitously "rude". They are made when the occasion IMO demands. I am quite happy for other to disagree with me. You might mistake my "dry sense of humour" as rudeness, that is your perogative. However, I'm not "rude" where it is totally uncalled for. Describing the professional pilots in the US display teams, who presumable command the respect of their peers, as sunglass wearing prima donnas is not only uncalled for, but gratuotously rude and boorish towards our American CA colleagues.

It seems to me we are never going to agree on any subject. Your inability to take on board other folks points of view
without getting your knickers in twist was amply proved on the "debate" we conducted about Schumacher. If I might be so rude as to say, i think you are nothing but a sillly old erm... timer.

[Nobby Diesel]

Andy,

you skills are wasted on here  .

Get yourself a job on Newsnight, Questiontime or similar!

[oldtimer]

Describing the professional pilots in the US display teams, who presumable command the respect of their peers, as sunglass wearing prima donnas is not only uncalled for, but gratuotously rude and boorish towards our American CA colleagues.

Andy.  Thanks for your restrained response.  Like you I may make "sharp tongued" comments in my posts from time to time and like you I make them only when the occassion demands.

It is a shame that you accuse me of describing the pilots in the US display teams as sunglass wearing prima donnas.  If you re-read the original post you will see that I was not directing that comment at the display pilots.  It seems your accusation was a little illconsidered.

[oldtimer]

Gerry Anderson comment

...dry sense of humour perhaps..?

[Boorish Grobian]

Oldtimer, just out of curiosity, when was I "bigging up" the USAF?  We were discussing demonstration teams, perhaps you should read postings a bit more thoroughly before you go on another one of your trademark xenophobic tirades.
I have great sympathy for the friends and family of the bloke who was accidentally taken out by a A-10, but as I said...Its fricking war!  These things happen!  During the first Gulf war we lost the entire crew of a Bradley when it accidentally wandered into the kill zone of a Apache attack helicopter and failed to identify itself.  Once again, its horrible when it happens, but friendly fire is a fact of life in war.  I'm sure no-one feels worse than the pilot who fired on him.
Fax

[monkey]

Its fricking war!  These things happen!
Fax

so that's it is it. We just shrug our shoulders and walk away, or hide behind the coat tales bureaucrats denying the existence of any cockpit camera, is that how it works??

Its come to a sorry state of affairs when ‘its fricking war live with it’ (paraphrase) is in any form of response.

[Boorish Grobian]

Well Monkey, what else is there to say?  I'm pretty certain he wasn't killed on purpose.  There are some people on this forum who are constantly trying to turn every thread into some kind of politcal statement, or seem to feel there's always some hidden agenda behind a post.  Just take a post for face value, we were debating aerobatic demonstration teams, nothing more.  If you want to launch into a tirade about what happened, then start a f**k*ng thread and yell at your computer till your hearts content.
Fax

[oldtimer]

when was I "bigging up" the USAF?

 During the first Gulf war we lost the entire crew of a Bradley when it accidentally wandered into the kill zone of a Apache attack helicopter and failed to identify itself.  Once again, its horrible when it happens, but friendly fire is a fact of life in war.  I'm sure no-one feels worse than the pilot who fired on him.
Fax

OK, OK display teams it was but do you not understand why people on this side of the pond may be a little sensitive at the moment about the USAF?

You make a point about the loss to friendly fire of a Bradley during the first Gulf War, but there can be no comparison between the two events.  You say yourself that "...it accidentally wandered into the kill zone of a Apache attack helicopter and failed to identify itself".  That is the whole fricking point.  The British vehicles were identified by coloured panels and they further identified themselves to be 'friendlies' by releasing coloured smoke... but still, without waiting for appropriate clearance from the ground, the A10 attacked anyway.

Yes friendly fire happens in wars.  Yes friendly fire is terrible.  BUT IT CAN SOMETIMES BE AVOIDED BY FOLLOWING ESTABLISHED RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

Were these rules followed in this case?  NO

Perhaps the deceased soldier's widow might feel worse about the whole thing than the pilot by the way.  I am not saying he doesn't feel remorse - or perhaps even guilt - because it seems from the voice recordings that the flight crew were genuinely upset.


I have some sympathy with the 'heat of the battle' argument that is often put forward to explain tragic friendly fire incidents, but do they really apply in this case?  The allied air forces have a free reign of the skies in the region don't they and the A10 wasn't taking ground-fire was it?  The voice recordings from the incident certainly do not suggest that the crew were under any unusual stress so why were they unable to follow the established rules of engagement?

[Lawnmower Man]

Were these rules followed in this case?  NO

Oldtimer.
You forgot the IMHO.

We only know what we are fed by the media. 

Blue on Blue happens.  Everyone should accept that.  Then having done so,  investigate how and why it happend and if possible take steps to prevent it happening in the future.

I've never been to war.  I won't want to go to war.  I don't really want anyone to go to war.
I've no idea what it's like to kill anyone.   

I imagine the pilot is pretty freaked out knowing what as happend.   I'm not sure he's the one to blame not am I sure if it's the USAF either.  I believe it's the whole system.

May be we should go after the butterfly that flapped it's wings.

t.