Why the raf can’t deliver the punch cameron wants in syria

[ricardian]

WHY THE RAF CAN’T DELIVER THE PUNCH CAMERON WANTS IN SYRIA
Posted on November 27, 2015
Contributed by Sharkey Ward
Falklands War air ace and Harrier squadron commander

Read the report here
(http://terencestrong.co.uk/why-the-raf-cant-deliver-the-punch-cameron-wants-in-syria/)

[MadsDad]

Have I got time to pop out for some popcorn?

[Kitbag]

This (http://terencestrong.co.uk/no-not-listening-cant-hear-you/) one is just as good :ok:

Sadly one is not able to post comments on the website. Probably a little scared his views would be revealed for the tripe they are.

[Pontius Navigator]

Good read, well up there with Dale Brown, or is that doing Dale a disservice?

[Melchett01]

I needed a laugh, thanks for posting. I could question his logic line by line, but I think it sufficient merely to note that the RAF's contribution is numerically small but still greater than the Navy's.

One question did spring to mind reading his article though. He labels himself, or is labelled in the article an 'air ace'. I always thought the criteria for 'Ace' status was 5 kills and yet his own Wiki entry with his citation only notes 3; has the criteria been watered down or is he just a playing Walt?

[Rhino power]

Mr.Ward's almost pathological hatred of the RAF is quite disturbing, it really must be eating away at him constantly, to enable him to come up with such diatribes... :uhoh:

-RP

[Exnomad]

Perhaps we shoukd refurbish that Vulcan and the ones in museums
Pity that is not possible.

[Shadwell the old]

Lord Haw Haw lives

[Genstabler]

I would like to hazard the opinion that he has a point. Several in fact.

[Kitbag]

Yes of course he has a point. But these are skewed due to his, as RP says, pathological hatred of the RAF. I believe he is right when he says the RN should have a nuclear-powered carrier force, that the carriers should be equipped with catapults and arrestor gear, that the Air Wing should include strike, fixed wing AEW, COD, AAR capability etc. He ignores the fact that all this was ditched by the Naval Staff.

I also think he still thinks of the world in terms of Mk1 Golf GTi's, Concorde, Kerry Packers cricket circus and women with big hair, shoulder pads and leg warmers.

[Genstabler]

I also think he still thinks of the world in terms of Mk1 Golf GTi's, Concorde, Kerry Packers cricket circus and women with big hair, shoulder pads and leg warmers.
What's wrong with that then?

[Pontius Navigator]

I also think he still thinks of the world in terms of Mk1 Golf GTi's, Concorde, Kerry Packers cricket circus and women with . . . leg warmers.

Hairy legs as in the men-only Navy?

[Kitbag]

Sharkey relaxing as he remembers the good old days
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4hXnxE65iKl1JZxBJamcmFASF05lsrxY-yCnnPF8F0c-4CHk

[air pig]

Was ex Commnader Ward an RAF reject and has held a grudge ever since?

[just another jocky]

Bending the truth a little to serve your own argument I can stomach but outright lies.....dishonourable at best.

Shame on ex-Lt Cdr Ward.....again!

[barnstormer1968]

What a lot of pre amble purely in order to be able to say the last two sentences.

[Just This Once...]

but outright lies.....dishonourable at best.

I guess we have all got used to it, but yes it is rather dishonourable to behave in the way he does. It must be incredibly embarrassing for his family.

[Stanwell]

... and the best person he can get to publish his diatribe is a fiction writer and war-gamer. :hmm:

[Phil_R]

Civvy perspective:

I assume both Tornado and Typhoon have some degree of EW capability that isn't entirely public.

Pablo Mason's book mentions some degree of apprehension during Gulf 1 at the technique required to use JP-233. Hadn't realised the level of unhappiness was quite as severe as Ward makes out.

Understood it was widely felt that Harrier was pretty crap at CAS too due to lack of guns.

Fair to call current Tornado obsolete?

P

[Kitbag]

Wonder if it grates that he has the Air Force Cross?

[Biggus]

Phil_R

I can only presume this is correct:

RAF - RAF Tornado Aircraft Losses (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/RAFTornadoAircraftLosses.cfm)

6 Tornado aircraft lost in operations, as opposed to the 8 mentioned in the article, although I know at least one was lost in training prior to the commencement of hostilities.

Only one of the 6 appears to have been lost on a JP-233 mission, and that was on egress.

Hope that is of some help. No doubt someone with more comprehensive knowledge on this issue will be along to correct me shortly!!

[just another jocky]

Phil.....not at all. There is not a current fast jet in the world that has the capabilities of the Tornado. Despite its ageing design and airframe it performs the job incredibly well with some very up-to-date equipment.

Despite what that charlatan Ward claims, the Tornado did not require 24 hours notice of CAS missions in Afghan. I sat numerous GCAS (Ground Alert for CAS) and we were airborne in much less than 15 minutes from the alarm and I have HUD video of me at very low level too.

I also flew it in Gulf War 1 and the losses were mainly because the Tornado was never envisaged as a medium level weapons platform hence we had nothing in the bag of tricks for that so went low level instead where the Iraqis had some capability & a little luck too.

Its unique capabilities are needed in Syria where neither the French nor the Americans have one aircraft that combines the capabilities the Tornado does.

Please don't listen to Mr Ward, he is renowned for talking out of his.......:mad:

[MSOCS]

I'll give Sharkey (or "Starkey" in the web picture!) his dues - his consistent lack of knowledge and hysterical analyses show determination at the very least. Though I do think it's important to understand the context that fuels each stroke of his pen. In "Sharkey's World" there's so much money and resource that we've a smattering of nuclear carriers; hugely capable cat and trap aircraft, all fitted with 'wish'iles and wonder bombs; and we still have an Empire that looks lovingly upon a third of the globe. Rebuttals to this latest offering to replace my loo roll, are:

Unlike Libya, Typhoon (so named for ages now) carries Paveway 4 and a targeting pod. Tornado is old but not obsolete - the most mature and capable A-G platform UK has today. Putin "could" fire S400 at coalition pilots - assuming his pilots aren't in said coalition - but it's highly, highly unlikely. As likely as a Typhoon shooting down a Russian ac. Brimstone is awesome - US love it too and it's great for urban precision targeting (GR4 only ac currently carrying it but Typhoon get it in a few years). It's not called a Super Growler (but a girl in Alaska I once met probably should be - it is cold there I s'pose..). Hardly anyone's attacked targets at Low Level for ages Sharkey! GR4 scramble times for CAS in Afghanistan were as fast as Harrier - no such tales of (24hr+) tasking bureaucracy or is Sharkey confusing routine ASR with on-call ground alert or air alert CAS...

The rest is Sharkey's typical RAF hatred. I also don't think he realises how many people and how much money you need to put all of your Air Force's ac into a Th at a moment's notice. It isn't partisan advice, it's reality - something Sharkey lost in the FIs along with his marbles and his homemade legend badge.

Discrediting the fine men and women actually doing something for the UK's security is distasteful and betrays his kin.

[glad rag]

Well said MSCOS.

[Kitbag]

And MSOCS :D

[camelspyyder]

He really is the PPrune version of the "Judean Popular Front"

[Exnomad]

JP233 Thet bring back memories.
The company I worked for did some work for MOD and we tested some of the sub munitions.

[Peter G-W]

I don't recall the Tornado mutiny in Kuwait that he mentions. Did the Iraqi AF have Tornados?

[Bob Viking]

No matter what we say about him on here I bet he retires to his grubby little bunk at night and laughs himself to sleep about the furore he causes in this forum every time he spouts his usual cr@p.

I have the utmost respect for what he and the rest of the task force achieved in 1982 but whatever his motives now he needs to grow old a little more gracefully.

Excuse the tangent here but I will explain myself so bear with me.

Whenever people (laughably in my personal opinion) suggest the moon landings were a hoax I tell them that I believe it would have been harder to get several thousand people to commit to a lie for nearly 50 years of such epic proportions than it would have been to put a man on the moon.

