PDA

View Full Version : Sharkey shows his teeth


skua
30th Jun 2011, 18:20
Sharkey Ward has a letter in today's FT. Sadly I'm not at my pc so can't copy it. Perhaps someone else can. In it he casts aspersions on the close air support given in Libya from GdC, and unsurprisingly believes the Harrier would be on task quicker, with the same weapons. More contentiously he is questioning the QRA capabilty of the guys in Afghan. He gives an address in St Georges, Grenada. May be he is o/ding on rum punches.....

5 Forward 6 Back
30th Jun 2011, 18:37
What's his issue with GCAS in Afghanistan? I've not heard any complaints....? Similarly, I didn't think we were doing any sort of GCAS on Op ELLAMY, which rather makes response time moot. We don't have any boots on the ground to support there per se, so all sorties surely have to be planned to meet the ATO.

In an ideal world all our jets would carry all our weapons, but in reality I'd take the jet with Storm Shadow, RAPTOR and Brimstone over a faster response time when there's not a lot to respond to.

Dengue_Dude
30th Jun 2011, 18:39
Sharkey Ward has a letter in today's FT

Is that Sharkey, ex Canberras and Tonkas?

Duncan D'Sorderlee
30th Jun 2011, 18:47
Without having read the article, I suspect that it is Sharkey Ward RN - winner of the Falklands War.

Duncs:ok:

Romeo Oscar Golf
30th Jun 2011, 19:22
......and self appointed legend in his own lifetime.

60024
30th Jun 2011, 19:40
Is that Leg End?

cazatou
30th Jun 2011, 19:45
ROG

You must be wrong with that assumption!!

Surely he came into this World accompanied by Celestial Choirs and the homage of all the good folk of the Realm!!! :ugh:

sturb199
30th Jun 2011, 19:50
self appointed legend in his own lifetime.

More like his own lunch box!!!! :E

TurbineTooHot
30th Jun 2011, 20:02
I managed to read the first bit of his ill-judged, pathetically wrong rant before the FT website tried to make be register.

He claims the FT have not got their facts straight. Ah, glorious hypocrisy.

We've had many threads on this now.

I call upon serving members of the FAA to respond to the accusation I and many colleagues repeatedly make of Cdr Ward, that a large glaring number of his facts are patently incorrect, and that he appears to be so rabidly anti RAF that, what could be a well put together argument becomes flawed and vitriolic.

NutherA2
30th Jun 2011, 21:02
Is that Sharkey, ex Canberras and Tonkas?

No, it's the Sharkey ex Sea Vixens & Psantom FG1s

Dengue_Dude
30th Jun 2011, 21:26
Thanks chaps.

The Sharkey Ward I knew was a nice guy and not quite a legend in his own lunchtime, bless him.

jamesdevice
30th Jun 2011, 22:01
The "Mr Sharks" (NEVER Sharkey) from Yeovilton who I met a few times in the late 1970's was also a nice chap. He and I both helped out on one of the local farms at harvest and sheep-shearing time. As far as I'm aware he was also responsible for Father Christmas arriving at the local school in a Wessex 5. I suspect it was actually him in the beard, though I'm sure he won't thank me for saying so.

Gaz ED
1st Jul 2011, 06:21
I'm sayin' nuttin'!

MG
1st Jul 2011, 06:53
Guys,
Try this link. Hopefully it'll work: A Harrier can be on task within 30 minutes of a call - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/332bdcb2-a297-11e0-83fc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1QplRpmXu)

It beggars belief and is, sadly all too common, an ill-informed and unprofessional attack.

BEagle
1st Jul 2011, 07:26
airpolice, thanks for finding that route to bypass the Murdoch paywall.....

"Launched from a carrier, the Harrier has at least as good firepower as the Tornado..."
The poor old rum-sozzled Bearded Bull$hitter really does seem to be losing it - what a shame for someone who won the South Atlantic war single-handed.

Did he really retire as Commander? Or as a Lt Cdr?

Fire 'n' Forget
1st Jul 2011, 07:34
The man has serious problems..........someone call him a doctor, maybe section him for his own good. His credibility is seriously in free fall, I bet most of his supporters are hiding behind the sofa peeking over !

david parry
1st Jul 2011, 07:37
Sharkey a Wafu Ledge;) http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/5/45/12545/v0_master.jpg

fin1012
1st Jul 2011, 08:30
I love the way he ends:

'This major delay puts lives at risk; not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan, where the same appalling procedural practices are employed.'

I'm assuming that he is criticising the ATO cycle, but the way he has written his letter, (and given his previous rants I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate) the general public reader would assume he meant that Harrier on a carrier in the Gulf could be on task in Afghanistan in 30 minutes.

Given the return distance for such a sortie is approx twice the unrefuelled range of Harrier, how would Mr Ward propose to achieve this? He seems to think it unreasonable that RAF aircraft might need AAR for some tasks, so I assume he would impose the same constraint on his own service?

Perhaps he will next propose the building of a canal through Pakistan?

Or perhaps the answer in some cases is land based aviation.

I used to get annoyed at Mr Ward's drivel, but now I just can't help laughing out loud. Keeps me amused for days.

maxburner
1st Jul 2011, 09:13
Good answer FIN 1012. The leg from Carrier to Helmand is a bit of a stretch for a Harrier.

I wonder what the drop / no drop ratio is in Libya - ie, how many missions result in the Tornado or Typhoon bringing bombs back to base? That's a trick for a Harrier landing on a short deck.

I wonder too how much of the delay between call and on-task is due not to an inherent aircraft or basing problem, but to a need to get the target confirmed given the somewhat irregular nature of the forces involved.

I do wish Sharky would give it a rest. He's becomming as tedious as a stuck record.

just another jocky
1st Jul 2011, 10:10
I didn't read the letter as saying the Harrier can be on task in Afghanistan in 30 minutes, merely that the same (poor, according to him) standards can be found in Afghanistan.

Yet again, factually in error and full on quite vehement anti-RAF slant.

His asserion that all those involved in the RAF are party to poor performance and decision-making like this is not honourable. He should be ashamed.

FODPlod
1st Jul 2011, 11:41
I'm assuming that he is criticising the ATO cycle, but the way he has written his letter, (and given his previous rants I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate) the general public reader would assume he meant that Harrier on a carrier in the Gulf could be on task in Afghanistan in 30 minutes.Knowing the often heavy-handed editing that precedes the publication of most letters, I doubt what was printed bears much resemblance to what was submitted. However, even I can see that Sharkey isn't suggesting that a carrier-based Harrier could be on task over Afghanistan within 30 minutes. He is questioning current procedural practices for their land-based equivalents which he states need 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces.

I have seen much from RAF sources about mission flexibility being restricted by the ATO published the previous day and the inability to provide blanket cover. Instead of simply castigating Sharkey and deliberately misinterpreting his words, would someone care to explain in a rational manner whether he has a valid point or not?

Dengue_Dude
1st Jul 2011, 11:55
Wow, he certainly knew how to bring out the best in people didn't he?

Be going for parliament next . . .

Gaz ED
1st Jul 2011, 12:12
I can only presume his current complaint is that the Harrier would be quicker on a GCAS scramble. I do try and pick salient points from his diatribes, but it's getting more difficult.

A point to ponder is where is he getting his information, as he is located on the spice island of Grenada - presumably serving pilots of all air forces come forward with pukka gen proferred in homage.

I'll shut up now..........

ghostnav
1st Jul 2011, 13:45
There is a time when one should just hang up your flying helmet and walk away. Sadly, many think they still have answers to the worlds problems - but the world moves on and things change. What is more surprising is a quality paper actually prints such crap!

Archimedes
1st Jul 2011, 14:18
OK, FOD, will give it a go.

the letter may well have been edited rather roughly, but the reader is presented with a stark contrast between carrier and land based air.


Sharkey's claims:

Launched from a carrier, the Harrier has at least as good firepower as the Tornado and can be on task delivering weapons within 30 minutes of a call for urgent support from ground forces.

Bit of an ask for Afghanistan, since I imagine that the transit from a CVS to the TIC would take a bit longer than 30 minutes...


In stark contrast, the Tornado and other land-based aircraft operating from Italy have a transit time of 1.5 hours to get to the target and require air-to-air refuelling. Further, these land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours' notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces.

Others can comment from experience (within the constraints of OPSEC, of course), but my understanding from both TGR and Harrier mates (including dark blue in the latter) would lead me to conclude that either the letter has been edited to the point that it is nonsense, or that Cdr Ward wrote nonsense in the first place.

This major delay puts lives at risk; not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan, where the same appalling procedural practices are employed.

Clearly depends upon the accuracy of his previous paragraph, but are the 'same appalling procedural practices' not the ones which were in place when the Harrier force did Herrick, in which case they can't be as bad, since Cdr Ward was claiming elsewhere that Harriers from Kandahar could respond to calls for support in a manner so swift that if one blinked, you'd miss it? Or did the Harriers not operate in an ATO cycle? Or perhaps he means that with the departure of the Harriers, has the TGRF turned up and 'said 'flexibility? Pah! You're not having that'? :uhoh:

Rector16
1st Jul 2011, 14:35
CAS procedures - I'm afraid that there are some (possibly included the bearded Mr ward - or the FT editorial team) who haven't quite grasped ATOs, GCAS and TIC response. If you don't understand you would have thought that you wouldn't go into print - but (sadly) that isn't generally the case with today's media moguls.

Just because a mission is tasked 24 hrs ahead (or a year ahead for that matter) doesn't mean that it can't react to an incident of higher priority (like a TIC situation). All CAS-capable aircrew can move easily from one task to another (and I know that AT, SH etc etc can too - but this is a CAS discussion!). So, you stick a pair on the ATO for an 0900 T/O - then you can get the jet ready, plan sleep times and generally manage your assets. You steam off to your 1st task (probably of several) and stooge around providing support to the man on the ground. Something happens 100 miles away and the C2 net tells you to move sharpish to new task - GR4 is faster than GR7/9, but in reality the arrival time at new task will be the same. Amazingly, your CAS ac has reacted to a TIC in sub-10 mins despite having a task that he was allocated 24 hours ago.

In case you haven't got enough ac for 24/7 cover across the country - you task a few pairs/ac to GCAS (Ground Alert), scrambling them as required for tasks that require it. Result = sub-10 mins response times across your country. Does depend on location of bases and other tasks, but it seems to work in A'stan and Libya.

Sadly, I couldn't get an article published in the press because I ran the CAS war in A'stan for a few months from Kabul - apparently I knew too much!!!:{

foldingwings
1st Jul 2011, 14:46
He clearly didn't read my letter published in the Sunday Telegraph on 12 June written in order to refute the garbage spouted by an AAC Lt Col, the Captain of Ocean and Cdre K (all sitting drinking their pink gins off the Libyan coast) in the same paper the previous week (5 June) who were all quoted as stating that because helos can fly lower and slower than fast jets and carry smaller weapons they are, consequently, more accurate than Tornado and Typhoon!

I cut and paste it here but have removed my sig block in case I end up getting the Sharkey treatment from the opposition!

Here it is:

Inaccuracy of Apache Attack Helicopters
It beggars belief that some Army and Royal Navy officers make extravagant statements to the press in an attempt to 'big up' their role in operations against the Gaddafi Regime ("Strike by British helicopters signals an escalation in the Libya conflict", report, June 5).

Fact: helicopters, generally, fly slower and lower than fast jets. Fiction: helicopter weapons are smaller and more precise. Rockets and cannon, as deployed on Apache, suffer from greater ballistic dispersion and are, therefore, more likely to cause collateral damage than the highly accurate Storm Shadow missile and Paveway guided bombs currently deployed on Tornado GR4 or Typhoon aircraft operating from Gioia del Colle in southern Italy.

Hellfire, launched from Apache, is exactly the same missile as Brimstone, launched from the deployed fast jets. But unlike the American-built Hellfire, Brimstone has a British-made, more versatile seeker on its Hellfire missile body, thereby providing not only greater accuracy against a raft of different targets, but also making it more flexible. I was involved in the procurement of all of these weapons during a four-year stint at the MOD.


Back to Sharkey, he also falls into the 'beggars belief' category and talks uneducated and out of date cr@p from the comfort of his deck chair in the Caribbean! The Harrier cannot, never could and never would carry the missiles that are available to the Tornado GR4 (Storm Shadow, for example). Indeed, it was removed from that very programme by the Harrier Mafia themselves whilst I was doing that four-year stint (see above) in MOD! Moreover, many Harrier weapons were never cleared for storage in the magazine of the 3 through-deck cruisers that the Navy had at the time. AND, he has clearly never read a doctrine JSP in his life! WHY, tell me why, would anybody want to do CAS of any description when there are no blurred boundaries between our own troops and those of the enemy - our troops are not ashore (at least, so we are led to believe)!

Bloody Navy and Bloody Army - just because they came first does not make them masters of the sky - indeed, it qualifies them for the complete opposite!

