The Phoenix Think Tank

[CoffmanStarter]

I was looking up some general mil aviation info today ... and happened upon this 'organisation'.

Home - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval & Maritime Think Tank (http://www.phoenixthinktank.org)

Their 'Mission Statement'

The Phoenix Think Tank is an open platform for authors to publish ideas, papers and reports on modern – or historical – maritime and naval affairs. Our purpose is to provide a platform and supporting framework for independent authors addressing these areas of key importance. We actively encourage academic contributions on, and seek to maintain rigorous standards of critical debate and thinking on – Britain’s maritime context.

I then noted from their Site Tag Map (below) a considerable 'focus' on Airpower, FAA, Carriers and RAF ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/ScreenShot2014-10-14at160256_zpsc32b4be5.png

I started reading this paper (Dated April 2014). It soon became evident that this was another attempted sledgehammer job directed at the RAF.

Air Power - The Metonymy of the RAF - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval & Maritime Think Tank (http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2014/04/air-power-the-metonymy-of-the-raf/)

There are other Members far better qualified to comment on the facts and technicals discussed ... but it does seem to be politicking in the extreme ...

What do other Members think ?

PTT About Us Tab (http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/aboutptt/)

[beardy]

There is very poor grammar on their 'About Us' page. It is difficult to take anybody who confuses their words and their grammar seriously, it shows a lack of care and thought.

[sycamore]

ie,There.....



Just checking...

[Evalu8ter]

Good riddance to myopic and selective thinking. I stopped reading when I read the oft trotted lie regarding the Sea Kings doing all the work on Op Houghton. Strangely, I recall over 200 Royals being delivered by 5 CH47 in the first wave (and most of the vehicles in the second - though I seemed to have lost one somewhere....) while the SKs gasped to carry 6 each....oh, and for the umpteenth time, it WAS NOT an Amphib assault; due to the lack of grunt from the SKs and the fear of anti-ship mx, we disembarked and flew the first few waves from the Kuwaiti desert. To be absolutely honest, it would have been cheaper and quicker to just being the stores to a port and have shifted the whole lot via Chinook.....

Didn't see much mention of air cover to Overlord (including Fortitude), nor the Italy campaign nor the role of airpower in keeping Malta alive long enough for the (incredibly brave) sailors to deliver enough supplies to start interdicting Rommel's supply lines-but, of course, N Africa is airbrushed too. The role of the GR3s in 82 is ignored, as is MR, the Shrike missions and the stupendous efforts of BN. You'd think there were no CH47 in Sierra Leone either. Remind me again who pulled the Brits out of Lebanon in 06? Oh yeah, RAF Chinooks.....to Lusty. Because, whisper it, flying a capable helicopter with plenty of grunt onto a decent sized deck isn't that hard. Really, we should be celebrating the way the RN stitches together TAGs with an eye on the further integration of F35.

If the authors were not so keen to do a hatchet job, and be more balanced in their argument, then perhaps more notice would be taken. This paper has some important points to get across, but risks falling into "we're great, you're rubbish" territory.

[BEagle]

Same old rubbish peddled by the Bearded Bull$hitter and his cronies.

Brave fighter pilot undoubtedly though.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Isn't The Phoenix Think Tank (an Oxymoron up there with Army Intelligence and Friendly Fire) just a mastebatory aid for The Bearded Bulls#$ter?

[Courtney Mil]

I have sked them how we can comment on their articles. I'll report back with answers. I also note the if you sign up to Google+ you can now leave comments on Sharkey's "blog".

[Scottie66]

WARNING

If you have any understanding of Air Power (note I say Air Power and not RAF Power), then do not read the tripe that is "Air Power - The Metonymy of the RAF".

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Nor did my fellow lecturers in Air Power!

[dat581]

Does anybody know what turned Sharkey Ward into such a cranky old bull****ter with a massive chip on his shoulder about the RAF? Anything I've read about the Fleet Air Arm and RAF during the late 1970s had the usual banter but none of the nastiness he waffles on about. Yes the Navy was upset about loosing it's big carriers but the RAF crews that flew with the Navy towards the end thought the same thing.

[Courtney Mil]

Some deep analysis there..

The UK, as ever, remains an island

Terrible out of context quote, but it amused me!

[Evalu8ter]

Dat,
In fairness, if you read his book he seems to have issues with anyone that wasn't a SHar pilot on his carrier.....