Here's why I make that point. I flew the Jaguar and never went on operations. I know many people who have flown the Harrier, Tornado and Typhoon on operations. Unless they have all committed to the same made up story I believe what they tell me. Despite some problems along the way all three platforms have provided a sterling service when required. I believe them over Sharkey Ward. It would appear that the mainstream media agree with me or we would undoubtedly hear more from him in much more high profile publications.

BV:O

[Phil_R]

[Tornado's] unique capabilities are needed in Syria

I would like to understand why.

Technologically unsophisticated bad guys more or less completely unable to oppose aircraft at anything other than shoulder-fired-missile range. Bombs available that go to a GPS coordinate. More or less any even-vaguely-modern ground attack aircraft, including drones, can do this, surely.

P

[charliegolf]

What a lot of pre amble purely in order to be able to say the last two sentences.

Spot on!:ok:

CG

[Timelord]

Phil R, laser guided Brimstone and RAPTOR.(and Paveway 4 and gun)

[smujsmith]

" In the light of all the above (and the Tornado’s dreadful track record) is it not extraordinary that the Government’s Ministry of Defence has seen fit to appoint two Tornado officers to take charge of the new Royal Navy carriers and their air groups?

It hardly bodes well for the future of Britain’s global national security and defence."

Far be it from me, a lowly erk of the junior service, but this bloke has obviously had the reality gene removed from his body. His obvious inability to accept modern military inter service cooperation shows his retarded thinking. With the greatest respect to your earlier exploits, in the days when what you thought actually matters Mr Sharky
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`•¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('....(...(´.. ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\............... _.•´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Have a little ex harrier hover on that :eek:

Smudge :ok:

[Jimlad1]

I gather many in the RN view him as a complete embarassment, and they would like him to stfu and quickly. His rambling letters to various ministers going on about raf transport command failures were a legend - he only sent them nearly 40 years after it was scrapped.

I think pity is the best i can muster for him - pity that a man can hate so much and for so little reason

[MAINJAFAD]

Hope that is of some help. No doubt someone with more comprehensive knowledge on this issue will be along to correct me shortly!!

The RAF web site gives the best breakdown on what the cause of each loss was where known (3 of the aircraft fell in a location where an investigation team could get to them after the ceasefire, so the actual cause of the aircraft loss is known (2 x SAM and 1x Fragged by own bomb detonating on arming). Of the other three including the JP233 aircraft, one was hit by 2 X SA-2 at medium level, while the cause of the other two losses were never determined.

RAF - RAF Tornado Aircraft Losses (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/RAFTornadoAircraftLosses.cfm)

[Pontius Navigator]

Can't believe how this thread has taken on a life of its own.

[ShotOne]

Well, yes, with all deference to his Falklands job, the guy's a prat.

But why is there apparently nobody prepared to publicly voice a reasoned and positive account for what the RAF's currently doing?

[Wageslave]

Phil, ----- you re joking ----- arent you????

Fair to call current Tornado obsolete?


Fair? in 2015?

When I was a schoolboy in1976, yes seventy six, the bloody thing was still called MRCA and was universally known to be obsolete then. Before it even entered service!

Obsolete, now???? It's been a concrete-toting fuggen dinosaur for well over a quarter century!

It's no doubt great fun (bwahahaha) and trendy to ridicule Sharkey Ward but he has consistently highlighted some of the daftest shortcomings of the UK defence system. Sure, he's been pretty outspoken with an unfashionable (big problem) though often militarily sound philosophy. As did Rickover, for instance, and who was right there? Lets not write him off altogether shall we? Anyone who proposes big carriers equipped with anything but cats and traps is simply delusional (or on a bung from Lockheed) and anyone who thinks we can't project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto.

Sharkey may make a spectacle of himself from time to time by being too outspoken but more than often than not there is a sound point behind his rhetoric. His dislike of the RAF is soundly based on Strategic lines, there is little doubt that had the defence budget been spent more on Naval aviation than almost exclusively on the RAF then we would be far far better placed to respond to the global threats and challenges we see today. We still suffer from the insane delusions of the '60s defence reviews that said the RAF could supply air cover globally - if it couldn't do so then it can do it a hundred times less now. If we want to do tis now then we must have a credible Naval carrier force, there is simply no other way.

By far the most useful military airfield we can possibly own is a seagoing one, each one is far more useful to us than any five in Lincolnshire for God's sake!

Thanks Sharkey, keep shaking the complacent politicos and doubters up!

But why is there apparently nobody prepared to publicly voice a reasoned and positive account for what the RAF's currently doing?
Perhaps because what little the poor old RAF is capable of doesn't really merit much positive comment?

Thanks for your reasoned and no doubt fully Professionally qualified opinion on one of our true war heroes, Sh!tNone. Not. Are you even fit to criticise the polish on his boots? Shame on you.

[Linedog]

Far easier to sink a seagoing one than five airfields in lincolnshire.

[ShotOne]

"...far far better placed"?? With respect wageslave, I fundamentally disagree. Attempting to maintain all but the briefest air campaign from a carrier is likely to be very much less effective than from an airbase; the key point being, if we don't have one, or an ally prepared to let us use one within a reasonable distance, what the f*** are we doing there at all?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Wageslave

That's brilliant. By far the funniest post on here today!! Either that or you are Sharkey and I claim my £5.

[Archimedes]

I don't recall the Tornado mutiny in Kuwait that he mentions. Did the Iraqi AF have Tornados?

I have a suspicion that he's referring to reports of discontent amongst Tornado crews that appeared in a tabloid at the time.

Unfortunately for his argument, the report (which wasn't exactly accurate, IIRC), referred to the F3.

The word has been used in relation to a dispute between CTTO and squadron execs and/or QWIs over tactics after the move from low-level (CTTO were invited to do something anatomically awkward, AIUI) by a now-retired 2* who was a flight commander at the time, but the word was employed with a degree of hyperbole obvious to his audience; I don't think that this is the source Cdr Ward refers to, though.

That said, I'm never quite sure of the sources he refers to, since they appear to be hard-to-find ones which don't agree with any of the other sources out there...

[Chris Scott]

"Anyone who proposes big carriers equipped with anything but cats and traps is simply delusional..."

Warming to this stuff!

"...and anyone who thinks we can't project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto."

:confused:

In need of a proof-reader, perhaps? :ugh:

[Genstabler]

Sorry CS. Am I missing something?

[AnglianAV8R]

@ Genstabler I think it should've read...

"...and anyone who thinks we can project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto."

Otherwise, it contradicts the previous quote. Agree ?

[Genstabler]

Yep! Granted! 👍

[AH groundy]

Its fortunate for the AAC that they currently operate the UK's only offensive carrier born airpower. The Apache! goes to show how out of touch both the the RAF and FAA are. Carry on with your willy waving. If were need to deploy from a carrier give us a shout!

[Flugplatz]

I think Sharkey is shooting at the wrong target when he compares the (possible) responses of the RAF vs. the RN.

The elephant in the room these days is the ultra-restrictive ROE that our forces work under; far more restrictive than the Geneva convention.

The present ROE, cooked up by being led by the nose by the UN
and the general malaise of several generations having being brought up on wars-of-choice, now mean that whatever our combat power, actually applying it is getting harder and harder.

This may be a choice we are making, to go above and beyond not to kill or injure civilans, but it also means the opportunities to use the full capabilities of our weapons are now vanishingly small. And IS are taking full advantage of that especially in urban areas.

I believe that is why we are concentrating on drone strikes - purely for their ability to persist on the battlefield and wait for the near perfect combination of factors that will allow a 'legal' weapons-release.

It seems or present ROE would have make war criminals of virtually all Allied bomber pilots during the Second World War - so fast-forward to today and despite our undoubted advantages, we have self-imposed a very limited ability to actually use them.

Flug

[Danny42C]

Flugplatz,

An old Post of mine [Military Aviation - Gaining a R.A.F. Pilot's Brevet in WWII]

My eye was caught by this link:

(Extract D.Tel. 9.1.15).