Foldie (getting more f:mad:g p:mad:d off with these morons than ever these days!)

And relax:)

jamesdevice
1st Jul 2011, 14:55
but surely the 24 hour rule was there to make sure there were enough sober aircrew for the mission?

minigundiplomat
1st Jul 2011, 14:55
I attempted to read his book recently. I gave up half way through as it was just a rant about the RAF trying to ruin his war. He struck me as an insufferable pr1ck and this latest rant doesn't help his cause.

One would have thought that after many years as a civilian, and a deckchair in the Caribbean he would have learnt to 'let go' of whatever it is the RAF did to annoy him.

FODPlod
1st Jul 2011, 15:09
Sharkey's claims:
Launched from a carrier, the Harrier has at least as good firepower as the Tornado and can be on task delivering weapons within 30 minutes of a call for urgent support from ground forces.Bit of an ask for Afghanistan, since I imagine that the transit from a CVS to the TIC would take a bit longer than 30 minutes...Now you're having a laugh. You know perfectly well he's referring to the Libyan scenario. As for the claim about weapons, I know Harrier wasn't cleared for Brimstone but am led to believe this was in the pipeline before it was withdrawn from service. I also know Harrier is unsuited as a platform for Storm Shadow but this could still have been launched by land-based a/c when necessary; I've always regarded land and sea-based air as complementary, not mutually exclusive. However, carrier-based Rafales have launched SCALP EG, the French equivalent of Storm Shadow.In stark contrast, the Tornado and other land-based aircraft operating from Italy have a transit time of 1.5 hours to get to the target and require air-to-air refuelling. Further, these land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours' notice for close air support missions in support of ground forcesOthers can comment from experience (within the constraints of OPSEC, of course), but my understanding from both TGR and Harrier mates (including dark blue in the latter) would lead me to conclude that either the letter has been edited to the point that it is nonsense, or that Cdr Ward wrote nonsense in the first place.

Sharkey's first point is self-evident. Isn't his second point prescribed by the ATO i.a.w a set target list if you don't have sufficient quick reaction a/c available close to the JOA?This major delay puts lives at risk; not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan, where the same appalling procedural practices are employed. Clearly depends upon the accuracy of his previous paragraph, but are the 'same appalling procedural practices' not the ones which were in place when the Harrier force did Herrick, in which case they can't be as bad, since Cdr Ward was claiming elsewhere that Harriers from Kandahar could respond to calls for support in a manner so swift that if one blinked, you'd miss it? Or did the Harriers not operate in an ATO cycle? Or perhaps he means that with the departure of the Harriers, has the TGRF turned up and 'said 'flexibility? Pah! You're not having that'? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif
I'm not qualified to comment. Perhaps Sharkey has got the wrong end of the stick here but as a general point, isn't any inability to react quickly liable to risk lives?

On this occasion, I am more impressed with Rector16's clarification which I have just read and for which I thank him.

Archimedes
1st Jul 2011, 16:40
FOD - one could (and should) infer that he is talking about the Libyan scenario (but to whom are we providing CAS), but the tone of the letter is ambiguous, hence my throwaway comment.

I suspect the editing, but for the reasons I've adduced elsewhere, I am not entirely confident that a spot of smoke & mirrors might not have crept in.

As for the point being self-evident, again, agreed: but he fails to note in his wider contentions (not just this letter) that the same applies for carrier based air providing CAS in Afghanistan.

As for the inability to respond swiftly, Rector16 has illustrated why the Wardian narrative of Harriers holding deck alert leaping off to the rescue while the land-based air plods towards the scene of the bother is wrong; the basic notion that having air on hand promptly is a good thing is undeniable, but the letter suggests that the issue of response times is a matter of black and white, when that isn't quite the case.

Backwards PLT
2nd Jul 2011, 12:55
Just to clarify how CAS generally works for those that aren't aware, based on Afghan (Sharkey you need to read this as you clearly aren't aware how anything works these days - it isn't the Malvinas).

You never know when you will need CAS, unless there is a pre planned op but you can make some good guesses based on historical data (dawn attacks, night raids, avoiding midday heat etc) so you can have more CAS airborne at the right time. In Afghan there is quite a lot of FJ CAS plus Reaper (which actually carries more weapons than GR4 but can't do SOP/SOF or strafe), or even a Pred if you are desperate (only one weapon). These aircraft can be doing other stuff (ISTAR/NTISR for example) or just be turning dead trees to noise (XCAS) waiting for something to happen. These will give rapid response times, certainly in central Helmand which is an ATC nightmare with all the traffic. On that point the biggest factor in getting a weapon on target is often not getting an aircraft eyes on and a 9-line sent but actually clearing the airspace (a plus point for helos).

However there will inevitably be times when there is nothing available airborne so there will be GCAS (ground alert CAS) these will have an alert time, lets call it 10 minutes for sake of argument, but that is a "no longer than". The limiting time here is waiting for kit to align and spool up and the wind up time of the engines(s). Given that Harrier only has one engine then it may gain 30 secs on GR4 but then again the WSO can be doing the kit at the same time as the pilot is doing the engines so I would suggest there is no discernible difference between the 2. Once airborne the limiting factor is obviously distance to run and transit speed. Harrier wouldn't be at too much of a disadvantage given the short distances usually involved in Afghan. Likewise Apaches are rubbish for this if the CAS is 100nm away but great if your AOR is minute (TFH for example).

In Afghan if there is an urgent need for CAS, ie a TiC, then you don't request it through the ATO cycle!!!!! There are other means that will provide what is needed as quickly as possible. I don't know the actual stats (and wouldn't say if I did!) but for Helmand/Kandahar area I would be surprised if it is more than 10 mins in most cases, 30 mins in all cases.

Hope that has helped to clarify.

johnnypaveway
2nd Jul 2011, 15:29
Backwards PLT, DH! - as JTAC and BASO-I feel that Sharkey is talking bo££ox.
TIC response times are generally always quicker than PLTs figures. Normally the only times a jt fires response was beyond 10 mins would be multiple concurrent TIC events or difficulty clearing civ airspace for GMLRS. Have worked Harrier in the Maz and it was awesome. GR-4 in MOSHTARAK also superb.

Back to Libiya I truly wish we still had carrier CAS capability, but the GR-4 is the better tool for the job in concert with FGR.

Canadian Break
2nd Jul 2011, 18:40
Dear Mr Ward

Thank you so much for your regular letters to the press pointing out the failings of the Junior Service – they are most informative. Indeed, information they contain is second only to the inaccuracy of that information:ugh:. We can only imagine that you fail to realise the progress that has been made since you took part in that nastiness in the South Atlantic where, unless we are sadly mistaken, you were out-scored, nay, perhaps even outshone, by a member of that Junior Service (sorry Moggie, couldn’t help myself:=) that you now quite unashamedly choose to denigrate on every conceivable occasion. Perhaps this is made all-the-more difficult to stomach by the fact that the said member of the Junior Service was not even a Sea Harrier thoroughbred like yourself, but simply a half-retrained ground attack chap:{! Anyway, moving on old sport; times have changed and if you really want to find the reasons for the fall from grace of the FAA I suggest you look closer to home – in the Admiralty perhaps? Toodle pip old man, and don’t stay out in that Caribbean sun too long – it fries the brain don’t cha know – oh, sorry too late!

CB

ex-fast-jets
2nd Jul 2011, 19:06
Ignore the Ward!!

It will irritate him more than acknowledging him and refuting his rubbish!!

The HERMES brigade down south way back when ignored his rantings and ravings. Best everyone now does the same!!

Responding to him might just make him think anyone cares about what he says!

And, as you say, CB, Moggie did a lot for the RN and the SHAR, even though he then was a mere Crab, without the amazing naval background that makes SW what he thinks he is!!

So, better to ignore him - that will p**s him off more than attempting to show how little he knows about modern warfare!!

Siggie
3rd Jul 2011, 22:59
Sharkey shows his teeth

and the glass he used to keep them in.

Finningley Boy
3rd Jul 2011, 23:29
I read in the Mail on Sunday today that the CDG has not been able to launch due to severe weather conditions. However, the R.A.F. havee been able to pick up their slack in a, conventional kind of way!:E

FB:)

FODPlod
4th Jul 2011, 07:32
I read in the Mail on Sunday today that the CDG has not been able to launch due to severe weather conditions. However, the R.A.F. havee been able to pick up their slack in a, conventional kind of way!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

FBhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gifAs Seldomfitforpurpose has implied in the 'Decision to axe the Harriers is Bonkers' thread, the story is tosh (link (http://isramar.ocean.org.il/isramar2009/wave_model/default.aspx?region=coarse&model=wam)) as is any suggestion that the RAF could "take up the slack" by flying an extra 35 to 40 sorties per day from Gioia del Colle. Aircraft from Charles de Gaulle have been flying 30-40% of the NATO strike missions over Libya.

Backwards PLT
4th Jul 2011, 07:40
Much as I think that most of what the Mail writes is "Tosh" , you can't just dismiss it because you don't like it, you need facts. Adding a link to future wave heights in the med doesn't prove that CDG hasn't been effected by rough seas in the past few months.

FODPlod
4th Jul 2011, 07:46
Much as I think that most of what the Mail writes is "Tosh" , you can't just dismiss it because you don't like it, you need facts. Adding a link to future wave heights in the med doesn't prove that CDG hasn't been effected by rough seas in the past few months. 'Current' wave heights, actually. :)

What about the bit about the RAF taking up the slack?

Unchecked
4th Jul 2011, 08:26
So if 30-40% of missions are flown from CDG, where are the remaining 60-70% flown from? Why so proud of that stat?

Fire 'n' Forget
4th Jul 2011, 12:34
40% of the sorties off the CDG, tosh........no doubt a 'stat' that fits.

Occasional Aviator
4th Jul 2011, 12:39
This statistic (30-40% of NATO sorties) has been bandied around quite a bit now. I see the daily OUP ATO briefs and although I would not wish to breach OPSEC, the numbers are much lower.

It may be that someone has mixed up a few figures. I'd say that 30-40% of the fast jet sorties that FRANCE PROVIDES TO NATO are from CDG - given that France stumps up something like 30% of the total FJ sorties, that would make the numbers fit with what I see daily.

Of course, the proportions don't count the ISTAR, Tankers, AWACS etc.

FODPlod
4th Jul 2011, 12:42
40% of the sorties off the CDG, tosh........no doubt a 'stat' that fits.

Not my statistic:NATO's Libya Op may soon lose its only aircraft carrier (http://www.acus.org/natosource/natos-libya-op-may-soon-loose-its-only-aircraft-carrier)


"The elephant in the room is the imminent departure of the French carrier, given it has been flying 30-40 percent of all NATO strike sorties," said Tim Ripley, of Jane's Defense Weekly.

"It's a looming problem, so sustaining this operation, particularly if it's going to grind past September or October, is going to be a problem."

Occasional Aviator
4th Jul 2011, 12:49
Oh well, Tim Ripley.

I'll ask the guys that prepare the ATO briefs to ring him then, he clearly has a better idea than the CFAC.

Backwards PLT
4th Jul 2011, 12:56
LMAO - as they say these days.

FOD - One fact quoted in the press is unassailable because it agrees with your pov (despite someone who knows saying it is bollox) but another fact quoted in the press must be wrong because it doesn't agree with your pov (but you have no first hand knowledge or facts).

I'm trying to stay even handed here but you aren't helping yourself. If I had to guess, not from the current situation but from past experience with the press, I would say that it is almost certain that both "facts" are either wildly inaccurate or just plain wrong. Perhaps if we all stopped using journos as our "sources" it would make the debate a little more professional, not to mention accurate.

just another jocky
4th Jul 2011, 20:26
As Seldomfitforpurpose has implied in the 'Decision to axe the Harriers is Bonkers' thread, the story is tosh (link (http://isramar.ocean.org.il/isramar2009/wave_model/default.aspx?region=coarse&model=wam)) as is any suggestion that the RAF could "take up the slack" by flying an extra 35 to 40 sorties per day from Gioia del Colle. Aircraft from Charles de Gaulle have been flying 30-40% of the NATO strike missions over Libya.

Why this hang-up with sortie rates? It's not about how many sorties you can generate, it's do you have an aircraft that can match the required effect in the desired time. Rate is mostly irrelevant.

Foghorn Leghorn
4th Jul 2011, 21:05
FODplod, Seldomfitforpurpose is being sarcastic by saying the story is tosh. I think you better re-read his comments. The clue is in the number of smilies with the sticky out tongue at the end of his post.

Well said JAJ, sortie rate is irrelevant if you only get a few minutes in the AOR from the aircraft. Anyway, I do not for one minute believe that the CdG are launching 30-40% of the sorties. I think I'll go with the Occasional Aviator who looks at the ATO briefs.

johnnypaveway
5th Jul 2011, 09:04
The RN assault continues, I would urge a view of today's Torygraph letters page. The Adm Woodward really has some great ideas.........,perhaps not. For a man the keeps decrying the 3 castles of single service rivalry and back-biting he seems to be chucking a whole load of spears from his battlement....