[The Helpful Stacker]

In fairness, if you read his book.....

Unfortunately it is not printed on particularly soft nor absorbent paper.

[Courtney Mil]

THS, love it. Made me spray wine all over the old iPad. :ok:

Rather than buy his book, you might be better just donating to the Dementia Care Fund in Granada. Such a shame that a once good man, (well a good pilot) should turn into such a bitter, deluded old duffer that can't even get his facts right. At least there is enough BS in his "papers" to completely discredit the whole thing. Looks like it's the same for his buddies at Phoenix.

[Evalu8ter]

CM,
Good drills - lunchtime drinking!

THS - even if were on soft paper the amount of barbs would render it unsuitable....

[CoffmanStarter]

I wonder if the current FSL is happy that a couple of his speech transcripts have been included on their 'Articles, Papers and Publications' TAB ?

[Courtney Mil]

Question sent to the RN. Questions are limited to 512 characters so I had to keep cutting my question down. I was left with this...

Avoiding a FOI request, I hope you may answer a question. Phoenix Think Tank has published a speech by the First Sea Lord, "Equipping UK Maritime Forces for the Future – Admiral Sir George Zambellas."

Equipping UK Maritime Forces for the Future - Admiral Sir George Zambellas - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval & Maritime Think Tank (http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2013/10/equipping-uk-maritime-forces-for-the-future-admiral-sir-george-zambellas/)

Is the Admiral a supporter of and contributor to Phoenix Think Tank or if they are simply posting his words without his consent?

Kind regards,

Paul Courtnage

I'm sure I'll be ignored, told I asked the wrong people or fobbed off, but it's a start.

[gzornenplatz]

Courtney. my boy. while you're at it, remind the Navy that they couldn't even provide their own trappers on the F4 in the 80s.

[Archimedes]

CM - unless he is a very good actor and accomplished dissembler, I think it's fair to say that 1SL does not buy into the underlying 'the RAF must be destroyed' rationale that the Phoenix Think Tank seems to possess. It should be noted that his predecessor as 1SL was less than impressed with the PTT as well.

The speech was on the RN website, and a pdf version of it can be found on the FAA Officers' Association website here (http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/content/sites/faaoa/uploads/NewsDocuments/1134/The_text_of_the_First_Sea_Lord.PDF)

The PTT appears to credit the speech to the Maritime Engineers Review, which - if you look at the PTT page - seems to have carried it in abridged form.

Whether any copyright of the speech has been breached by either the FAAOA or the Maritime Engineers Review is not clear since the RN webpage has gone along with any note about copyright/fair use/attribution.

AIUI, the MoD isn't fussed if speeches which are given in open fora and which, after all, are meant to engage with the public or sections thereof are reproduced, although they do like a credit. I imagine that 1SL - as a WAFU (who is neither W or FU) - would not be too upset for the speech to have been disseminated more widely either. In truth, I don't think that its appearance on the PTT site represents anything more sinister than the PTT attempting to add content.

I do imagine, from what I have seen and heard from him, that 1SL would be upset if the PTT attempted in any way, shape or form, to suggest that he bought into the ideas that some of its bloggers seem to have about what should be done with the RAF, though.

We need, I think, to note that the issue is one of vocal dinosaurs churning out much vitriol while most - but not all - of the RN (aviators or not) I have met regard them with feelings that range from bemusement to distaste, since all they're interested in is working alongside their light blue colleagues and making things work.

Sadly, there is no internet comet around to kill off the aforementioned dinosaurs...

[Courtney Mil]

All true and I understand. I seek points of entry. Let me play. :ok:

[Not_a_boffin]

I do imagine, from what I have seen and heard from him, that 1SL would be upset if the PTT attempted in any way, shape or form, to suggest that he bought into the ideas that some of its bloggers seem to have about what should be done with the RAF, though.


To say the least!

While we're on the subject of half-truths and myth and legend, perhaps gzornenplatz could remind us which NAS was flying the F4 requiring trappers on which ship in the 80s? Or more pertinently, in what year and why the decision to shut the training pipeline for naval F4 aviators was made? Which might just have had a teensy-weensy bit to do with the light blue perception that the dark blue can never adequately man its FW? (Reprised in the noughties as well....)

[CoffmanStarter]

I wish I had the credentials to request this particular paper ... but I don't. But I'm sure it would be of interest to our Air Defender community all the same ...