"The pair have said that one of their proudest moments to date involved helping to foil a rocket (RPG ?) attack on their base at Kandahar airfield in 2010".

"There was a high threat and the base was expecting an imminent attack after some men were spotted in a nearby ditch, setting up to fire a rocket (RPG ?) at their accommodation block".

"They took the aircraft out to 15 miles from their position in the ditch and came down to low level, approaching at more than 500mph and as close to the Operational Low Flying minimum of 100 feet as possible, passing directly over them before heading into a steep climb".

"The rocket crew immediately scarpered in a truck and the pair felt they had made a tangible difference to protect their colleagues".

“The intention is to always use the minimum force required to provide the effect needed by the guys on the ground".

Am I missing something here ? This was in 2010, and there was a war going on in Afghanistan (as we have 453 good reasons to remember). This is the enemy, and he is making ready to kill you (or some of your comrades) if he can. You are airborne in one of the RAF's most powerful weapons. You have a 27mm cannon.

You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing).
So that he can come back later and try again ?

I am a simple soul. Can someone please explain this to me (after all, my war was 70 years ago, and things change).

Danny.

Afterthought 1: I have my grandfather's India General Service Medal (with a clasp for Kandahar !) Nothing changes !

Afterthought 2: Radio a day or two ago reports that the Afghan Premier has appointed a Taliban General as Governer of the Helmand Province (If true, you couldn't invent it). D.

It is not the size of the dog in the fight that counts - but the size of fight in the dog.

Danny42C,

[ShotOne]

....although for all,the Sharkey idiocy and bitterness, the headline statement is undeniably true. For the simple reason that no amount of airpower on its own could deliver the magic punch politicos want with such divided motives amongst the "allies". Perhaps when the next Brimstone upgrade rolls out, able to home onto fundamentalist hatred to kill jihadis in the cellar without harming the schoolchildren studying above...

[Tourist]

"...far far better placed"?? With respect wageslave, I fundamentally disagree. Attempting to maintain all but the briefest air campaign from a carrier is likely to be very much less effective than from an airbase;

So why do the Americans bother then? Are they idiots?
Why did the French do it that way in Libya?
Why are the Chinese building Carriers?


I often hear how quickly the RAF can deploy to an airfield, however the logistical chain takes a long time to follow to provide a decent amount of munitions/fuel. You still need ships or vast numbers of overland trucks which are vulnerable to political whims of the countries through which they must travel.

Yes a carrier can only do 30kts, but 24hrs a day and when it turns up it is ready for high intensity war.
All the things that make war possible are included as standard, and whilst it may be vulnerable, it is far less vulnerable than a stationary airfield.

It also has the ability to pre-emptively deploy to an area without any negotiations. No political deals with other countries required. No expensive hotels. No security risks to personnel. The ability to launch and recover without the ever present risk of dickers passing that info on.

The press never find out if the sqn boss makes an @rse of himself in a downtown bar.

You just sail it quietly into the region. Everybody knows what it means, but it doesn't cause any ructions because it can always be justified as just sailing past.

Gunboat diplomacy is very effective.

" if we don't have one, or an ally prepared to let us use one within a reasonable distance, what the f*** are we doing there at all?

What a silly post.

You don't get to chose when you are needed. The Falklands are a perfect example of that.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, dear. The nurse must have woken the silly old sod up early this morning and forgot to put enough sugar in his cocoa.

Hey, Sharkey! Tell what the FAA can do at the moment.

[just another jocky]

The press never find out if the sqn boss makes an @rse of himself in a downtown bar.

Ok, if this is going to descend into silliness....

The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) had to spend a couple of weeks in port because the radome nearly fell off its mountings.

The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) sailed out of theatre because its aircraft could no longer get airborne with any significant weapons load due to the ambient temperature (not a problem on a long, fixed runway of course).

Now, has that moved the debate on a bit? :rolleyes:

[MSOCS]

Wageslave,

Regardless of the nobilities of having [allegedly] better-equipped carriers, this thread started because of Sharkey's article and it has provoked thought.

His written article is woefully inaccurate and out of date. His assumptions are wrong and therefore his analyses are muddled and flawed to a point where all they really do is serve to back up the last two paragraphs - which are his personal gripes. Assuming the reader is given the facts - which this article fails to logically present - you wouldn't have to be a professional military person at all to reason with his conclusions; they would be self-evident. Unfortunately the facts presented are half-truths, lies and inflammatory statements.

As I've said, the arguments are fundamentally flawed and tainted by an anti-RAF narrative which Sharkey has helped peddle for nearly 3 decades.

I'm also older than Tornado but unlike you I don't necessarily link capability with age. Your brief on the jet's capability is clearly as old as the author's drivel.

[Bob Viking]

You make some good points but Some of your obvious bias still shines through.

Expensive hotels? How many nights in a hotel would be needed to exceed the comparative cost of an aircraft carrier?

A stationary airfield is more vulnerable than an aircraft carrier? That's an interesting statement. That could be argued either way. You can't sink an airfield.

Anyway I'm just indulging in some Devils advocacy. I do find it funny how people can argue a point based on their own preconceived ideas and sound very credible. As long as you want to agree with them.

BV

[glad rag]

Firstly, I believe the comments re ROE to be most pertinent, however it would be wrong to think that weapon delivery is the only string to it's bow, the ability of the weapon system to hunt, find, communicate, and with permission prosecute is singular.
Further the earlier comments on uav deployment does seem to make a lot of sense...

[MSOCS]

Tourist,

I agree with some of your points - the advantages of a full CAG at sea are very alluring and I've always believed as an island nation that we (UK) missed the boat (excuse pun) by taking a capability holiday in that area. What the FAA have done to maintain expertise in the carrier environment will hopefully pay dividends as our first carrier arrives at Portsmouth in a few years time.

QEC, with up to 24 F-35B aboard, will undoubtedly give the UK a larger remit of choice. The government must ensure both ships are comprehensively protected when they sail; something that has been alluded to earlier. In the shorter-term I can only see a QEC sailing as part of a larger USN-led task group if going deliberately into harm's way. We can do the plain cruising around part ourselves, but Th entry etc is another matter.

Shame there's no cocktail deck on her for when she isn't on ops but I'd also point out to those reading that aren't familiar with maritime ops that even a carrier needs replenishment at sea so logistics touch everything.

[Tourist]

Yes 24 will be a start, though the lunacy of having a full size carrier with only the capabilities of a small carrier is maddening.

We could have had real capability in the manner of a US carrier if the crazy "B" decision had not been made.:ugh:

Yes, carriers still need to RAS, but the Stores ship is already loaded and following you around...

[Chris Scott]

"It [the carrier] also has the ability to pre-emptively deploy to an area without any negotiations. No political deals with other countries required. No expensive hotels. No security risks to personnel. The ability to launch and recover without the ever present risk of dickers passing that info on."

As a lifetime civilian I hesitate to express a view in such experienced (though mainly polarised) company. But in this totally unpredictable world we need both capabilities, IMO, and we need them now.

The (2010 SDSR?) decision to revert to a unique, STOVL mode came strangely from a coalition government and PM advocating increased military cooperation with the EU, and fully committed to NATO. Now Dave promises us jam in a mere 8 years from now (don't hold your breath), by which time the world is likely to be a different place. The F-35B relies on an outdated and flawed concept over half a century after Hawkers rejected it in favour of the inspired P1127. It may well be a lemon. Sharkey's utterances may be ill-advised, partial and OTT but - if you guys are honest - much of his frustration is shared by all of us.

As someone suggested yesterday, the costs of hitting Daesh should be paid for out of our ring-fenced budget for foreign-aid - because that's precisely what it represents.

[MSOCS]

The B decision is well documented. We know that there was a glimmer of a C variant once.....but we didn't have the money to make it stick. The B will be the only variant UK will put to sea so we just have to get on with it.