If someone smarter than I could find a link I'd be most obliged:)

FODPlod
5th Jul 2011, 09:44
The RN assault continues, I would urge a view of today's Torygraph letters page. The Adm Woodward really has some great ideas.........,perhaps not. For a man the keeps decrying the 3 castles of single service rivalry and back-biting he seems to be chucking a whole load of spears from his battlement....

If someone smarter than I could find a link I'd be most obligedhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Not necessarily smarter but glad to oblige (scroll down the page to see the relevant letter). DT letters 5 July 2011: Merging Armed Forces (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8616418/The-cost-of-caring-for-a-spouse-in-old-age-can-make-life-far-harder-for-the-years-of-bereavement.html)
Ouch! Even I think amalgamating the RAF into the RN and the Army is a step too far. There are complementary roles for all three services but the additional availability of carrier air (with RN/RAF aircrew flying a carrier/land capable a/c) would certainly help ameliorate problems like this when, as is usual, other NATO/EU nations fall short of the requirement. In the past, the USA picked up the slack but it doesn't look like it'll be doing this quite so often in future.NATO allies bicker over lack of firepower in Libya (http://www.acus.org/natosource/nato-allies-bicker-over-lack-firepower-libya)


From James Blitz and Ana Fifield, the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9e40adc-9772-11e0-af13-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1PP3M3Y1T): Military experts say one way of gauging the lack of firepower in the Libya operation is to compare it to Nato’s 1999 air war over Kosovo. The Libya operation on Thursday entered its 78th day – exactly the length of time it took for Nato to remove Serbian forces from Kosovo. But Nato has flown only one-third the number of air sorties over Libya that it did over Kosovo – and hit only a fraction of the targets.

“When Robert Gates argues that the mission is under-resourced (http://www.acus.org/natosource/gates-nato-has-become-two-tiered-alliance), you have to agree with that 100 per cent,” says Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “It is no surprise that the Gaddafi regime is still able to let rip with rockets and artillery. Yet it is hard to see where the extra Nato firepower is going to come from.”

For the US, the blame lies very much with its European allies. Mr Gates has singled out Germany, Poland, Spain, Netherlands and Portugal for having the means to contribute to the Libya operation but refusing to do so. There is particular anguish over the stance taken by Germany and Poland, given that they have a combined 400 combat jets at their disposal.

In France, some figures in the military establishment believe the British could do more. “The UK are not really putting enough assets into Libya,” says a senior French official.

“We are daily putting between 30 and 35 aircraft into the operation but the British are putting in far less.”

And this, as we keep being told, is when the AOA is within reasonable striking range of a shedfull of NATO air bases. There are, of course, some exceptions among our allies:Gates on NATO: Too Little, Too Late (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4e25f101-c616-46ac-937c-308e90c7a493&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
...Norway and Denmark, have provided 12% of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution...

cazatou
5th Jul 2011, 12:26
Of course the RAF could resurrect the Marine Craft Branch - and take over the Aviation part of the Royal Navy. The RN will have few qualified fixed wing pilots by the time the Carrier comes on line. :rolleyes:

Backwards PLT
5th Jul 2011, 12:30
I used to have a lot of respect for the RN but that is rapidly disappearing. I know they have felt marginalised by Iraq/Afg as they are all about Land and Air (actually all about intelligence which is purple!) but to keep up these ill-informed, vitriolic attacks is getting a little wearing.

As a starter for ten I would suggest that reading the Defence Reform Review which states that the "three single services are the rocks on which defence is built" would be a good start, but of course the retd Admiral flotilla havent read anything about the current military, or they choose to ignore it.

Admiral Woodward's argument is faintly ridiculous. If we looked at current ops impartially rather than through a dark blue lens (and having had a little too much port) using the supported/supporting methodology we would see:
Air supports Land in Afg, Land supports civil effects (political and stabilisation). So we should all be a joint CS organisation.

In Libya Mar is supporting Air (helicopters are air power, whichever badge is on the side) so the RN should be merged into the RAF. In turn this is in support of a rebel Libyan Land component so we should probably merge into the rebel Libyan Army.

These arguments are clearly as ridiculous (although more logical) than Adm Woodward's.

Glad to hear we don't need an air defence as well, we can tell the govt to stand down the 3x QRAs that we have and not to worry, there's no chance of an attack by air ever again.

Lt Col Pender put it very well in his earlier letter:

the disparate nature of sea, air, and land warfare requires distinct career paths that uncontroversially integrate successfully at senior military headquarters and ministerial levels.
This demarcation reinforces a sensible, not overwhelming, distinctiveness of each Service, and recognises the deep human elements that make for success in battle.



Personally I'm with Lt Col Pender and the DRR - in many areas we need to be more joint in order to be more efficient with both resources and operational effect but the 3 single services are the way ahead.

The Senior leadership of the RN's blatant attempt to destroy the RAF is contemptible. They are clearly very worried that there is little reason for the FAA to operate F-35 and have instead decided to go down a "rubbish the RAF at every opportunity" route, otherwise their policy of "sell the family silver to pay for the carriers" could end in them being nothing more than a mobile airfield provider for the RAF. The shame!

[Note - I think the RN should have the carriers, but only if it doesn't strip virtually all other naval capability and I think F-35 should be flown by a joint RN/RAF organisation like JFH but with the RN contributing this time.]

foldingwings
5th Jul 2011, 13:31
Adm Woodward and Lt Cdr Ward! Last battle fought by these 2 devout sailors was the Falklands almost 30 years ago!

Ignore 'em, they're dyed in the wool and well past their sell by!

Foldie:ugh:

airpolice
5th Jul 2011, 13:37
May it please Your Worship....



Dyed in the wool, not died.

Canadian Break
5th Jul 2011, 15:23
Or perhaps it is "died" and the two of them have simply not realised what that smell of rotting fisheads is?

muttywhitedog
5th Jul 2011, 16:17
I cant be @rsed registering for the FT Trial, but I guess his article is along the lines of:

Harrier Harrier Blah Blah

Boat Boat Blah Blah

Beards Beards Blah Blah

Did I miss anything?

skua
5th Jul 2011, 17:49
You've got the idea. Full text below:

A Harrier can be on task within 30 minutes of a call - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/332bdcb2-a297-11e0-83fc-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1RFpJQ4Te)


From Cmdr Nigel D. MacCartan-Ward.

Sir, With reference to your editorial “Careless talk and UK military” (June 27): it is unfortunate that you should offer an opinion on the capabilities of the aircraft carrier and the Harrier jet and their relevance to the Libya campaign without getting your facts straight.

Indeed, your facts concerning land-based air (Royal Air Force) and sea-based air (Harrier) are diametrically in error.

Launched from a carrier, the Harrier has at least as good firepower as the Tornado and can be on task delivering weapons within 30 minutes of a call for urgent support from ground forces. In stark contrast, the Tornado and other land-based aircraft operating from Italy have a transit time of 1.5 hours to get to the target and require air-to-air refuelling. Further, these land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces.

This major delay puts lives at risk; not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan, where the same appalling procedural practices are employed.

Sharkey Ward,

St George’s, Grenada

Commander, Royal Navy (retd)

minigundiplomat
5th Jul 2011, 17:57
I cant be @rsed registering for the FT Trial, but I guess his article is along the lines of:

Harrier Harrier Blah Blah

Boat Boat Blah Blah

Beards Beards Blah Blah

Did I miss anything?


Nope! That seems to be the jist of it.

glad rag
5th Jul 2011, 18:32
For all you know there may be safety cases lurking in the background over the Harrier, just like the MR4A.

Like one single wire from the bottom of the stick to the pfcu for starters, past fan. turbines, feeder tank, cold/hot nozzles and routed through amazingly crammed avionics bays. One single control wire. I can't think of another recent/current RAF fighter/bomber that has NIL redundancy in it's flying controls.....

Engines
5th Jul 2011, 19:37
Glad Rag,

Sorry but you are off beam here. Yes, the Harrier has a single control run (actually two wires) from stick to PFCU. Much like very other combat jet I know of that have a single cable/rod run to the PFCUs. (same for ailerons and rudder as well, same for nozzle control, same for throttle box), Duplicating rods/cables is a genuine rarity in a combat jet. Single cable/rod runs are actually the norm. That's one reason why why fly by wire was so attractive in the first place, as it offers an easier way to duplicate (or triplicate) control runs.

The Harrier has an extant and thoroughly verified safety case that stands favourable comparison against any other single engined aircraft. Yes, powered lift adds other failure modes, but the very good design of those systems minimised the risks of loss and injury to aircrew. Moreover, all those aircrew who survived low level/slow ejections can be grateful to the Harrier, which drove the original development of a true 'zero/zero' seat.

Diss the jet all you want, it's a free country. Just get the facts right.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

glojo
5th Jul 2011, 19:53
Quite clearly Commander Ward is annoying quite a few members of this forum and it is only right and proper that folks have their right of reply, but I feel it does no one any credit by getting personal and hurling insults.

This man is not someone who is ever going to sit quietly in a corner and keep quiet. He would NEVER have made flag rank and I guess he was never the first name on any dinner invitations an admiral would send out to a task force. This officer did however have much to offer and was no doubt promoted because of the skills and abilities that were there for all to see and appreciate?

I guess his flaw was just like any number of fast jet pilots namely, he had the ego that is all too apparent among this highly trained select group. He was at the peak of his game and not afraid to speak out whenever he saw the need. Was this arrogance?? I do not like the word and apologise for being unable to think of a better suited option (I blame the morphine) I guess we could use self-importance or overconfidence, but I’m struggling to get that right wording.

Just look at how Sir Douglas Bader conducted himself regarding the ‘Big wing’ issue. Imagine if he were faced with an issue he passionately disagreed with, would he sit in a corner and keep quiet? Or would he have behaved in a manner that would probably have instantly upset any number of senior officers and maybe even some of his fellow pilots?

My thoughts are that Commander Ward was an extremely self-opinionated officer that had a knowledge second to none regarding the Sea Harrier and only a fool would ignore these skills that were to prove invaluable during that famous deployment. Sadly he was no Henry Kissinger when asked for an opinion.

Some of our Brylcreem boys are of the opinion this man only had a poor opinion of every member of the Junior Service but in truth did he ever utter a single bad word against Flt Lt Ian Mortimer? I believe this pilot was the Air Warfare instructor for his squadron, he was a pilot held in very high regard by every member of 801 squadron. If what is being suggested were true then Flt Lt Mortimer’s position aboard HMS Invincible would have been untenable.

The RAF have quite clearly received an unfair and probably unwarranted degree of flak from this officer but they are not alone in his less than diplomatic observations. His fellow Fleet Air Arm pilots in 800 squadron aboard HMS Hermes (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1309357.the_rivalry_that_cost_lives/) also took the full force of his blunt choice of words. I will tactfully suggest that in his opinion this second squadron were not getting the most out of their aircraft unlike his squadron which was being continually trained by all those that had something to offer especially the seconded RAF pilot…. Flt Lt Mortimer.

Respect to this officer and clearly his skills were reflected by those pilots he served alongside during those terrible few weeks.

I cannot begin to imagine the tremendous pressure\stress that Lt. Commander Ward (retired as Commander) was having to endure during that confrontation and although I have read countless posts on this forum suggesting that his book on the Falklands Conflict was all ‘Me, me, me’. I cannot recall him complaining about the pressures I suggest he had to endure. Yes the book was clearly about his exploits during that campaign, so yes it would be about this pilot (me, me, me) but I cannot recall any adverse comments about his high work load when out of the aircraft?? Yes he mentioned quite vocally how there were not enough pilots qualified for night operations or pilots not getting the best out of their aircraft, but night flying aboard a warship is no walk in the park and yes he was quite vocal about other squadrons. However I cannot recall any moans or groans regarding his squadron or his own work load when out of the cockpit.

I feel I must point out that during this conflict during the hours of darkness I would expect all ships to be ‘dark.’ There would NO LIGHTING!! No nice landing lights, no ships running, or navigation lights, nothing apart from the natural illumination offered by the night skies. To shine any sort of light during the hours of darkness is to offer the ship up as an easy target for any submarines that are looking for a nice juicy target.

Deck landings at night, at sea without any type of deck lighting is not for the faint hearted and those that were qualified would be carrying out the workload for the entire squadron, then after carrying out these challenging missions and in between his flying duties as a squadron commander this officer would have the day to day responsibilities of running the squadron, liaising with no doubt Commander Air and the C/O of HMS Invincible plus because of his expertise I would suggest he would also sometimes be required to talk with the senior officers on HMS Hermes.