Modern Naval Fighter Combat Air Patrol: Long Range Air Defence - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval & Maritime Think Tank (http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/12/modern-naval-fighter-combat-air-patrol-long-range-air-defence/)

BTW ... They have a Twitter Feed too ...

https://twitter.com/PhoenixThinking

[CoffmanStarter]

Archimedes said ...

I don't think that its appearance on the PTT site represents anything more sinister than the PTT attempting to add content.

I think it may be a little more subtle. Clearly the Solo Blog and odd letter to MP's and Ministers wasn't working. Next step ... build a perceived credibility and then start courting the press (low key at first) to get noticed ... a 'slowly, slowly catchy monkey' strategy.

[FODPlod]

Do all those hot-under-the-collar about Sharkey Ward and the PTT realise that every mouth-frothing thread and post denigrating them and their views, on fora such as this, bring them even more publicity and even provide a modicum of credibility? :)

[CoffmanStarter]

FODPlod ... Possibly ... But the more this stuff gets recycled and repeated by the likes of PTT, the probability of people (other than the cognoscenti) believing it increases. At least by PPRuNe Mil having a 'discussion' on the topic creates a further lasting Google Search footprint ... which is at least a small antidote. :ok:

[nutnurse]

I've just been reading Sharkey's :* blog - just the thing for scaring grandchildren at Hallowe'en! Tolkien fans will wish to know who is this particular Sharkey's Wormtongue. :suspect:

I nearly went to Reading School. If I had I would have been a year ahead of our bluff friend, I might even have had occasion to march him up and down a bit in the CCF! As 5aday said in a different context yesterday, it's a small world.

:uhoh::eek::rolleyes:

[Courtney Mil]

I doubt too many members of the public will read or be influenced by their tripe. I'm certain the MoD and Government have all the input they need. It's a lovely attempt, but as they seem not to respond to any "contact us" stuff I'm guessing they're both defensive and unlikely to engage with too many folk who may take an interest, in whatever form.

You really think these fanatics are about to persuade anyone to ditch the RAF and re-equip the FAA in their place? Really? I think by now most of the English speaking world has worked out that The Bearded Nob spouts bollocks. Won't be long until they do the same with this little offshoot.

[Party Animal]

However........ whilst I agree with all of the above and follow the 'Sharkey is a tw@t' Facebook page, I find it hard to argue with the comments:


Role 3 – Intelligence and Situational Awareness – or ISTAR and AEW
“On the modern battlefield, information, particularly accurate and timely information, is vital to any force commander. To supply this resource, the RAF operates a variety of aircraft equipped with world-leading reconnaissance systems. As a maritime nation, protection of the sea lanes is also of paramount importance.” (MoD RAF)
Despite MoD RAF’s statement above, the RAF can no longer deploy any specialist maritime reconnaissance capability at all; aircraft with radar and radio can fly over the sea and communicate with ships, but without data links and specialist aircrew this is hardly much of a capability. To state that the maritime dimension is of “paramount importance” and yet deliver a near zero priority in resource and to scrap the Nimrod replacement, revives a return to the era between WW1 and WW2.
Role 4 – Attack or Deep Strike, Ground Attack, Close Air Support, Maritime Operations
With no maritime patrol aircraft, nor maritime co-operation squadrons, and the withdrawal of Air Launched Harpoon and Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles from service, the RAF now has no maritime attack capability at all.

Viewed against the AP3000 propaganda, I have to say I would support their lines in any discussion with fellow light blue colleagues.

[WhiteOvies]

I'm not sure that they had any influence whatsoever over the writing of this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-strategy-for-maritime-security (National Strategy For Maritime Security)

This got absolutely no column inches to my knowledge, hence was missed by many, but is actually a pre-SDSR 2015 strategy (so liable to change) that is long overdue.

Do PTT have a link to it??

[Party Animal]

Sadly, yet more 'mouth music' that stresses the importance of the maritime domain - but in words only, not in actions or deeds. Can be summed up by the ministerial quote:

"This govt is committed to ensuring the defence of the UK is far more robust than the last bunch left it. We are particularly disposed to enhance all of our capabilities in the maritime domain, which is why we have cut the Royal Navy down to 19 warships and removed the Royal Air Force Maritime Patrol Aircraft Force. Together, these measures will make us more agile and adaptable to meet any form of aggression in the modern world etc etc...."