The point of mentioning the RAS thing is the logistics trail isn't small for that either. It has to follow the CAG as you mentioned, therefore it must be protected which all comes at a cost. Losing the stores ship to an enemy torpedo would have serious knock on effects. A combination of land and air delivery to a land base spreads your risk somewhat. It's swings and roundabouts and we have invested a lot in DOB infra since 2005.

As I said, I think Carrier Strike will be a potent enabler for political choice and is worth the price tag.

[MSOCS]

Chris,

All views are obviously welcome. Many seek to bait but most seek to educate in their own way. You're right about polarisation - group think etc.

The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s. It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait. Perhaps their view is as stymied as others who never took to the concept or believe it to be outdated. I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield.

As for F-35 being a lemon, just check out the well-trodden thread on these pages. Suffice it to say that those involved know and rave about its capabilities even before it has hit the Block 3F standard. Most appreciate such capabilities cannot be revealed. Those that don't, or wish they did, continue to doubt it. I've seen not an ounce of hard evidence but a lot of propaganda in the press.

Back to the thread - Sharkey's utterances are actually factually incorrect and polarised. End of.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Good, balanced post Tourist. :D

[ShotOne]

"What little the poor old RAF is currently capable of doesn't really merit much positive comment..." Thank you for that reasoned opinion, wageslave.

Tourist if our defence policy hinges on refighting the Falklands campaign then I agree with you. But it's pretty unlikely we'll have to -because of land based air power. For all the undoubted benefits of carriers, you don't seem prepared to acknowledge the difficulty and cost of maintaining a group on station..every drop of fuel, every bullet, every weetabix has to be got out to it. As to your hotel cost/nights on town argument -surely you're scraping the barrel? Even there, "Lusty" managed to earn some legendary tabloid column inches!

[Chris Scott]

Quote from MSOCS:
"The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s."

Thanks for the reminder.

"It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait."

Okay, I'll have to inform myself on whether the US are building any carriers without "cats and traps", that will be unusable by conventional fixed-wing a/c in a contingency.

"I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield. "

Not trying to dispute that, but the concept of lugging an engine around for most of the mission in-lieu of the equivalent payload.

[Tourist]

The F-35B relies on an outdated and flawed concept over half a century after Hawkers rejected it in favour of the inspired P1127. It may well be a lemon.

Only time will tell if that is true. It may well be a great aircraft, eventually.

It is, however, a compromise that is necessary for some of the uses it is designed for.



A full size carrier is not one of those uses it was designed for. We should have decks full of "C" models or even F18 or Rafale plus E2/V22 Bagger plus Growler (if only for the name!) plus COD

[MSOCS]

Chris, let me help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship

Your last point was exactly my point about STOVL design compromising what 'could have been' however the remit of the F-35 program was always commonality - economies of scale to make 5th Gen affordable and, ultimately, globally supportable. Did LM promise a lot and deliver not quite what it promised? Yup, but not in terms of where things matter. I'd love more range on F-35B but the lift fan (not an extra engine) removes that space where fuel could be. A module fuel tank to put there in place of a lift fan when you don't need STOVL was probably mooted and dismissed. Still a reasonable idea as most F-35B arguments still centre around range...especially where Carrier Strike is concerned.

STOVL does give access to nearly double the land based options that conventional types required though...Peter and Paul etc...

[Tourist]

Good, balanced post Tourist. :D

Hmm.

I must have forgotten my meds.....:uhoh:

[Tourist]

Ok, if this is going to descend into silliness....

The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) had to spend a couple of weeks in port because the radome nearly fell off its mountings.

The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) sailed out of theatre because its aircraft could no longer get airborne with any significant weapons load due to the ambient temperature (not a problem on a long, fixed runway of course).

Now, has that moved the debate on a bit? :rolleyes:

While I think we are all aware that my jibe about bosses behaviour was in jest rather than a real reason, I don't think that your examples are really similar.

A radome problem is an unserviceability like any other, and whilst the Harrier certainly was weight limited for bring-back in the heat, I don't think that is embarrassing so much as part of the compromise inherent in the design. The trade-off is of course that you can put it really close to the enemy and move it around.

A little research on your part could have found far more relevant port visits.....:E

[Tourist]

Tourist if our defence policy hinges on refighting the Falklands campaign then I agree with you. But it's pretty unlikely we'll have to -because of land based air power.

You didn't run the RAF in the 70's did you?

That is almost word for word what the RAF said that killed off our carriers.

At the time, of course the RAF had really long range bombers and a vast transport wing etc etc.

I don't think even politicians will fall for that one twice, even they have google earth nowadays, and Australia is easy to find on it..

....actually, maybe politicians would:uhoh:

[Martin the Martian]

Like many others I have a lot of respect and admiration for Cdr. Ward's work in 1982, but what he writes these days is pretty much libellous and one day somebody will call his bluff on it.

In the meantime, he reminds me of one of those slightly elderly relatives who attends family events, drinks a bit too much and at some point in the evening gets unsteadily to his feet and taps a fork against his glass. He then insists on saying a few words about the happy couple/recently deceased etc while everyone else is looking on, thinking as one: "Oh, Christ, what's the stupid bu66er going to say now?"

Sad really, as I enjoyed his book thoroughly.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hey, Sharkey! Tell what the FAA can do at the moment.

Oh, I thought the RAF persuaded the RN they their GR 9 was better than their updated FA2, and then disbanded the JFH, so really it was the RAF that screwed the pooch.


check sarcasm level

[Phil_R]

We know that there was a glimmer of a C variant once.....but we didn't have the money to make it stick.

This did seem a bit daft even to me. Literally spoiling the multi-billion-pound ship for a few million's worth of tar, and resulting in less capable, more expensive aircraft.

Would we be terrifically surprised to see carriers gain this ability at some point in the middle-distant future?

[Tourist]

Well, it's going to be interesting times for the FAA.

If we can survive the obvious problem of operating at a nearly unsustainably small size for a little bit longer, the world is pretty rosy.

Every aircraft is brand(ish) new, 2 new proper(ish) carriers coming.....

ASW Merlin is the best ASW helicopter in the world.
Wildcat is the best small ships helicopter in the world.
Bagger Merlin is unlikely to be worse than the Bagger Seaking and that is currently a fantastic asset in various spheres.
Commando Merlin is rather over expensive for a troop truck, but that aside it is a great piece of kit.
F35, well, time will tell. At the very least it will be better than harrier which served us well over the years.

[glad rag]

Not trying to dispute that, but the concept of lugging an engine around for most of the mission in-lieu of the equivalent payload.

And that is and WILL BE the B models Achilles heel.

Unless you can convince the USMC of the need to redesign and manufacture the appropriate section of the aircraft [to regain the original internal weapons spec] that will be an expensive, single nation, endeavour indeed.

[Pontius Navigator]

In the current situation with precision weapons and restrictive ROE weapons resupply is of a lower order than fuel and hotac.

BYOW and AAR reduce the logistics burden on an FOL in the early phases of an operation. In other words the RAF can still get to the party first. You can then compare the need for FP at FOL with the requirements for SSN and DDG protection for CVS and AOR etc.

[MSOCS]

Would we be terrifically surprised to see carriers gain this ability at some point in the middle-distant future?

Phil - not a chance I'm afraid. That ship has literally sailed - the astronomical cost of converting QEC that was supposedly fitted, "for, but not with" cat and trap capability was much harder in the post-2010 SDSR reality when they realised it wasn't exactly as Aircraft Carrier Alliance had said. Cue multi-billion £££ costs for conversion which, crucially for this point, would have made the cost of F-35 wither into financial insignificance in comparison.

We are where we are. We need to stop crying over what could have been, accept we won't ever be a conventional carrier force and make F-35B and QEC work to our strengths: amazing people; amazing ethos's and total commitment. Get those right, stop the petty squabbles, roll your eyes at the Grenadian dinosaur and crack on.