Whilst aboard ship and before grabbing his much needed sleep he would have to fulfil all the above duties BUT…… whilst doing this whether it were daylight or night, if any of the escorting ships detected, or suspected any type of enemy threat, then the carrier would be closed up at action stations.

For those who are not aware, aboard a warship all the ships company including air crew is closed up during ‘Action Stations’ this is a term we use when the ship is under imminent or a probable threat from a perceived enemy, be they in the air on the surface, or under it. This means that if you have just landed after a tiring sortie and the ship goes to action stations, then tough… You close up. This may be for an hour, or as long as the threat is viable. Once stood down then it may well be time to get back up into the air! Then once you land back on terra firma……. You may be back at action stations!!!!! Even God would never forgive any officer or rating that were caught sleeping during action stations, it is just not acceptable. Eating is allowed and I guess going to the toilet is acceptable but that is it……. No having a wash or a quick inspection of the eyelids, you are there as part of the ships company and if the ship sinks, we all sink.

I have found a diary (http://www.twogreens.co.uk/navy/FALKLANDS/falklands.html) written by a crew member of one of the warships during that campaign and hopefully it will give us some idea of just how often a ship would be closed up at action stations and the stresses the crew has to endure during that period. When not at action stations, during this conflict the ship would probably operate at defence stations namely a six hour on watch, six hours off watch ad-infinitum other than when closed up at action stations. Again sleep would always be at a premium and even when you try to grab those few precious hours of sleep there was always, always the fear of a torpedo or perish the thought and undetected exocet missile trying to gain entry into your nice cosy tin coffin.

Between the last weeks of April and the 17th of June this officer flew approximately sixty sorties and I would guess he would have been very, very lucky to have managed at the very, very most four to six hours of un-interrupted sleep per day. I still maintain that this horrendous pressure has taken its toll on this excellent Sea Harrier pilot, he possibly paid a very, very heavy price and maybe this has had lasting effects on someone I will respectfully describe as a war hero?

My point in saying all this is to highlight the horrendous workload this person had to endure and I will also very, very respectfully point out that two members of his squadron were killed in action. He would no doubt have dealt with this tragic event and shouldered all the responsibilities that this would entail

YES we must all defend the reputation of our Junior Service and yes we must point out the multiple inaccuracies that have allegedly been made by this retired Naval Officer but do we really have to use the language of the gutter when talking about a pilot who played a significant role in that air operation of the Falklands Conflict.

My thoughts are that if the Argentinean Aircraft had not been shot down (http://www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm), by pilots from both the Fleet Air Arm and the RAF then may I respectfully suggest that it would have been highly probable that we would have lost a significant number of ships and I doubt we would have been able to put ‘boots on the ground.’ We would never have recovered those islands.

Suffice it to say that the Sea Harrier downed approximately 21 aircraft and I am NOT posting links as to who was piloting these Harriers... Every pilot that took part has my respect and who really cares if the uniform is light, or dark blue?

Apologies for my very long rambling post and please accept I fully understand why folks feel the need to defend their corner but this man has done more, achieved more, sacrificed more than probably most members of this forum and if we want to disagree with his points of view then that is everyone’s right but surely we are educated enough to be able to use less provocative language?

A final thought regarding the attitude of Commander Ward.

Is it at all possible that Ward requested GR3’s accompany the task force as they prepared to depart and this request was refused? This officer was aware of the capabilities of the aircraft and what could be achieved by it and the excellent pilots who fly it, but the request was turned down.

As a result of this refusal could Commander Ward belief that his squadron could have offered better protection to the task force and possibly prevented the loss of so many ships and sailors and he took their deaths as a failure on his part to prevent the incoming attacks?

I understand the reasons why the GR3's were not deployed with the task force and am simply trying to offer a reason as to why this officer now feels the need to let rip with both barrels… He speaks a few sensible words BUT……. boy does it get lost in the fall –out he creates by his over egging the debate and saying things that are factually inaccurate.

In my opinion long may we have our two Royal’s, namely the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, both services have their place and long may that continue.

Apologies for my ramblings and please accept I understand why folks are reacting to these letters but lets not get OTT with the rebuttals

Yours very sincerely
John

minigundiplomat
5th Jul 2011, 20:23
All well and good - he's still a gold plated, ocean going pr1ck.

high spirits
5th Jul 2011, 20:24
John,
There are plenty of 'self opinionated' people on this website - myself included. I can believe the bit about Ops and the stress it brings. What I can't take on the chin is 'revisionist hoop' about the RAF at sea. Read into his website and you will see him slag off the chinook contribution to the Al Faw in 2003 deployed ashore from Ark Royal.

That is sadly just one of many he is unqualified to comment upon....

glad rag
5th Jul 2011, 21:40
Just get the facts right.Yes I did, NO REDUNDANCY through design [the most obvious reason being the not unreasonable need to shave every gram from the design, starting with the Kestrel; which incidentally was the name given to the airman's Naffi at RAF Wyton; but I digress] a design stemming from what 1957-9? in a completely different era and society to the one in which it finished it's operational flying career.

Thus my linking it in with other same [ish] era aircraft that have finally been retired, leaving the VC10 as the sole remaining type of that (golden) age. Along with it's recently imposed pax restrictions as has been touched upon here.

Having spent many, many happy hours re wiring the Harrier fus on the original Jump line, believe me I know my facts. From the inside out.

all the best

GR.

TheWizard
5th Jul 2011, 22:10
I wonder if the same characters being discuseed here will be at Somerset's finest air show this weekend coming?
Wonder if they will publicly criticise the same RAF that is taking part in their airshow and demonstrating it's SH capability amongst other things?
Can't see the GR4 role demo listed though?! :}

glojo
5th Jul 2011, 22:13
There are plenty of 'self opinionated' people on this website - myself included. I can believe the bit about Ops and the stress it brings. What I can't take on the chin is 'revisionist hoop' about the RAF at sea. Read into his website and you will see him slag off the chinook contribution to the Al Faw in 2003 deployed ashore from Ark Royal.

That is sadly just one of many he is unqualified to comment upon....

I appreciate what you are saying and I just wish he would present a case without deriding a different service.

foldingwings
6th Jul 2011, 07:04
Cmdr Nigel D. MacCartan-Ward

He clearly has identity issues and now feels the need to 'double-up' to impress but I CAN understand why he calls himself Sharkey.

Still a prat, no matter what he calls himself!

Foldie:ugh:

Neartheend
6th Jul 2011, 09:43
Glad Rag - starting with the Kestrel; which incidentally was the name given to the airman's Naffi at RAF Wyton

Sorry we must be accurate here as we don't want to fall into the trap of passing on incorrect infomation. The Kestrel Club (NAAFI) was at RAF West Raynham where the P1127 / Kestrel multi national trials were carried out. It was good old fashioned NAAFI with plenty of punters due to the camps location in rural Norfolk at a time when few airmen had cars or money to go very far.... Happy days when all 3 services used to get along and play nicely together.

Ps the NAAFI at Wyton was the Skyways club again a nice establishment but spoilt by being too close to the bright lights of Huntingdon. I prefered the Blue Lion Club at Binbrook myself. Right back on topic, something to do with teeth and gold plated dic*ks??? ;)

Unchecked
6th Jul 2011, 10:20
So he went to war, flew a lot of missions, lost a load of sleep and was worried about bring bombarded when back at base ( in this case a ship).

So what ? Aviators have been going through these exact fears for the same span of time as the entire falklands conflict, every year for the last 7 years in Basra or Kandahar or Bastion.

I don't see these guys and girls writing cry-baby letters to the press slagging off and lying about the navy every week.

The man is a chimp........

Except less intelligent.......

And interesting.

cazatou
6th Jul 2011, 11:07
Unchecked

I think you are being unkind to African anthropoid apes.

AR1
6th Jul 2011, 11:07
I don't see these guys and girls writing cry-baby letters to the press slagging off and lying about the navy every week.


True - they just write it here.

FODPlod
6th Jul 2011, 11:54
So he went to war, flew a lot of missions, lost a load of sleep and was worried about bring bombarded when back at base ( in this case a ship).

So what ? Aviators have been going through these exact fears for the same span of time as the entire falklands conflict, every year for the last 7 years in Basra or Kandahar or Bastion.

I don't see these guys and girls writing cry-baby letters to the press slagging off and lying about the navy every week.

The man is a chimp........

Except less intelligent.......

And interesting.

Really? So how does a rag-tag militia equipped with AK-47s, RPGs, IEDs and donkeys pose anywhere near the same threat as Mirages, Super Etendards, Skyhawks, Roland SAMs, AAA, etc? Not to mention the likelihood of Exocets, 1,000 pound bombs, cannon fire and torpedoes being directed at you when you are only separated from the freezing South Atlantic by 3/8" of steel plate?

Out of interest, how does your professional/combat record stack up against that of this "chimp"?

TheWizard
6th Jul 2011, 12:49
Really? So how does a rag-tag militia equipped with AK-47s, RPGs, IEDs and donkeys pose anywhere near the same threat as Mirages, Super Etendards, Skyhawks, Roland SAMs, AAA, etc?

I am guessing you have never experienced either of those scenarios otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question..........:hmm:

Clue: The result can be exactly the same

Neartheend
6th Jul 2011, 13:03
My dads braver than your dad........:rolleyes:

Unchecked
6th Jul 2011, 13:17
The Wizard hits the nail on the head. For some aviators, perhaps not those that snot around at over 500' at 400kts, then a single 5.56mm round, or even a well launched rocked, can have the same effect as an AIM-9. An improvised rocket launched from a gurney 15km away, landing on a tent in Basra can have the same effect as an advanced Exocet landing in a ship. Trust me, I've seen the horrifying results.

Time for you to stop using the falklands as the yardstick for battle, and get with the present.

glojo
6th Jul 2011, 13:17
So he went to war, flew a lot of missions, lost a load of sleep and was worried about bring bombarded when back at base ( in this case a ship).

So what ? Aviators have been going through these exact fears for the same span of time as the entire falklands conflict, every year for the last 7 years in Basra or Kandahar or Bastion.

I don't see these guys and girls writing cry-baby letters to the press slagging off and lying about the navy every week.

The man is a chimp.Hi Unchecked,
I guess you are entitled to your opinions but your response does you no credit.

I am NOT taking sides regarding the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force as in my opinion both services are a credit to our country and are both manned by highly professional, highly trained personnel.

Your comments however need a response and to compare one conflict with others is in my opinion out of order.

Falklands Conflict in just a six week period

Aircraft losses (Harriers)
Royal Air Force
In excess of 30%

Fleet Air Arm
Harrier losses over 20%
7 helicopters

Royal Marines
2 helicopters

Army
1 helicopter


Ships sunk
HMS Antelope
HMS Ardent
HMS Coventry
HMS Sheffield
RFA Sir Galahad
Merchant Vessel Atlantic Conveyor

Large Landing Craft from HMS Fearless hit by bomb and sunk

Damaged ships
HMS Alacrity hit by bomb
HMS Antrim hit by bomb
HMS Argonaut hit by bomb, cannon fire and rockets
HMS Arrow hit by cannon fire
HMS Brilliant hit by cannon fire
BP Tanker British Wye hit by bomb
HMS Broadsword hit by cannon fire
HMS Glamorgan bomb damage by very near miss, weeks later hit by Exocet
HMS Glasgow hit by bomb
HMS Plymouth hit by bomb
RFA Sir Lancelot hit by bomb
RFA Bedivere hit by bomb

All this happened within just a six week window and I am guessing we all have imaginations and where would you place the risk of being aboard a ship that got hit by at least a 500Ib bomb? When would you sleep? Remember at action stations there is no sleeping?

To compare the above to current campaigns is perhaps being unfair but PLEASE do not for one second think I am belittling today's magnificent efforts being regularly displayed by our Armed Services. Their bravery, professionalism and skills are beyond criticism.

Commander Ward along with the other squadron was tasked with protecting the task force and the success or failure of this invasion rested squarely on the shoulders of these two squadrons.. The pressures that you so easily dismiss must surely weigh heavily on the shoulders of anyone that takes a pride in their job. Each successful attack on these ships could be viewed as a failure on his part and no amount of support can stop some folks from possibly blaming themselves.

The stress of command is not something everyone can cope with but whatever the cost the flag of Great Britain flies once more. To belittle those that might have paid a high price for doing does not do anyone any credit.

Let him rant, let him rave and then maybe just look at what he and his squadron did for those Falkland Islanders.

None of us will prevent this person from voicing his opinion,

Finally

I AM NOT CONDONING THE PRESENT DAY CONDUCT OF THIS RETIRED OFFICER

Yes folks are facing the threat of terrorist attack but to suggest the threat level was comparable to that of the Falklands Conflict is perhaps doing a 'Sharkey!' but most of us know better. :sad:

Commander Ward might have an excuse for his rambling but do we have any excuse for insulting these folks?