[FODPlod]

Role 3 – Intelligence and Situational Awareness – or ISTAR and AEW
“On the modern battlefield, information, particularly accurate and timely information, is vital to any force commander. To supply this resource, the RAF operates a variety of aircraft equipped with world-leading reconnaissance systems. As a maritime nation, protection of the sea lanes is also of paramount importance.” (MoD RAF)
Despite MoD RAF’s statement above, the RAF can no longer deploy any specialist maritime reconnaissance capability at all; aircraft with radar and radio can fly over the sea and communicate with ships, but without data links and specialist aircrew this is hardly much of a capability. To state that the maritime dimension is of “paramount importance” and yet deliver a near zero priority in resource and to scrap the Nimrod replacement, revives a return to the era between WW1 and WW2.

Role 4 – Attack or Deep Strike, Ground Attack, Close Air Support, Maritime Operations
With no maritime patrol aircraft, nor maritime co-operation squadrons, and the withdrawal of Air Launched Harpoon and Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles from service, the RAF now has no maritime attack capability at all...

But, but, but...

The UK National Strategy for Maritime Security (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322813/20140623-40221_national-maritime-strat-Cm_8829_accessible.pdf)
Annex B
Departmental Roles and Responsibilities for Maritime Security

...The Royal Air Force (RAF) protects Britain’s interests, citizens, territory and trade through the intelligent application of Air Power, exploiting the inherent speed of reaction, speed of reach and speed of effect that this offers – to enable flexible political choice and, ultimately, to deliver military effect. In concert with allies, partners and the other Services, the RAF provides support to international maritime security and deters threats to UK prosperity and security. The RAF maintains a number of aircraft and units ready to respond at extremely short notice to threats to the UK; the roles include Quick Reaction Alert (to sustain Control of the Air), Attack, and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). Internationally, the RAF works with partners to counter illegal maritime activity, including piracy, drug smuggling and other illegal trade, particularly in the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Caribbean and the South Atlantic, and it also contributes to the development of maritime air surveillance capabilities.

[Party Animal]

FODPlod - Indeed. Back to mouth music from the UK Govt I'm afraid. Laughable really but I suppose Joe Public know no different.

[Wander00]

Why does "twitter" seem so appropriate..................

[CoffmanStarter]

The PTT Website was 'relaunched' yesterday ...

A couple of new articles announced on the Home Page for those interested ...

Analyzing and Improving Airborne Command and Control by Lt. Roger Misso, USN

Over the Beach – The Enduring Utility of Amphibious Operations by Capt. Cole Petersen, Canadian Army (although there would appear to be a problem with the link to the main article).

The Phoenix Think Tank > Home | Independent Naval & Maritime Thinking | A Platform for Naval and Maritime Authors. (http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/home/)

Still odd to see the PTT saying on their Press Tab ...

The Phoenix Think Tank is an independent, private organisation that neither has contact with, nor answers to, the Naval Staff.

But on their Authors Tab they mention that the current FSL is a member of their 'Professional Practitioner Panel' ... :confused:

[Heathrow Harry]

that first article is brilliant ... NOT

he indulges in some third grade maths to "prove" that an EC-2 Hawkeye can process data four times faster than an E-3 AWACS because it has fewer crew and so they don't have to wait as long as the mob on the AWACS for their turn at the Morse key to send data......... :confused::confused::confused:

This makes Sharkey look like Clauswitz TBH

[Lima Juliet]

This makes Sharkey look like Clausewitz

:D:D:D with a beard obviously!

LJ

[CoffmanStarter]

An interesting article just published ...

Ballistic Missile Defence - Britain's Missing Shield

Britain has notably failed to invest in land-based anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) systems. Instead, national air defence is the "primary role" for the Royal Air Force. By 2020, the RAF will operate 107 Multirole Combat Aircraft (the 'Typhoon'), and an as-yet-unknown number of F35B Lightning II aircraft, the latter set to be shared with the Fleet Air Arm. Yet these aircraft have a limited capability against cruise missiles, and no illustrated capability against wider ballistic missiles threats. Put simply, their main potential value is limited to timely intercepts of launch platforms.

The Phoenix Think Tank : Ballistic Missile Defence - Britain's Missing Shield (http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/articles/graham-edmonds-ballistic-missile-defence-britains-missing-shield.html)

Haven't we been here before ?