[Phil_R]

the astronomical cost of converting QEC that was supposedly fitted, "for, but not with" cat and trap capability was much harder in the post-2010 SDSR reality when they realised it wasn't exactly as Aircraft Carrier Alliance had said.

This is the sort of thing that makes those of us on the outside beat our heads against the wall.

Who is being hilti-gunned to the underside of a Challenger tank for their part in this? Why is it OK for businesses to screw over the MoD, and thus J. Taxpayer, in this way?

Aaargh!

P

[glad rag]

MSOCS, the MOST telling thing is the limitation that we will NEVER have the capability to "go it alone".

Some may say, in the future, what a short sighted, expensive and ultimately flawed chain of decisions this whole program has been..

...some may not.

[a1bill]

GR: Unless you can convince the USMC of the need to redesign and manufacture the appropriate section of the aircraft [to regain the original internal weapons spec] that will be an expensive, single nation, endeavour indeed.

AFAIK They have their original weapon spec of 1x 1k lb and 1x aim-120 now. It changed to a 2k lb and then went back to a 1k lb. The same as the UK did with the C and then back to the B.

[Evalu8ter]

Tourist,
Perhaps I view the world a little less rosily......

ASW Merlin, yep - agree with you there though it's a big/expensive airframe to haul that mission kit around.
Wildcat? Pretty good, and you stitched the AAC in some of the config. The S Korean one is probably better - at least they've gone for DAFCS....
Bagger Merlin; agreed, to a point. The mission kit out of the SK7 seemed excellent, but it's a very expensive asset to fly 24/7 and will massively limit the radar horizon compared to E2, V-22 or a lift-compounded Merlin.
CHF Merlin - can't lift all of Royal's combat configured loads, and marinisation will give it even less payload. V good in the extreme cold, and will be OK as long as you stay at msl.
F-35B. Could (should) be hoofing. Yes, we should have the C, but the BAES part of the Carrier Alliance were never going to make it easy for Boeing to pitch SH as an 'interim' fighter.

IIRC the 2010 F35C was cadged in risk terms, as the B was in a bad place then. The fact that we could have got a proper AEW, COD and EW capability is a serious issue going forward. We could have been looking at an SDSR providing a 'silver bullet' force of 24 F35C and a larger buy of SH/Growler to replace Tornado/T1 Typhoons - all of which could embark to bolster the CAG if required.

As for Mr Ward, he is entitled to his opinion. He is, unfortunately, rapidly becoming the Jeremy Corbyn of naval airpower; out of touch, surrounded by acolytes and utterly incapable of accepting alternative opinions.

[glad rag]

AFAIK They have their original weapon spec of 1x 1k lb and 1x aim-120 now. It changed to a 2k lb and then went back to a 1k lb. The same as the UK did with the C and then back to the B.

Really? Well that is truly impressive, if, correct...

[peter we]

Quote:
the astronomical cost of converting QEC that was supposedly fitted, "for, but not with" cat and trap capability was much harder in the post-2010 SDSR reality when they realised it wasn't exactly as Aircraft Carrier Alliance had said.
This is the sort of thing that makes those of us on the outside beat our heads against the wall.

Who is being hilti-gunned to the underside of a Challenger tank for their part in this? Why is it OK for businesses to screw over the MoD, and thus J. Taxpayer, in this way

The contract didn't specify a requirement for cat and trap, at that time or in future.
"for, but not with" was invented by some politician.

[Tourist]

Wildcat? Pretty good, and you stitched the AAC in some of the config.

I don't really think that we stitched them. They were stitched by the political requirements. Neither it nor lynx is really a suitable helicopter for the Army role, but hey, what can you do?

Overall, I think we are quite well off at the moment expect for the scale issue.

[Pontius Navigator]

The contract didn't specify a requirement for cat and trap, at that time or in future.
"for, but not with" was invented by some politician.
Remember the Typhoon gun fiasco - not required to save money. But it would cost more to design it out. So leave the design and fit ballast. But it would cost more to design ballast. So fit a gun as ballast but not pay for a support system.

[MSOCS]

The contract didn't specify a requirement for cat and trap, at that time or in future.
"for, but not with" was invented by some politician.

No Peter - I don't think you can blame the politicians for that one. 2010 SDSR created the option to paint a new scene from an old canvass. My own understanding of the situation was that certain non-politicians with motives to change to the C-variant assured the new politicians that it was 'do-able' and that it would bring a greater range capability. The actual mantra of FFBNW was invented lower down the food chain and fed up to the new Govt to read as SDSR policy once they'd managed to get the changes agreed. As we later found out, the costings didn't exactly stack up when ACA did the homework on making the changes. Frankly it was a wasted 2 years but the context of the B-variant being probation did a lot to force our hand to look at alternatives.

[Courtney Mil]

There are some very creative and well considered posts here. But, sadly, not very well informed.

Oh, I thought the RAF persuaded the RN they their GR 9 was better than their updated FA2, and then disbanded the JFH, so really it was the RAF that screwed the pooch.


I hope I haven't missed a tongue in cheek jokette again. Sorry if I have, but here's another side to that story.

The word came from the MoD that the SHAR was going to be scrapped. Even we landlubbers asked how the fleet was going to be provided with air defence cover. Much to our surprise, it transpired that we were going to provide it. In UK waters, not a problem - all my UK tours were on SACLANT assigned sqns so we had done that, assuming the ship didn't shoot us down.

When we asked (of our friends in the "Big House") what the hell was going on, it eventually transpired that the MoD's lack of action had resulted in "ministerial" decisions that were not open to discussion. There were no answers to how we were supposed to take over fleet defence when the fleet wasn't within range of land based AD.

It may suit some of you to dream of a very clever RAF conspiracy to imasculate the RN or the FAA, but you could not be farther from the truth. You may be surprised to learn how much support there was from the RAF to maintain a capability that we knew we could not possibly take over. The GR9 never even entered into the argument.

[Kitbag]

CM, from my point of view, very low down in the food chain, cancellation of SHAR was to free up funds for JSF; their Lordships made that decision and have continued to prioritise funds to LII over other needs.

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, Kitbag, I think you have a point there. In the days when spending on projects was taken "at risk" (meaning they didn't have the funding for a particular part of a project, but hoped that it may eventually come through) the thinking you suggest did happen. At the time, Typhoon was soaking up massive amounts of the Defence Budget. But so were a number of new programmes, JSF included. And that is where the silly old git Sharkey is aiming his ill-informed rabid rants. He might be better placed aiming at the politics behind the programmes than at the arms that operate them.

[Hangarshuffle]

Britain's missing Tornados as No10 wants to send more jets to Syria | Daily Mail Online (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-3337931/Fiasco-Britain-s-missing-Tornados-No10-wants-send-jets-Syria-2-4-spare-defence-expert-MP-reveals-cuts-mothballing-makes-marginal-force.html)


The Mail on Sunday pulled no punches and is right to publish this story.
The coming strike will be conducted by Tornado, but by a relatively small number from an ever reducing force.
Familiar to every serving RAF member here I'm sure but don't moan at me, it's illuminating to civilians like myself.
Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?
An ex-AVM says the attacks can not be maintained at any level of intensity to the detriment of the enemy.
I could post this in any one of three or four running threads on here.....the air attacks just don't add up to the risk they incur, or are worth the wrath we will incur later.


* Just a point of order, way up back in the posts above someone said a carrier was delayed from sailing because of a faulty radar. I think that was Invincible in February or March of 1998 whilst on some another anti Iraq operation. I'd have to check my diary, which I don't have with me. The port was Dubai. The radar was the heavy duty looking long range radar above the bridge (forget type name).We were at sea. As I re-call retainer bolts had sheared due to sea motion? (STBC there). However we were alongside DB within a short time, a new part flown out, a crane hired and the radar self- changed by the WE Department within a pretty short period -2 days alongside, maybe a slight delay sailing at night due to the cross wind? Very impressive, the way that obstacle was overcome. Back on operations shortly thereafter. Was never a massive lover of CVS but it or they are a part of my professional past-life for better or worse. HS.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, sorry, got you again. Check the small print. Just suggesting how some bearded fish might claim.