I am NOT a medical person, I have NO idea if Commander Ward is ill but I have suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (Thanks to an understanding wife and medical officer I am now firing on all two cylinders) :ouch::)

I repeat that I am NOT COMPARING past with present, I am just letting folks compare

FODPlod
6th Jul 2011, 13:25
I am guessing you have never experienced either of those scenarios otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question..........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Clue: The result can be exactly the same

Then you guess wrong, although only in a Sea King or Lynx in the air. But I've experienced people shooting at me.

(Someone else who opts to play the man instead of the ball, I see.)

Unchecked
6th Jul 2011, 13:29
Glojo, i appreciate your well-worded and factual response. Your original post did come across as a bit of a falklands vs everyone else argument though.

Im not belittling what he or anyone else did in the falklands, just reminding you, him, and anyone else that needs reminding that there are men and women doing this kind of thing right now, and have been for years. He is special, but no more than anyone else who flies in a theatre of war.

Also, ref: your last few paragraphs, please try telling those based at Basra in 2007, that it was a better place to be than on a ship in the atlantic. These people all feared for their lives, whilst sleep deprived and still had to continue with their jobs. I'm pretty sure the thoughts and feelings will have been no different.

glojo
6th Jul 2011, 13:35
I am saddened to see how this thread is sliding downhill and I guess this sums it up

My dads braver than your dad.......

Were the likes of Commander Ward any braver than Major Mick Mannock (http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-at-sea-in-air/the-aces/283-mick-mannock.html), Sir Douglas Bader or Flt Lt Ian Fortune?

No, of course not and each generation will make its own history..

I am simply attempting to show a little compassion and perhaps tolerance for someone whose flying skills are beyond reproach.

His communication skills http://glojo.unospace.net/images/puke.gif

TheWizard
6th Jul 2011, 13:37
Then you guess wrong, although only in a Sea King or Lynx in the air. But I've experienced people shooting at me.

(Someone else who opts to play the man instead of the ball, I see.)

Fair enough, but the point still stands

ie The final result can be the same whether you are sat in a fast jet, helicopter or AFV in the South Atlantic, Afghanistan or the Mediterranean or in a tent, mud hut or portacabin on ops.

Making comparisons does no one any favours, least of all those that have been on the receiving end.

(There we are, ball back in play.)

Unchecked
6th Jul 2011, 13:45
Glojo - I've edited my previous post.

I am not in a pissing contest here, just trying to dispel the notion that those in the falklands were any braver than those in any other theatre where the threat is genuine and where incoming is experienced.

BEagle
6th Jul 2011, 16:05
I don't think that anyone would cast aspersions at Cdr Ward's record in the Falklands. He did damn well - apart from trying to call up the Black Buck Vulcan inbound to its target. Others perhaps deserved some...querying. Such as the pilot who hadn't boned up on the differences between GR3 and FRS1 weapons switchery, for example....:rolleyes: Read Mog's book - a much better all round read than Ward's.

However, I do think that there's a danger of military thinking becoming too sandaholic, thanks to the current north-west frontier conflict. Those who take their eye off the ball of world threats to concentrate on the north-west frontier need to heed the lessons of history.

And I wasn't overly impressed at all those Scuds in 1991 - you never knew what the next warhead might have contained. Patriot was far from achieving 100% PK against the wretched things.

I wish Cdr Ward all the best in his Caribbean idyll, but just ask that he gets his facts straight before bursting into print.

glojo
6th Jul 2011, 18:21
I am not in a pissing contest here, just trying to dispel the notion that those in the falklands were any braver than those in any other theatre where the threat is genuine and where incoming is experienced. Good evening Unchecked,
I 100% agree with you and it insults the bravery of ALL our military to suggest that ANY generation is 'braver' then the current or previous generations. It's not your fault that you can write the history of the Royal Air Force on the back of a fag packet! :E:p:ugh: (humour)

We all must surely defend the reputation of our relevant service and as I keep saying, folks have ever right to rebut what this person is saying and respect to you all for doing just that.

BEagle
I was not going to mention the GR3 and FRS1 weapons switchery as to me none of us are perfect and under pressure we might do things that are totally out of character. Regarding that specific issue, I guess I will tactfully say the pilot eventually dealt with the target :ok:;);)

I will have to try and make the effort to obtain a copy of Flt Lt Mortimer's
book and thank you for mentioning it.

just another jocky
6th Jul 2011, 18:54
Could anyone provide the title or ISBN for Flt Lt Mortimer's book, I cannot find it on Amazon?

Thanks.

Archimedes
6th Jul 2011, 19:09
As BEags said 'Mog's' I rather think he was talking about Dave Morgan's rather splendid book Hostile Skies. I don't think that Ian Mortimer has gone into print.

teeteringhead
6th Jul 2011, 19:21
However, I do think that there's a danger of military thinking becoming too sandaholic, thanks to the current north-west frontier conflict. ... good grief! I'm agreeing with BEags.

'Twas ever thus - we restructure to fight the last war we had. So now we are "sandaholic" - but with boots on the ground, so Libya took us by surprise...

So all the chat - including Mr Ward's - seems to be falling into the same trap. Leaving aside all the fast jet willy waving, whether true or not, the argument is that grey funnel line proper carriers would be really useful off Libya!

It's already been (more or less) agreed that CVSs wouldn't/couldn't/didn't help in Afghan - so why restructure to do another Op ELLAMY. Cos sure as God made little jump jets, that's the one thing we won't have to do next time.

Whilst I agree that with a suitable number of suitably protected CVSs, they are a good "club in the bag" of a balanced force structure, but only if we can afford them - which we probably can't. And if I can be excused sacrilege - same goes for Trident....

But one or two (CVS or bomber) is not much use, except to keep Call-Me-Dave on the Security Council as a Permanent Member....

They do say that in the recent Balkans unpleasantness, without the carrier Air Group in the Adriatic, there would not have been sufficient air defence ..... for the CVS......

We still need a proper policy led SDSR - which ain't rocket (or carrier!) science. It goes like this, between MoD, FO and Treasury, so listen in politicians.

MoD: What d'ye want us to be capable of?

FO: A, B, C, D, E and F.

Treasury: How much will that cost?

MoD: £X squillion.

Treasury: Can't have it.

MoD: What d'ye want us to be capable of?

FO: A, B, C, D and E.......

..... and repeat...... until Treasury will pay for FO's reduced requirement, which will probably be A and maybe some B.....

just another jocky
6th Jul 2011, 19:49
Thanks Archimedes, ordered. :ok:

BEagle
6th Jul 2011, 19:53
Archimedes, I did indeed mean Dave Morgan's excellent book!

glojo
6th Jul 2011, 22:19
As BEags said 'Mog's' I rather think he was talking about Dave Morgan's rather splendid book Hostile Skies. I don't think that Ian Mortimer has gone into print. Apologies for any confusion and I also have ordered this book :)

glad rag
6th Jul 2011, 23:50
RAF West Raynham where the P1127 / Kestrel multi national trials were carried out.

Yes you are correct.;).

skua
7th Jul 2011, 10:38
Air Cdr Dai Whittingham (may be he is a lurker on these pages?)
rebuts Sharkey's assertion rather well in today's FT:

Air support draws on successful mix - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89bd2e8c-a828-11e0-9f50-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1RPlqpdH7)


Sir, With reference to Commander Nigel D. MacCartan-Ward’s letter (June 30): it is unfortunate that he should offer his opinion on your views of the Harrier and the Libya campaign without getting his facts straight.

While I understand his desire to see the Harrier resurrected, his claim that it has “at least as good firepower as the Tornado” is simply wrong: it did not carry the same range of weapons, nor could it carry them as far as the Tornado.

However, his assertion that “land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions” is either disingenuous or, at best, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that modern air power is employed.

Close air support missions can be tasked for launch from ground alert, they can be planned to be airborne and ready for immediate response from a predetermined holding position – as is currently the case for Libya – or they can be switched in the air from other tasks such as attacks on pre-planned ground targets.

The coalition operation in Afghanistan very successfully employs the same mix of ground and air alert for close air support missions. Moreover, whether launched from a carrier or an airfield, all air missions are programmed in advance to ensure that aircraft, crew and weapons are ready for the task.

Cmdr Ward characterises the air planning process as an “appalling procedural practice” that places lives at risk in Libya and Afghanistan; he grossly misrepresents the facts.

Dai Whittingham,

Swindon, UK

Air Commodore, Royal Air Force (rtd)

Widger
7th Jul 2011, 11:55
They do say that in the recent Balkans unpleasantness, without the carrier Air Group in the Adriatic, there would not have been sufficient air defence ..... for the CVS......

Teeteringhead.............okay I bit your wah!

Way off the mark there. I served at the CAOC in Italy during Deny Flight and can assure you that maritime platforms including the French were an integral part of the effort, with Sea Harriers not only flying CAP, but contributing to a significant amount of CAS and RECCE effort. As PART of the overall package, they were valuable especially during those times of the year when bases such as Aviano were fogged in and the only assets available were those in the Adriatic. Mostly conducted without the requirement for tanking as well.

I in no way devalue the contribution of land based air (who in the Balkans provided the overwhelming majority of assets) but as would be the case now off Libya, the provision of maritime air power would significantly enhance the overall effort and improve reaction times to specific events.

glojo
7th Jul 2011, 11:57
However, his assertion that “land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions” is either disingenuous or, at best, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that modern air power is employed.I cannot help but think this is a misquotation or misunderstanding but my gut feeling is that this is a straight forward ploy by the media to get a reaction..... To sell newspapers and to get their name in lights.

There is a World of difference between..

"Wing Commander I am planning an attack on a militant base next month. What notification would you like of time, date etc?"

Wing Commander, "If you could give me 24hrs notice then it will then allow me to make sure you can have all the air support we deem necessary"

As opposed to:

Royal Marine section under heavy attack..... 'Helppppppp! (bootneck speak for I need air support NOW!'

I am 100% positive that no one is going to say to put that request in writing and we will get back to you after we have finished the barbie!'

In a perfect World we would all like to plan our day but in a conflict situation then common sense must dictate that this will never be the case.

I guess it is human nature to believe a newspaper article that supports our point of view but trash anything that contradicts those very strong beliefs!


I have ALWAYS worked on the principal...

Journalist walks through door, truth flies out of window!

News might not sell a newspaper, but a controversial story definitely will.

Apologies to those journalists that frequent this location but we can all only reflect on our own experiences.

Fareastdriver
7th Jul 2011, 15:51
The Admiral. like Sharkey, rearranges the facts to suit his argument He refers to Sun Tzu and the confusion caused by the Three Kingdoms. The three he is comparing with are obviously the Army, Navy and Air Force. Sun Tzu may well have been a brilliant theorist on warfare in the 6th century BC but he would have not known about the Three Kingdoms as that period came some 800 years later, in 200 AD.

Fortissimo
7th Jul 2011, 17:20
Glojo, are you suggesting that FT tweaked the letter just to provoke a reaction?? If that is the case, you can probably expect a further reply from the bloke whose name appears at the bottom of it. I don't think the journos (at least not at the reputable titles) can work that way.

The bearded one has got it wrong - others have written on this thread about the procedures in AFG, but the point about both carrier and land-based aviation having to plan ahead is well made. When someone calls for immediate air support, it can only come from something that is already airborne or fragged to do the job from ground (or deck!!) alert. When a troops in contact (TIC) happens, it becomes the highest priority for support across the AOR, but the previous sentence still applies, so there has to be a plan that puts the assets in place. You can have a jet that is ready to taxy 2 mins after crew-in, but if you have to fuel and arm it first while getting the crew from tent/hotel/bar (delete as reqd), the 2 mins counts for nothing. The same thing happens with the MERT - someone is tasked with being ready, they don't just wait for some poor sod to get hurt before trying to put a mission together.

FODPlod
7th Jul 2011, 17:34
The Admiral. like Sharkey, rearranges the facts to suit his argument He refers to Sun Tzu and the confusion caused by the Three Kingdoms. The three he is comparing with are obviously the Army, Navy and Air Force. Sun Tzu may well have been a brilliant theorist on warfare in the 6th century BC but he would have not known about the Three Kingdoms as that period came some 800 years later, in 200 AD. Thank you. That certainly blows the Admiral's argument clean out of the water but I still don't understand how the rulers managed to find the baby Jesus 200 years after he was born. :confused:

glojo
7th Jul 2011, 18:07
are you suggesting that FT tweaked the letter just to provoke a reaction?? If that is the case, you can probably expect a further reply from the bloke whose name appears at the bottom of it. I don't think the journos (at least not at the reputable titles) can work that way.

Hi Fortissimo,
I do not really understand your question but we might be talking about apples and oranges.

I thought the retired Air Commodore wrote an excellent well worded response and would not criticise a single word he wrote but I stand by my post which has nothing to do with his response, it is the article he responds to that I am suggesting might not be an accurate representation of what was actually said or implied.

Are you trying to tell me that any service can offer instant support? My answer would be an honest no...

If the military want to mount a planned operation then it is simply good management to require notice for close air support for that planned mission.

Are you telling me that it would not be prudent to get this tasked as soon as is practical and definitely NO LATER than 24 hours prior to my mission. That is what I am saying and I firmly believe it is good management to say that prior notice ensures getting that cover.

I am NOT trying to have a dig at the excellent work being done by the RAF but I stand by every word regarding my opinion of journalists and if anyone wants to contact me regarding that then please feel free.

'Never let the truth spoil a good story'

Fareastdriver
7th Jul 2011, 18:24
The Three Kingdoms being refered to is the period after the Han dynasty where the then China was ruled by three quarrelling de facto emperors; Wei, Shu and Wu.

Nothing to do with 'We three kings of Orient are'.

FODPlod
7th Jul 2011, 20:20
The Three Kingdoms being refered to is the period after the Han dynasty where the then China was ruled by three quarrelling de facto emperors; Wei, Shu and Wu.

Nothing to do with 'We three kings of Orient are'. Thank you again. I think I'm gettin the han of this now. Am I right in thinking Sun Tzu was the Sun King, otherwise known as the Sun Emperor? I really enjoyed Empire of the Sun.

(Ignorance of these crucial facts makes the Admiral's case look sillier by the minute, doesn't it?)

Fortissimo
7th Jul 2011, 20:31
Glojo, if you can't get to the original letter via the link at #15, the gist of the argument is at #27 and the actual situation is well explained at #28. The article that the Air Cdre responded to was clearly the letter that Ward had published on 30 Jun.

Yes, you can have instant response provided that your assets are airborne, which is expensive in terms of fuel, crew fatigue etc. Think back to the Battle of Britain, when the fighters were held on ground alert - they would simply have run out of steam if the required numbers were held on an airborne alert.

There is a process called cab-ranking, where you stack aircraft vertically and call them forwards for tasking as required, first man airborne goes first (weapons and location permitting), but that is very manpower and fuel-intensive and it only gets done when absolutely necessary. It is more efficient to hold the bulk of your support assets on ground alert, because you don't know exactly where they will be needed.

What Ward said in his letter to the FT was that ground-based fighters (the RAF) insist on having 24 hrs notice for a CAS task, implying that the Harrier/carrier combo doesn't need that and is therefore much better, ergo we should not have got rid of them. You will see on the other carrier threads that he is normally very selective in his choice of words and 'facts' to support his argument (eg sunk costs have to be considered for Typhoon but are irrelevant for a carrier). On this occasion he is talking nonsense - if you want to have a Harrier available at short notice, you have to have planned it ahead of time or it won't be there.

Please PM me if you would like a more detailed explanation about CAS.

ff

glojo
7th Jul 2011, 21:13
Hi ff
I have tried to access the link you very kindly posted but I'm blowed if I will take out a subscription to that newspaper...

I fear that folks are misunderstanding what I am trying to say....

I and every reasonable person in the land accepts that it is complete and utter drivel, complete tosh to suggest that there would be a 24hr time constraint for CAS... Completely one hundred percent accept that as fact.. full stop no queries no questions.

What I am suggesting and please note.... I am suggesting is that the letter wrote by this officer who retired last century; might be suggesting that a pre planned operation that requires close air support should be pre booked to ensure the cover is at the right place at the right time!

I totally accept that if it is not pre-booked and the manure hits the shovel then the boys in light blue will attempt to get the pongos out of the poo!!

IF the letter posted by Cmdr Ward emphatically states any CAS would need 24hr notice then I will also suggest it is way past that gentleman's bed-time but at the moment his every word appears to be dissected and YES, YES, YES again yes, some of the dissected words are tosh, but some are twisted by those that do not want to listen.

My thoughts are we need BOTH THE RAF and the Fleet Air Arm or.......

we could do away completely with the Fleet Air Arm, have two aircraft carriers that fly either the F-35 or F-18 and also have that same aircraft as the main stay of the RAF for the relevant tasks it is able to perform. Then let RAF personnel do 12 month tours aboard the carriers as part of their service!! The ship will be manned and sailed by the Royal Navy but the airfield, plus hangers are the domain of the RAF!!! Obviously the carriers would not be capable of all operations as has so eloquently been explained on this thread but it moist certainly can be used on other operations that are also being run at this moment in time.

Would that please Cmdr Ward or you guys and gals? How can anyone object to that suggestion?:\:\:uhoh:

I will now very quickly get to my air raid shelter in the full knowledge that you guys could not hit a barn door if it was parked on the bow of your hurricane. :ouch::ouch::sad:

ARXW
7th Jul 2011, 22:06
In response to post #84 (beagle):
I don't think that anyone would cast aspersions at Cdr Ward's record in the Falklands. He did damn well - apart from trying to call up the Black Buck Vulcan inbound to its target. Others perhaps deserved some...querying. Such as the pilot who hadn't boned up on the differences between GR3 and FRS1 weapons switchery, for example.... Read Mog's book - a much better all round read than Ward's.

just an observation...the said pilot who made a mess of the switchery can hardly be blamed for any significant share of the failings of the SHAR force: that would have been too unfair (as is any discussion on failings and SHARs in 1982:))...also, the said pilot perished in a mid-air during 1v1 ACM in '83 and this adds to above unfortunate comment if you consider that he (and another RAFG sqn colleague of his) were the last two supplementary pilots to be rushed to the Sea Harrier from RAFG and so had even less conversion time than even Morgan himself on the SHAR...

...not to mention he still got the job done in that instance and in general bagged two Argentinian a/c in that conflict and furthermore and perhaps more importantly he was an ex-Lightning god :ok: :p

just another jocky
8th Jul 2011, 17:02
So, is there anyone else left here that thinks Ward actually has the remotest clue what he's talking about?

FODPlod
8th Jul 2011, 17:34
So, is there anyone else left here that thinks Ward actually has the remotest clue what he's talking about?Who knows? It's still fun to see how some people can't let it go. ;)

newt
8th Jul 2011, 23:30
Maybe Mr Ward would like to comment on the cost of replacing old through deck cruisers with two modern aircraft carriers which has now escalated to £10.5 billion!

How much a day will it cost to run these vessels?

Oh at least half because one is in mothballs!

And how much does it cost to keep a ship in mothballs? Might I suggest about the same as keeping one at sea?

Maybe he would like to change his out of date ideology and offer some real advice as to where the UK defence money should be spent in the future.

Might I suggest that UK Plc cannot afford carriers without escorts and aircraft or indeed Trident replacement for unwanted submarines.

What we need is UK air defence and a very active border control agency allied with a tactical nuclear capability from UK based air assets.

So the question is, do we not need a Navy!

Now this thread should get interesting! I retire to the bunker with scotch in hand:ok:

Barksdale Boy
8th Jul 2011, 23:41
Who is Irgo?

just another jocky
9th Jul 2011, 06:02
BB - A very distant cousin of Ergo?

Newt - nukes on aircraft again? No thanks, far too much like hard work. Let the subs keep them, but as a part of the RAF! :}

Barksdale Boy
9th Jul 2011, 08:29
JAJ - Vero

Lottery Winner
9th Jul 2011, 16:06
Incorporate ALL RM and Army land capability into the RAF Regiment and re-instate the RAF Marine Branch which can take control of the subs and remaining skimmers ... job done!:ok:

phil9560
9th Jul 2011, 16:46
Apologies in advance for the thread drift.

The RAF pilot who confused his weapons switches is presumably the same pilot who loosed off a Sidewinder on the ground ? Was he then a guest at the weddingof the soldier who got in the way of the missile?

And I'm sure his picture featured in a Pilot recruitment brochure of the time ?

newt
9th Jul 2011, 17:56
Marine Craft Units!! A great idea. Give them lots of stealth boats with missiles!

Much cheaper than carriers and subs:ok:

FODPlod
9th Jul 2011, 19:24
Marine Craft Units!! A great idea. Give them lots of stealth boats with missiles!

Much cheaper than carriers and subshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifHere you go: Caspian Sea Monster

MAINJAFAD
9th Jul 2011, 19:40
Apologies in advance for the thread drift.

The RAF pilot who confused his weapons switches is presumably the same pilot who loosed off a Sidewinder on the ground ? Was he then a guest at the weddingof the soldier who got in the way of the missile?

And I'm sure his picture featured in a Pilot recruitment brochure of the time ?

Nope, the Sidewinders that hit the party of Welsh Guards at the end of the runway at Port Stanley came off a GR3 after the war and was caused by a techincal malfunction. The RAF Pilot who had problems with selecting Sidewinder was the late Flt Lt John Leeming who was trying to engage a CANA A-4Q that had just bombed HMS Ardent. When the winders failed to lock on because he had failed to select one switch, he selected guns and made a very close in gun attack which resulted in the Skyhawk exploding in front of him. Of course you could add that the topic of this thread also fired a winder by mistake when he was actually trying to drop a bomb during that war....Good thing his wing man was behind him.

Just This Once...
9th Jul 2011, 20:03
Or adding that he watched one of his Sidewinders fall 'tantalisingly short of its target'.

Or when converted from Sharkey BS into proper QWI speak = he shot out of range.

Just This Once...
9th Jul 2011, 20:07
John Leeming had never flown the Sea Harrier when he volunteered to sail south.

Pretty gutsy effort to do what he did; balls of steel in fact.

phil9560
9th Jul 2011, 23:46
Thanks-.Well done and sadly RIP John Leeming.

Although the guy in the cockpit when the 'winder went off was definately in the careers brochure-I think :\

glojo
10th Jul 2011, 16:41
809 Squadron was put together at extremely short notice with any spare, experienced pilots. It was immediately deployed to the South Atlantic and I guess we can say that they were all 'rushed into it'. I believe that all aircraft were stowed aboard the merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor, but I bow to anyone that has facts that could dispute this.

There were two RAF pilots attached to that squadron and if these pilots had no experience of flying that specific aircraft then MUCH respect to them, but it begs the question as to the reasoning of doing it. (This is in NO WAY a criticism of those that volunteered) The courage, skill and bravery of every single pilot that fought in that war is well documented and I have nothing but respect and admiration for any person that has the courage to own up to making a mistake whilst under EXTRA ORDINARY pressure. I am positive that as soon as Flt Lt Leeming confessed to his minor woopsie there would have been an instant, ""I've done that and also I've done...........!!!""

This pilot still did the deed and it saddens me to hear of his tragic loss. My thoughts and prayers are with this person's next of kin.

Or adding that he watched one of his Sidewinders fall 'tantalisingly short of its target'.

Or when converted from Sharkey BS into proper QWI speak = he shot out of range. Is this the incident where the aircraft was running on fumes and he fired the missile more in the hope it would just have the range? When it failed to reach the target he still stubbornly carried home his attack. As a result of shooting down his target he had to make an emergency landing aboard an assault ship to 'borrow' sufficient fuel to get back to Invincible?

I guess Commander Ward is not the only person that enjoys trying to ridicule those that are only guilty of being professional pilots who are never afraid of putting themselves into the hot seat.

Never let the truth spoil a good story and I suppose to some of us, two wrongs will always make one right!!

And again.... Respect to ALL pilots that wear the Queen's uniform.

Capt P U G Wash
10th Jul 2011, 17:48
These stories of rushed preparations and aircrew not ready jogged my memory. If I remember Nick Richardson wrote about it in his book: No Escape Zone: One Man's True Story of a Journey to Hell.

In that book he told of getting ready for air to surface drops by carrying out a single sortie on the Frasca ranges at Decimommanu. Of course he was subsequently shot down in trying to locate a target if my memory serves me right.

I am starting to see a common thread here of rushing into things only half ready. Is this symptomatic of the esprit de corps and working practices of the FAA (I would be surprised) or is it a sign of chronic under resource, which only gets exposed when the chips are down? For example what should the RN have had ready in 1982, compared to what they did?

More recently, I know that the RN never met their part of the deal when filling JFH cockpits, is there a systemic or structural failing here?

My thesis being, that whilst Sharkey claims sea borne is cheaper. In the past we have got what we paid for - rushed and poorly prepared, with mistakes common place.

glojo
10th Jul 2011, 18:22
or is it a sign of chronic under resource, which only gets exposed when the chips are down? For example what should the RN have had ready in 1982, compared to what they did?Good question and I guess it is why we saw the Minister of Defence resign.

The Royal Navy had to drag ships out of mothball, get instructors away from their training squadrons plus request the RAF to supply a number of pilots to fly alongside the boys in dark blue. We were using ships that were in mothball, ships that should have been sold, plus ships that were due to decommission. We were not scrapping the bottom of the barrel, we were using the barrel to ferry equipment.

MG
10th Jul 2011, 21:42
Not quite glojo. Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary resigned in 1982, taking full responsibility for the lack of attention that the FCO had given to the Falklands. John Nott, the Defence Secretary tendered his resignation but it was not accepted. Those were the days when politicians stood up to be counted and took the Mess Webley if needed.