[Kitbag]

No HS, Ward is aiming at the wrong target, and has consistently done so, blurring the causes of the emasculation of the FAA with piss poor political decision making. In another thread there was mention of the deployed Air Power for GW1;
Within 48 hours of the Governments decision to send large-scale forces to the Gulf, a squadron of RAF Tornado F3s arrived in Saudi Arabia and two hours later they flew their first operational sorties. Within a further two days, a squadron of Jaguar fighters-bombers arrived, together with half a squadron of VC10 tanker aircraft and soon after they were joined by half a squadron of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft.
The RAF build-up continued throughout the closing months of 1990 and by mid-January 1991 our strength in the Gulf stood at some 18 Tornado F3 fighters, about 46 Tornado GR1/1A strike/attack and recce aircraft, 17 tankers, three Nimrods, 12 Chinooks, 19 Pumas, seven Hercules and one BAe125. It continued to increase during the conflict as Buccaneers and further Tornado GR1s arrived in theatre. Other RAF operational units deployed to the Gulf included two RAF Regiment Wing HQ, two Rapier Squadrons and four Light Armour/Field Squadrons. from the RAF web site.


Not possible now, the loss of critical mass is eye watering

[Courtney Mil]

Well, it's a fun debate, but we are ranging a little bit away from the bearded idiot's latest rabid rant.

From a purely personal point of view, I seriously dislike the tribal RAF/RN/ARMY bolleaux. The only way the UK Armed Forces are going to continue to be a world beating force is by working together. Inside the MoD/Public boundary that is what is happening.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, :D, in this age the RN cannot operate on its own. When it had its own port facilities, stores, harbours and airfields it could rely on SLOC but no longer. Critical supply needs go by air etc etc

[Courtney Mil]

...and with the shape of the U.K. Armed Forces that is to come, neither can the RAF. Frack the tribalism.

[Al-bert]

The only way the UK Armed Forces are going to continue to be a world beating force

:bored: nurse, the screens:hmm:

[Courtney Mil]

Al-Bert, scoff as you wish. Since you and I retired, the guys haven't been doing so badly.

[Al-bert]

didn't say they had CM, but hardly world beating? Successive Govts saw to that :hmm:

[Courtney Mil]

I don't think the guys and girls have lost their way. And, despite "successive governments" they have some pretty impressive kit that some of us here would have dreamed of.

Some here may feel otherwise. The bearded idiot clearly does.

[Heathrow Harry]

"The Mail on Sunday pulled no punches and is right to publish this story."


that would be the Mail on Sunday that always calls for tax cuts yes?

maybe a one off tax on newspaper proprieters is called for to be spent on the Tornado force?

[Chris Scott]

Quote:
"Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?"

We have to hope that either the report is exaggerated, and/or that there would be a way round the shortage. Imagine the propaganda value to Daesh of the UK being seen once again to be disorganised, divided and impotent. You are assuming that they would be less likely to attack an enemy that has equivocated in a manner they would perceive as weakness and decadence. Many would take a different view.

[NutLoose]

No HS, Ward is aiming at the wrong target, and has consistently done so, blurring the causes of the emasculation of the FAA with piss poor political decision making. In another thread there was mention of the deployed Air Power for GW1;
from the RAF web site.

Quote:
Within 48 hours of the Governments decision to send large-scale forces to the Gulf, a squadron of RAF Tornado F3s arrived in Saudi Arabia and two hours later they flew their first operational sorties. Within a further two days, a squadron of Jaguar fighters-bombers arrived, together with half a squadron of VC10 tanker aircraft and soon after they were joined by half a squadron of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft.
The RAF build-up continued throughout the closing months of 1990 and by mid-January 1991 our strength in the Gulf stood at some 18 Tornado F3 fighters, about 46 Tornado GR1/1A strike/attack and recce aircraft, 17 tankers, three Nimrods, 12 Chinooks, 19 Pumas, seven Hercules and one BAe125. It continued to increase during the conflict as Buccaneers and further Tornado GR1s arrived in theatre. Other RAF operational units deployed to the Gulf included two RAF Regiment Wing HQ, two Rapier Squadrons and four Light Armour/Field Squadrons.


Not possible now, the loss of critical mass is eye watering

So what happened to the Jags, they appear to have erm, misplaced them by mid January :E

[Hangarshuffle]

Come on man, please don't call the guy (Lt Cdr Ward) an idiot.
Yes firm opinions expressed, but really would you expect anything else, really? Really? He was a RN fast-jet squadron CO on a carrier in a real conflict under immense pressure and when the chips were down he came through that alive and leading people on the winning side. He did that, its documented.
Surely now as an older man, a Senior, he is entitled to write and publish and produce what he wants as he can see it>?
Give him credit for free thinking, give him credit for loyalty to the FAA RN ethos if nothing else.
No intention to enter the debate beyond that, thank-you.

[Just This Once...]

If not an idiot then perhaps just a plain old liar?

Given what he publishes it may be kinder to question his cognitive functions than his integrity. If you repeatedly publish stuff that is untrue then your audience will judge you.

[Frostchamber]

Quote:
... Imagine the propaganda value to Daesh of the UK being seen once again to be disorganised, divided and impotent. You are assuming that they would be less likely to attack an enemy that has equivocated in a manner they would perceive as weakness and decadence. Many would take a different view.

Certainly it's striking the degree to which we're equivocating and agonising at the moment, and the extent to which J Corbyn is shaping UK foreign policy. A triumph of the democratic process or a very different sign to key allies?

[Bigbux]

Come on man, please don't call the guy (Lt Cdr Ward) an idiot.
Yes firm opinions expressed, but really would you expect anything else, really? Really? He was a RN fast-jet squadron CO on a carrier in a real conflict under immense pressure and when the chips were down he came through that alive and leading people on the winning side. He did that, its documented.
Surely now as an older man, a Senior, he is entitled to write and publish and produce what he wants as he can see it>?
Give him credit for free thinking, give him credit for loyalty to the FAA RN ethos if nothing else.
No intention to enter the debate beyond that, thank-you.

Does it give him the right to publicly attack those who were in the same boat as him (or even those who, on occasion, flew past his boat)?








stand by for incoming: a boat is a submarine..blah blah blah blah :)

[Courtney Mil]

Hangarshuffle,

Have you read the stuff he publishes? I couldn't care less that he has a pathological hatred of the RAF, that's his problem. But the rubbish he writes is bordering on paranoid, not to mention factually incorrect and dripping with bitterness and bile. If he seriously believes his own rantings I can only imagine he is either senile, deluded or an idiot.

[Jimlad1]

I would normally give the benefit of the doubt to people, but Sharkey has become beyond parody. An angry man who doesnt write informed opinion, but angry keyboard thumping rants about how everything is wrong.

He's not a commentator in any meaningful sense, he's the embarrassing grandparent sitting in the corner rambling to themselves while everyone shuffles about quietly waiting for them to go back to the home...

[KG86]

Has anyone ever seen Sharkey Ward and Jeremy Corbyn in the same room?

[The Claw]

Has anyone ever seen Sharkey Ward and Jeremy Corbyn in the same room?

There is only one way to solve this............:O

[ORAC]

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/vepH8aqIN0ULl_zwHZ5wQw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9Mjk5O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2Zm PTA7cT03NTt3PTUwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/aria151129.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm with Courtney Mil here the man just has just been ranting for years -

he needs help IMHO - it's noy good to be so ANGRY

[MSOCS]

IF Commander Ward:

Was in possession, or even sought, the facts upon which he writes;

In his writing demonstrated a clear, analytical, military mind;

Made his case clear and objective, with conclusions that supported his main argument(s);

...and didn't still think it was 1982 all over again;

then perhaps I'd agree with you Hangarshuffle. However, none of the above is true and that has been the case for some time now.

Firmly agree with CM!

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, Jenkins. He was once a good operator. Sadly now reduced to building private websites with the sole purpose of attacking the RAF.