We mustn't forget the Lord Carrington had a distinguished service record in the Second World War, being one of the first to cross Nijmegen bridge as a Sherman tank commander in the Guards during Market Garden. I think he got the MC for that.

glojo
10th Jul 2011, 22:35
Not quite glojo. Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary resigned in 1982, taking full responsibility for the lack of attention that the FCO had given to the Falklands. John Nott, the Defence Secretary tendered his resignation but it was not accepted. Those were the days when politicians stood up to be counted and took the Mess Webley if needed. Spot on... Nott as you say offered, but I guess he was of a different age... I blame my befuddled brain

DBTW
11th Jul 2011, 02:02
Good spot Capt PUG!
If I remember Nick Richardson wrote about it in his book: No Escape Zone: One Man's True Story of a Journey to Hell.

Not that it really matters in this emotive discussion, but everyone in the UK military back in '93-'94 timeframe knows well, rather than the very exciting, quick transition to war in the Adriatic Theatre as described by Nick in his book, the fact was that he was an experienced Squadron pilot on the RN's 3rd rotation of ships into theatre, and the build up to actual intervention had taken more than a year. A year where the Sea Harrier force focus had been either to operate over Bosnia or train to operate over Bosnia.

I suppose the relevant point to be made is that when books are written, often using an experienced ghost writer, some details might be hyped up to enhance sales. The follow-on is that these books, whether they are written by Sharkey, Nick, or even Moggie for that matter, should probably not be used as source documents for fighter pilot training, or as reference documents of historic fact.

As to whether being half ready for conflict, and going in anyway is a good thing or not...I am afraid that is often the nature of war. People in the armed forces are supposed to be ready to fight immediately. If it is professional to hang back and wait a while in the face of the enemy, then that is a very different level of professionalism to what I saw (and expect) in the British military, regardless of the colour of your uniform.

Basil
11th Jul 2011, 15:05
glojo,
Respect to ALL pilots that wear the Queen's uniform.
I'd drink to that.
As a trucky I have the greatest respect for the pilots who made it to fighters, esp the Harrier. Whilst at Cottesmore, I'd a little go in the Harrier sim at Wittering. Managed to turn it upside down on a conventional landing - didn't set the throttle stop or something :O

teeteringhead
11th Jul 2011, 18:32
I am starting to see a common thread here of rushing into things only half ready. ... and don't get me started on 847 NAS ...... :{

Ali Barber
11th Jul 2011, 21:33
Not sure how this will all fit together but Libya: France risks Nato split over call for Gaddafi talks - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8630778/Libya-France-risks-Nato-split-over-call-for-Gaddafi-talks.html)
can we borrow your carrier while we finish this spot of bother off?

Modern Elmo
12th Jul 2011, 02:56
4th Jul 2011, 10:00 #2992 (permalink)
Modern Elmo

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 432
Maybe the French wanted a carrier operations timeout for some other reason - negotiations, perhaps. Maybe bad weather is merely a cover story.

I say again, what future is planned for the Queen E. upon completion?

I was joking or half joking when I said that about French aviation operations last week. But now it looks like I was k-rect.

Flap 5
29th Aug 2011, 12:30
One person who would give a balanced view of Sharkey Ward was the former Captain of the Invincible, J.J.Black. He would say that although Sharkey could be opinionated to the point of obnoxiousness he was the most experience and capable Sea Harrier pilot. When it came to the Sea Harrier he knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately his pushy personality would get in the way and would brush others up the wrong way. For that they chose to ignore his sound advice. How is that a good way to run the Navy or the military in general? Peoples lives are put at risk because he has offended someone?

Sandy Woodward should have been aware of who within his command had the best knowledge of their various departments and used them. For the Sea Harrier he did not do so.

Sharkey's comments have been taken out of context and largely twisted. Of course he doesn't help his own case by his comments about the RAF needing 24 hours notice, etc.. He was extremely complimentary of the RAF pilots flying the Harrier and the Sea Harrier. He had nothing bad to say about the aircrew who flew the Vulcans and Victor tankers. He did express an opinion about the wisdom of the RAF Vulcan missions and was right to do so. They were not going to achieve much, didn't do so, were extremely expensive and were largely for the RAF senior officers to show that they could get involved.

There appear to be a number on this forum who seem only capable of spitting vitriol from a keyboard. You are free to do so but it doesn't make you right.

foldingwings
29th Aug 2011, 13:03
Flap 5,

No vitriol here but what utter cr@p!

They were not going to achieve much, didn't do so, were extremely expensive and were largely for the RAF senior officers to show that they could get involved.

The Black Buck Mission proved to the Argentinians that Buenos Aires was within range - Air Operations for Strategic Effect; read your doctrine!

Foldie:\

cazatou
29th Aug 2011, 13:12
Roger

Deleting Vitriol - selecting Venom. :ok:

Flap 5
29th Aug 2011, 13:21
Flap 5,

No vitriol here but what utter cr@p!



The Black Buck Mission proved to the Argentinians that Buenos Aires was within range - Air Operations for Strategic Effect; read your doctrine!

Foldie:\

Well I am sure the Argies were really scared! 'Within range' is a litle optimistic! Remind me: how many Victor tankers were used?

I am also sure that the Argies were reassured by their Intelligence information that the British would never risk the possible fallout of bombing Buenos Aires.

I think the cr@p is coming from somewhere else. :)

Fareastdriver
29th Aug 2011, 15:13
Remind me: how many Victor tankers were used?


They had enough.

500N
29th Aug 2011, 15:18
"I am also sure that the Argies were reassured by their Intelligence information that the British would never risk the possible fallout of bombing Buenos Aires."

Maybe not civilians in BA, but what about Military targets ?

Bombing civvies in BA wouldn't have achieved anything except put the world of side and against the UK but a military target would have achieved the same result ?

.

Fareastdriver
29th Aug 2011, 16:21
Flap 5

I have just been over to Jet Blast so I will remind of your last post in a thread there. at 13.03.
Right . I'm off to the Military Forum to have a go at them ...

foldingwings
29th Aug 2011, 17:36
Fareastdriver

Brilliant!!!

Foldie:D

E L Whisty
29th Aug 2011, 17:59
Sharkey was a laugh a minute. Who could forget the splendid wit of dragging the dead crabs on pink ribbons into the Taranto Night dinner? And the joy of paying for the cleaning.

Does anybody remember the tape Des Hughes had of their intercomm with the flameout when they fired a 'winder off at M1.4? My, how we laughed.

Tit!

Archimedes
29th Aug 2011, 18:09
Well I am sure the Argies were really scared! 'Within range' is a litle optimistic! Remind me: how many Victor tankers were used?

I am also sure that the Argies were reassured by their Intelligence information that the British would never risk the possible fallout of bombing Buenos Aires.

I think the cr@p is coming from somewhere else. :)

You might want to read the transcript of the Falklands witness seminar held at the Staff College in 2002. You'll find that the most enthusiastic proponents of the Vulcan raid had the surnames Leach, Lewin and Fieldhouse; another chap by the name of Woodward was also keen on the idea because of the possible effect, and 'told my aviators to shut up [about how the raid was questionable tactically]'. The most downbeat was a chap called Beetham, who told the war cabinet he'd need at least 25 and possible 50 Vulcan sorties to shut the runway, and that clearly wasn't practicable. However, the RN leadership got the point about the possible strategic effect, and it is a matter of record that the raid was a key reason (along with the effect of losses from the SHAR also on 1 May) for 8 Grupo shifting priority to AD of Argentina and reducing their presence over the islands, suggesting that not only did they get the theoretical point, they were correct that it would lead to the Junta making decisions deleterious to their possible OCA campaign.

The irony of Blackbuck is that the RN's senior leadership displayed considerable sense and vision in the decision to launch the operation, and what should be a plus point for the dark blue (as well as for the RAF) is overlooked to indulge in a bout of inaccurate crustacean bashing.

Although it would appear that Admirals Lewin, Leach and Fieldhouse (plus Woodward) were collectively guilty of coming up with a load of cr@p (which was so cr@p it did what they thought it would) rather than displaying the sort of thinking that we might benefit from today if Flap is to be believed.

E L Whisty
29th Aug 2011, 18:55
Brilliant post Archimedes!

Mmmmnice
29th Aug 2011, 20:01
Why is it that just about every military qualification has some sort of currency and periodic external assessment requirement, but the self-awarded "Expert on Everything Military' tick appears to endure ad infinitum ?

500N
29th Aug 2011, 21:35
Mmmmnice

Very good post.

Because "Expert on Everything Military" falls in the same category as TROLL
in that no qualification needs to be obtained or continual periodic external assessment !!!

.

glojo
30th Aug 2011, 09:01
I understand what is being said about these Vulcan operations but surely the Argentine Air Force were suffering huge, unsustainable losses. They had used all their exocet missiles, the task group KNEW when air strikes were taking off from the main land and could then start to take the appropriate actions to meet the inbound Argentine threat.

Once ashore on the Falklands then the game was really over? The pilots of the Argentine Air Force displayed flying skills that were second to none but their losses were surely not acceptable?

Just like in the days of Nelson, we ensured their Navy was pinned down, it could not put to sea so therefore no supplies could be landed, no reinforcements of any size could be sent by sea, nor could they attack or drive off our task group.

The main airfield on the island remained operational but could only operate at night with just one aircraft flying out the wounded and bringing in essential supplies. Did this mean the occupying force were to all intents an occupying force with no support, no incoming supplies and very little food. They were really already prisoners but failed to realise it.

I am guessing the Vulcan threat did not rate that high up on the scale of things to worry about, but without doubt it would be another item on that very long list of 'Things to worry about' :rolleyes:

It is senseless to criticise what may or may not have taken place but I salute the very brave 1st Sea Lord who had the testicles to contradict what was being advised regarding the re-taking of the islands. We now have NO ONE of his ilk that would dare to speak out and insist on doing what is right.

Surely if Vulcan aircraft were to attack the main land of Argentina then they would be very much on their own. We were not at war with Argentina we were booting out an army that was illegally occupying an island? We had declared a No Go area around these islands but the airspace over and approaching Argentina was open which would expose any inbound aircraft to prolonged and really unnecessary exposure?

I am NOT pretending the government of Argentina would not take precautions against a possible air attack but they would surely have 'tourists' on Ascension Island, or above it. These folks could note what aircraft are using that airbase, when they were taking off and possibly the direction they were heading? If there were Vulcan bombers taking off then it is NOT rocket science to guess where they are heading and only then would there be a need to take counter measures??

The RAF did a tremendous job with their harrier aircraft and without that support could the battle have been one in the available time period? (The task group was in dire need of maintenance)

I for one am NOT attempting to have a silly, willy competition and salute the courage of all those that took part in this conflict. We won, the enemy lost... FULL STOP!

Sharkey Ward was possibly of a similar temperament to Sir Douglas Bader and in times of war we need these folks.

Jackonicko
30th Aug 2011, 11:59
Glojo,

Ward was no Bader. They were both talented fighter pilots, and both were awkward and egotistical people. And neither were as critical to victory as they may have thought! But during and in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Britain, Bader did not belittle and rubbish the contribution of the other squadrons and Wings involved in the Battle.

I'm not one for building people up and then demolishing them for no real reason, and mercifully, enough people who were on the SHar force in '82 have given chapter and verse about Nigel Ward, where a mere Journo would rightly be castigated for initiating criticism of such a disinguished bloke.

He obviously achieved a huge amount, and was a successful SHar pilot, and on that basis alone I'd acknowledge that I'm not fit to lick his boots. His dedication to his blokes must have made him a good Squadron CO, too, I'm sure. He also writes very well, if you put aside the content.

But he has said and written some appalling things about his fellow professionals, many of whom were his equals (if not his betters), and not just Moggie, as alluded to earlier in this thread.

Listening to Nigel, anyone would think that he won the Falklands War single-handed, and that the other SHar unit down there (who got more kills than Ward's squadron, and whose kills didn't include a sitting duck Hercules) were a bunch of incompetent non-achievers. This does a unit that was every bit as distinguished as Ward's a grave disservice.

Arrogance and ego are a must-have for a fighter pilot, but they do need to be leavened with just a tiny bit of humility and generosity of spirit towards one's comrades in arms and one wonders if Sharkey had that in sufficient measure to balance his larger than life ego?

glojo
30th Aug 2011, 13:49
Hi Jack,
I totally accept that in many ways Commander Ward was no Sir Douglas Bader but hopefully we can agree that both were VERY self opinionated and refused to back down when they knew they were right.

I could quite correctly say that Sir Douglas was no Commander Ward when it came to their expert knowledge expertise etc. During the era of the Falklands Campaign there was not anyone more qualified and with better skills regarding the SHAR so I guess his opinion might have needed to be heard?

I will NOT and CANNOT defend the way this man has subsequently tried to put his point across regarding the Fleet Air Arm. The man is clearly extremely passionate regarding this topic but.... When you poke a hornets nest then you can expect a reaction. The objectionable wording he used blotted out the very constructive points that were made and the frustrating thing is that among the rubbish he had put forward some very valid points but quite clearly those words of wisdom will now fall on deaf ears.

Regarding his book on the Falklands Conflict then I guess when we write about our exploits, it will be all about our exploits! He did a lot, achieved a lot and I guess wrote a lot about what he did! We buy a book about a specific pilot taking part in a specific conflict and I guess we then read about what they did?? Don't forget he flew far, far more missions than any other pilot. I am not saying that in a bragging type way.. I am exceedingly critical of the amount of missions he flew and blame his senior officers for the allowing and authorising of these flights....

I have always stood by this man and always will but I am not proud of the words that he now uses whenever he talks about the role of the carrier and the role of the RAF.

Having said that I never hear RAF folks saying how this man insisted on having an RAF pilot as one of his lead instructors, or how he complained BITTERLY about how the MoD had ignored his recommendations regarding the recognition for the other pilots in his squadron!! I guess these points fall also on those same deaf ears and short sighted eyes!

Hopefully however we might all agree that Commander Ward did not suffer fools gladly. Respect to him for his loyalty to his squadron during the Falklands campaign and I defy ANYONE on this forum to show me ANY words he has wrote that criticises those that served in his squadron, be they light or dark blue. Yes during that period he made mistakes but he was quick to send bottles of malt whiskey to those that were the victims of his errors. but again never let the truth spoil a good story.

Sadly this man may have been too protective to his squadron and when we consider how many missions this man flew then perhaps we might begin to understand how this might have effected him.

RAF Squadron 1(F) flew a total of 120 missions during the campaign and respect to them for what they did... This man alone flew 60, so yes he can walk the walk and I guess he is entitled to 'talk the talk' BUT as you and others have said.... He has NOT done himself any credit by presenting his case in the way he has.

When I say he flew all those missions I am NOT saying that in a complimentary manner, my thoughts are that senior officers all have a responsibility of care and war or no war our bodies can only endure so much before our batteries need recharging. My thoughts are that once a battery goes flat, we run the risk of cells collapsing and once that happens.... The battery cannot be repaired!

Wise words from one such harrier pilot

All the pilots on board ship were just one big family, even though I was Air Force flying Navy aircraft. 1(F) Squadron was there, of course, with the Harrier GR3s and I knew quite a few of them from my time in Germany. I found for the first two weeks I just got more and more tired, and ended up hardly being able to put one foot in front of the other. Not just the physical tiredness, but mental tiredness as well.For those of us that are not perfect and sometimes open mouth before engaging brain I find these are very wise words:


I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

exMudmover
30th Aug 2011, 18:03
Glojo

You comment that 1(F) Sqn flew some 120 sorties during the period they were involved in the Falklands War (after 18 May 82), and contrast this with a claimed 60 missions flown by Lt Cdr Ward. Have you considered the very different nature of the missions flown by the Seajet and RAF GR3 pilots?

After the initial SHAR attacks of early May (in which one Seajet was shot down), the Admiral wisely took the Seajets off the dangerous Low Level role in order to preserve his A/D assets for the Air Attacks to come. (The Seajets continued to carry out some attacks on shipping, plus High Altitude bombing and some specialist Loft bombing attacks in company with RAF GR3s. In daylight these were generally much less hazardous than Low Level attacks over land involving direct target overflight.)

The RAF’s GR3 pilots flew almost exclusively Low Level Ground Attack and Recce missions, down in the weeds at Ultra Low Level, through all the 35mm and 20mm flak, plus Small Arms fire from the Argies and Brits alike, not to mention dodging Roland, Seacat and MANPADs galore.

1(F) had 50% of their GR3s shot down and 2 more seriously damaged after the first 11 days of their operations, the pilots surviving by pure luck. Nearly all of the remainder of their aircraft, (including 4 replacements ferried direct from Ascension to Hermes), were damaged to a greater or lesser extent by ground fire. Amazingly, no pilot was injured by ground fire, although combat ejections caused serious injuries to 2 pilots.

The rest, they say, is history. The combination of the magnificent AIM9L and the fine aggressive tradition of the FAA and RAF Seajet pilots made short work of the opposition. However, because of the Argies’ lack of an ability to fight back, Air Defence operations – as usual – proved to be much less hazardous than Low Level Ground Attack.

In theatre, a common call from the Seajet pilots (who shared a briefing room with the GR3 pilots) was:

“ I wouldn’t do your job for all the tea in china”

cazatou
30th Aug 2011, 18:57
At last - a blast of common sense!!

Engines
30th Aug 2011, 22:45
I normally make it a point to stay out of this thread, but the last posts need a reply.

1(F) lost three aircraft shot down in the conflict, plus others in accidents. The RN lost two shot down, (one by a Roland, on by ground fire) and three others in accidents associated with operating at sea. Pretty much a wash. (Read the official histories if you want to check the numbers)

The FAA (and the RAF) Sea Harrier pilots won because they were better trained and could use the AIM-9L to full effect. Agression is nothing without skill.

The Argentines were determined and well equipped airmen who had, right up to the last, a significant ability to 'fight back' - ask the guys at Bluff Cove about that.

As a Falklands veteran, I really object to to people rewriting history to push an agenda, in this case 'the RAF did the difficult and more hazardous stuff and suffered as a result'. That is a grave disservice to all those (RN and RAF) who served down there. They would have given this sort of stuff short shrift, and having had the pleasure of working for Air Marshal Squire, ( a gentleman and a great officer) I can tell you he would have been the first to pile in.

The RAF Harriers did a magnificent job to get down there at all, and once there, did a fantastic job in pounding the Argies in really challenging conditions. They were no more or no less brave than their FAA brothers in arms. That's how we saw them then, and that's how I see them now.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

glojo
31st Aug 2011, 08:31
Good morning ex-mudmover,
Hopefully you have read ALL my posts regarding the exploits of 1(f) squadron?? Please show me ONE word where I have criticised their EXCELLENT contribution to that conflict. Please show me ONE word where I have failed to recognise their skills regarding what they did.

Sadly some folks are FAR to sensitive when reading posts and tend to isolate a few words that they feel have done someone an injustice and that is sad. This conflict was an operation which showed the World what ALL our brave service personnel are capable of doing and each service played an important role in the liberating of the islands. I have ALWAYS refused to put forward anyone particular service achievements as this then does a disservice to those we leave out.

I was simply pointing out a few facts regarding Sharkey Ward which some folks do not recognise but at the same time I have acknowledged the very valid points that have been raised.

I am in FULL agreement with the wise words that have been said by Engines


The RAF Harriers did a magnificent job to get down there at all, and once there, did a fantastic job in pounding the Argies in really challenging conditions. They were no more or no less brave than their FAA brothers in arms. That's how we saw them then, and that's how I see them now.

But please remember it was horses for courses.

The radar on the SHAR was 'not at its best' at low altitude and if our 'floating airbases' were sunk then we would have had to sneak away with our tails between our legs :uhoh:

1(f) had rightly flown their missions at ground level tea and China are words that come to mind :D

NO CRITICISM is meant nor hopefully suggested

I have just remembered how I have continually talked about our military efforts to free those islands and have continually failed to acknowledge the excellent contributions made by the brave personnel of our Merchant Navy

http://www.flagsglobal.co.uk/red%20ensign.gif

exMudmover
31st Aug 2011, 09:37
Engines,

You seem keen that I should “read the numbers” (of the official histories of the Falklands War). In order to compare apples with apples perhaps you would care to quote for me the numbers of RAF GR3s flying in the Low Level Ground Attack role and compare that with the numbers of Seajets in action, plus the relative numbers of sorties flown by the two types. Then perhaps you could relate that to the numbers shot down/damaged and come up with a measure of the relative level of danger of the two types of operation.

A simple measure of this at the time would have been be to ask both RAF GR3 pilots and Seajet pilots what they thought their chances were of finishing their war sorties hanging on a parachute - or worse. I know what I would have said at the time.

I look forward to seeing your figures.

For your information, I served down there during the war.

Tourist
31st Aug 2011, 10:18
And my dad's bigger than yours..........:rolleyes:

Fareastdriver
31st Aug 2011, 10:36
Flap 5
Right . I'm off to the Military Forum to have a go at them ...

I have to hand it to you; you certainly found the right thread to stir up a hornets nest.

Engines
31st Aug 2011, 13:34
exMud,

I'm really sorry that you feel ready for a sort of playground spat over 'which Harrier pilots did the hardest job' - I'm not.

Your proposed comparisons are invidious in the extreme - because aircraft got lost for other reasons than enemy fire. If you really want to go on and do a 'loss rate per flying hours in role 'x', then just be my guest - it's a free forum. Start counting gravestones, why don't you.

What I object to - and still do - is an attempt to selectively quote figures to prove that some people suffered more risk than others. It drives a wedge between the core fact that EVERYONE down there faced certain levels of risk at some time. My recollections of 1 Squadron were a totally professional bunch who helped us helicopter engineers out without a trace of the usual 'fixed/rotary' rubbish. Good guys who I respected then and still do now.

For what it's worth, if you want to go down this route, add in the risks faced by the Guards who charged up Tumbledown, or the Paras who took Goose Green, or the Marines who.... . Compared with those soldiers, all of us on the carriers (including the pilots) had it easy.

No more posts from me on this one, have at it as much as you like.

As always, very best regards

Engines

MAINJAFAD
1st Sep 2011, 02:34
As regards the Vulcan attacks, only 3 of the Black Buck raids were bombing missions (1,2 and 7), of which the first one actually got a bomb on Stanley airport's runway. This was the only 1000 lb bomb dropped from medium level or a Toss attack to do so from any aircraft employed in a mission to put a crater on the runway. All of the other 1000 lb bombs that hit the runway were low level dropped retarded weapons from one SHAR on the 1st May attack and from a few GR3 sorties which all just scabbed the concrete. The rest of the Black Buck mission were Anti Radar attacks against the ground based Argie surveillance and fire control radars on East Falkland, a mission that no Harrier on the carriers could do until a modified GR3 was flown to the carriers direct from ASI just before the war finished. Two of the Black Buck anti radar missions had to be aborted due to strong head winds and Tanker HDU failures stopping the Vulcan from getting down there, while the others nearly nailed the main Argie surveillance radar (the TPS-43F) when the detonation of one of the two Shrike ARM's fired at it did light damage to the antenna and the other nailed a Skyguard fire control radar (that Vulcan carried 4 missiles down there, two tuned for the 43F and the other 2 tuned for Skyguard. The 43F didn't transmit hence the Vulcan didn't fire those missiles, until it had to divert to Rio with a broken probe on the way back and of course one of them misfired). That TPS-43F was a major thorn in the side of the Task Force, as not only did it give the Argies warning of air attacks on their ground forces, it allowed them to warn their air bridge and other air operations of British CAP activity and under certain atmospheric conditions even allowed the position of British surface units to be plotted well beyond the normal radar horizon, (Anaprop and ducting down there can be really bad at times).

As regards Mr Ward, in his defence, (having been involved in AD (abet on the ground side of it) for 28 years) most of what he states in 'Sea Harrier over the Falkland' as regards the correct employment of DCA is right out of the text book (except for the risks they had to run to maximise sortie duration), unlike the 'Leigh Mallory' tactics that the CVBG flag staff forced on the Hermes squadron (yes they got more kills, but they had more aircraft, more pilots and how many men did we lose because they intercepted after the Argies had completed their attacks???). He is also totally correct in his views about how poor the aviation operational taskings were run from Hermes (Just read every Harrier pilot's account of the war published either in print or on-line by Jerry Pook, Peter Squire or Dave Morgan and they all say the same as Sharky, though in different levels of diplomatic language).

Where Sharky shoots himself in the foot, is where he states views on events where he wasn't there (and treats heresy as gospel instead of doing proper research), plus his views that show that he hasn't looked at the big picture. The classic one is his view at the end of his book about the building of MPA, Yes we built a big airfield down there, yes it can be used to reinforce the Islands in time of tension and it can also be used to allow anybody who wants get down there or back to the UK directly without messing around on a boat for weeks or going via Chile (plus of course you still need that long runway for the LAN Chile A320).

Flap 5
2nd Sep 2011, 07:47
Flap 5


I have to hand it to you; you certainly found the right thread to stir up a hornets nest.

Actually it has sparked a (mostly) constructive discussion.

Too much politics has been injected in to the decision making in the Falklands and present day with the carrier discussion. The RAF has not been the worst enemy of the FAA it has been the Navy itself which has been the FAA's worst enemy. The Navy has mostly looked to its surface ships and submarines. The very senior officers from that side outweigh the ones from aviation and don't often understand much about aviation. That was one of Sharkey's biggest gripes.

The senior RAF officers are quietly pleased with that but it doesn't necessarily result in the best decision making for the defence of this country.