[Tourist]

Without agreeing or disagreeing with Sharkey, a few points.


If what he says is so ludicrous, rather than playing the man, play the ball.

One of you surely has the time to take each of his points, and refute them with references.

This way, whenever he says them again, there is a database that you can just produce to prove him wrong.

This whole thread is just abuse. That should not be necessary if he is so obviously mad.

If everything he says is so stupid/annoying, have you not learned that all these threads (is it 5 "I hate Sharkey threads now?!) just advertise his point of view?


Saying "he is stupid/mad" is not an argument.

Clear reasoned counter arguments with valid references is the grown up way to win a debate.
If a journo reads this, the best he can take away is "lots of RAF hate him and think he's wrong but have no evidence or specific arguments against his point of view."

[MOSTAFA]

Gets my vote Tourist.

[Just This Once...]

The rambling old fool produces no references and presumably you do not help from Pprune to realise that we had zero Tornados in Kuwait in GW1?

The bearded idiot is the one posting aggressive bile on the internet, not the forum membership.

[Junglydaz]

Well said Tourist, I was thinking the excat same thing yesterday. There seems to be a lot of abuse with no evidence to back up said abuse. It's almost like old women swinging handbags have a paddy.

[MOSTAFA]

I've just re-read the linked bit that Cmdr Ward contributed too (Page 1) and could some of you chaps obviously aggrieved by what he contributed too, please tell everybody without the usual emotions precisely what he has stated that is so wrong? I have no axe to grind but I don't see anybody informing me why they think he is so wrong.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mustafa, try reading this thread again. Just for the hard of understanding:

OK, Typhoon has yet to get an independent laser targeting capability. However NOT continuing such investment WOULD unquestionably be throwing good money AWAY.

Tornado is neither obsolete nor obsolescent. Its planned out of service date is still to come.

It is by no means proven that Tornado would be unable to evade the Russian S-400 SAM or that other aircraft, such as Typhoon, could.

He asserts that the Growler could conduct SEAD missions and we could have bought 3 for 1 Typhoon. Had we procured Growlers in previous years we would have had no requirement until such time as the Russians threat our aircraft. He may be correct but we have allies for just that reason.

He states that the S-400 has a capability to cover to 90,000 feet out to 250 nm. He is clearly a paid up member of the flat earth society.

As for the Tornado reactive tasking in AFG, that has been comprehensively debunked.

Ward’s article is biased and makes unproven assertions without sources nor the possibility of comment and disagreement.

[MOSTAFA]

Sorry Puntious, I didn't know you were such an expert. I must be one of the hard of understanding gang, that never wore light blue or navy come to that.

A simple Wiki of S400 (not the Mercedes type) comes up with very similar figures but hey; who the hell are Wiki. Janes surprisingly come up with some very similar stuff.

Personally I'd go along with a very poor view on something which first flew in 1992 not having an independent laser targeting capability until 2019 - in service?

As for obsolete or obsolescent - well those are just figures our wonderful leaders just bandy around to suit budgets and in/out of service date are not worth the paper they are printed on - not sure that gives the guys that sign for and straps, said dates the their posteriors a very warm feeling.

As I said I have no axe to grind, certainly not with Cmdr Ward, or you come to that, but happen some substance instead of the inter service 'de-bunking' going on.

Now you have a nice day:)

[Just This Once...]

My quick thoughts:

It is understood that the UK’s Eurofighter aircraft – now dramatically named ‘Typhoons’ – simply lack the necessary independent laser targeting and interdiction ability to destroy the death cult’s ground assets. This was clearly demonstrated during the Libyian conflict – despite a huge investment by the Government to try and give the aircraft a truly multi-role capability.

Wrong. Typhoon has this capability and used it in the Libyan conflict. The aircraft did not receive a huge investment to achieve this and had demonstrated the capability ahead of the conflict.

The Typhoons’ operational limitations leave Britain with the obsolete Tornado as its fighter-bomber. That is also costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money in order to keep some of the airframes operationally capable.

Wrong. Typhoon capability is being used in more than one theatre already and will be joining the latest one. Tornado has not been extended in service due to limitations; SDSR 2010 actually brought forward the OSD and reduced the number of squadrons.

But even more important than wasting taxpayers’ money – and quite another matter – is to deliberately send ill-equipped aircrew “into harm’s way”.

The Tornado would not be able to evade a Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile.

Wrong. Precisely zero Tornados have been lost in this conflict to this system. It is not a threat and we do not expect it to be a threat.

Of course, the risk factor from this and other surface-to-air missile defence systems over contested territory could have been mitigated by the procurement of few A/E-18 Super Growler defence suppression aircraft.

These aircraft are able to identify interrogating enemy air defence radars and blind them by “jamming” and other technologies.

Wrong. The enemy we are engaged with has no equipment that requires jamming. Not really sure what an 'A/E-18 Super Growler' is, but probably best to avoid her….

The RAF or Royal Navy could have afforded two of these for the price of one Typhoon or one F35B STOVL aircraft. Such a purchase would have enabled relatively safe operations by Tornado over Syria.

(I hardly dare point out – again – that Britain could have purchased three proven F-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighter aircraft for the cost of one Typhoon or F35.)

Wrong. Even if we avoid the date issue with SH vs Typhoon or that F-35B is not in service yet the true cost of a UK-content platform is very different to a direct FMS purchase. The RN would not appreciate a cat & trap / land-based platform given the carrier design.

The vulnerability of the Tornados’ low-level attack profile to air defences was amply demonstrated way back in Desert Storm when eight RAF aircraft were lost, mainly during operations against Saddam Hussein’s airfields.

Some may remember reliable press reports of a near-mutiny by Tornado squadron aircrew in Kuwait because of their high loss rate and the plane’s ‘suicidal’ attack profile. Allegedly one squadron expressed its firm desire to ‘down tools’ en masse and return to the UK.

The Tornado is not conducting low-level attack profiles and has not done so for ages. We did not lose 8 Tornados in GW1. Of those we did lose, 2 were confirmed losses to enemy action at low level, 2 lost at medium level (self-frag & SAM) and 2 remain unknown.

There was no mutiny, nobody regarded it as suicidal and we had zero squadrons in Kuwait. Indeed, Iraq had recently invaded the place….

Further, both Libya and Afghanistan must be considered operational failures as far as the Tornado is concerned. The aircraft was not reactive to urgent “ground support” tasks, even though it was not opposed by any sophisticated form of air defence – just shoulder-launched missiles and small arms – and it stayed well out of range of these infantry weapons when delivering ordnance.

Indeed, it is little known outside the military that in Afghanistan the original RAF Harrier squadrons would respond to urgent requests for close air support in less than half an hour (wheels off the ground in 15 minutes).

Wrong. The aircraft achieved the same readiness posture, did react to all tasking and, when required, did operate at low-level. Of course, where possible, the aircraft will always operate outside the range of threat systems whilst delivering ordinance. Kinda conflicts with his previous criticism….

But when Tornados took over, just weeks before SDSR 2010, ground forces were informed by the Tornado hierarchy that all requests for “close air support” had to be submitted 24 hours in advance.

Shockingly, I understand that the Tornados flew lengthy sorties at high level, clocking up the hours to create the false impression that they were being effective in that combat theatre.

Wrong. The Tornado deployment was planned well ahead of SDSR 2010 and, prior to the Afghan tasking, was engaged in operations in Iraq. The Tornado GR Force (IIRC) moved to AFG in mid-2009. The aircraft can indeed fly for hours at high(ish) level, delivering reconnaissance and ordinance in accordance with the operational tasking….

Until now in Iraq, RAF Tornado and Voyager missions have remained well above the range of ground-based small arms and shoulder-launched missiles when attacking IS targets.

Some might say unkindly that they are, in the main, boring holes in the sky (just as they did in Afghanistan) to create the impression of some combat utility.

After all, an occasional pickup truck destroyed by an expensive Brimstone missile can hardly be said to be a game-changer in the war against Islamic State.

Wrong. Indeed, I doubt the sanity of any ex-military man who thinks we should deliberately fly close enough to an enemy so they have the chance to shoot at us.

However, Russia’s introduction of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile into the Syrian theatre is a major game changer (all targets up to 90,000 feet and within a 250 miles range).

If pressed, Moscow might use the missile and, if in Syrian air-space, gallant RAF aircrew could be lost. I am reminded of Guernica and the Spanish Civil War, when Hitler’s Luftwaffe tested its weapons with impunity. Would Putin do the same?

For example, any Western “coalition” aircraft conducting missions over Syria could be ‘taken out’ by the Russian missile and Putin/Assad would no doubt argue that under international law the coalition aircraft had no right to be using weapons of war in sovereign Syrian territory.

The Russians have already alluded to this by criticising some of the air strikes made by the French following the radical Islamist terror attack in Paris.

Wrong. It has not changed our operations at all and the introduction of extra Patriot systems have not changed Russian actions either. His ramblings over international law and what Syria may do is completely contradicted by the UN, Russia and the Syrian government.

By default, Putin and the S-400 threat have now ‘created’ a pretty effective no fly zone.

The situation is a complete mess and, as far as Britain’s efforts are concerned, its military is becoming a laughing stock.

Wrong. There is no effective no fly zone, or indeed any no fly zone.

RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus is only 70 nautical miles from Syria. Britain owns approximately 100 Typhoon and 75 Tornado aircraft. So why has it been unable to do more in Iraq? The answer is that it has the wrong aircraft with the wrong weapon systems and it lacks any vital AA suppression capability.

Wrong. Even if the number of aircraft were correct an ex-military pilot would be expected to know how fleets are rotated, maintained and modified. He may even recall that we have aircraft in the Falklands, supporting NATO in Europe, providing QRA plus training, exercises and development tasks. There is no need to suppress Iraqi AA - they are on our side and invited us to participate!

This state of affairs says little for those in the RAF who plan British air power and provide the Government with such dreadfully partisan advice.

In the light of all the above (and the Tornado’s dreadful track record) is it not extraordinary that the Government’s Ministry of Defence has seen fit to appoint two Tornado officers to take charge of the new Royal Navy carriers and their air groups?

It hardly bodes well for the future of Britain’s global national security and defence.

Wrong. The Tornado has been on near-continuous ops since 1990. Given the size of the force, even at its peak, this 25 years of war-fighting is unprecedented and is an achievement unique to the RAF Tornado GR Force. It must be close to 24 years since we lost a Tornado GR1/4 to enemy action. An old-workhorse it may be, but it remains a highly credible and capable platform. The professionalism and skill of the crews and support personnel make the rest possible.

[MAINJAFAD]

OK, Typhoon has yet to get an independent l@ser targeting capability

That'a load of bollox right off the bat. Litening III has been on the aircraft for a good 5 years and I've seen the footage from it first hand during Libya as it was my systems that provided the backbone for the whole mission support system and a major part of the two systems were in the same room!!! The major issue with Typhoon is its not cleared to carry low collateral damage weapons, though the 540 was just starting trials when I left the mob.

[Just This Once...]

The first Typhoon Litening / LGB drop was in 2007, albeit with an inert weapon.

The first drop of a live self-designated LGB was conducted by a XI(F) Sqn pilot the following year.

[MOSTAFA]

Have you read your answers Just this Once? Are you a politician - ADC to the Marshall of the RAF, PS to David Cameron - if not there is a great job waiting for you outside. Sorry but your 'Wrongs' don't make many 'Rights' unless they are factual or are they what you think or overheard? If one or 2 or even 10 have that capability why aren't they using it? Or maybe you know more than us mortals?

In which case Cmdr Ward has as much right to second guess as you do which is all I am trying to say without the venom on here.

[Just This Once...]

No second guessing from my seat. Typed in haste no doubt, but do try to find the errors you seek.

I would try to answer your question but it makes no sense. How can I explain why Typhoon does not use a capability when I have stated so clearly that it not only has such a capability, but has actually used it in anger and will be doing so again? Indeed, its capability has only increased in the intervening years and no doubt we will see it deliver PWIV on ops in the very near future.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Typhoon-Paveway-IV-03-740x492.jpg

[Biggus]

MOSTAFA,

Are you Cdr Ward by any chance?

It's difficult to "debate" with anyone, with or without venom, who won't concede anything.

Let's take just one point. Cdr Ward states:

It is understood that the UK’s Eurofighter aircraft – now dramatically named ‘Typhoons’ – simply lack the necessary independent laser targeting and interdiction ability to destroy the death cult’s ground assets. .

First of all an interesting phrase, "it is understood". Anyway, you now have had three different people telling you that the above statement is simply incorrect, one of whom quoted first hand experience from Libya.

Of course, if you prefer the internet links:

RAF - Typhoon FGR4 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.cfm)

From 2006:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-raf-selects-litening-3-laser-designator-pod-for-eurofighter-208048/

So, if we can establish that one of the significant comments on which his premise is based is incorrect, then perhaps you might consider that the rest of his comments might, just might, also be flawed. All this from a 72 year old man who left the British military in 1989 and is therefore how "current" in military tactics?

Do you know what, I really can't be bothered to write more to someone who isn't prepared to listen....

[TEEEJ]

MOSTAFA,

Sharkey isn't "second guessing" he is just so out of touch. Many of the websites that he has articles on have a closed door policy for comments. This results in his ramblings becoming fact and nobody can challenge them.

Even after Libya he is still ranting on about Eurofighter Typhoon not having an independent laser targeting capability. The question is why?

It is understood that the UK’s Eurofighter aircraft – now dramatically named ‘Typhoons’ – simply lack the necessary independent l@ser targeting and interdiction ability to destroy the death cult’s ground assets. This was clearly demonstrated during the Libyian conflict – despite a huge investment by the Government to try and give the aircraft a truly multi-role capability.

If you check Sky News or the BBC you will see footage of Typhoons arriving at RAF Akrotiri. On the centre-line they are carrying the Litening pods. The very same designation pods that Sharkey believes that they don't have or can use independently.

The following from 'Typhoon a year on the road' that was published in Air International.

Sqn Ldr Bolton led the first ever Typhoon-only strike mission and a multi-aircraft COMAO at night against a target near Tripoli. Setting the scene Sqn Ldr Bolton told AIR International:

“We were due to fly with some French Rafales, a Growler, and tankers from France and the UK. Very bad weather in Corsica meant the Rafales were unable to safely get airborne or recover to their base leaving us and the Growler to continue the mission.” He added: “Not only did we get airborne and strike our own targets we re-rolled whilst airborne and took out the targets assigned to the other aircraft also.”

'Typhoon a year on the road' used to be hosted on the following webpage.

Air International | BAE Systems | en - Saudi Arabia (http://www.baesystems.com/en-sa/article/thumbs-up-for-typhoon)

The Royal Air Force pilot who carried out the first operational Typhoon aircraft strike on a ground target has been describing the mission.

The first strike was made against a Libyan regime main battle tank during a mission on Tuesday, 12 April.

The pilot said: “I left Gioia Del Colle in a mixed pair with a Tornado GR4.

“We’d been tasked to Misratah in the West of Libya, which is pretty much a city under siege, with significant numbers of attacks against the civilian population from pro-regime forces. We were looking along one of the main supply routes in Misratah when we came across a compound with around 10 – 15 main battle tanks in.

“We reported our findings to the command and control assets we work with and shortly thereafter, were cleared to engage.
“At that point, we generated coordinates for the targets and dropped weapons. Each time we assessed the likely weapon effect and whether there would be any collateral damage implications.

“It was a precision attack from a significant altitude.

“To be honest, I was a little bit nervous but you just revert to the training you’ve done before. I’ve dropped a significant number of weapons from the Typhoon in training. It felt no different from that, only this time I was even more relieved to see the bomb go exactly where it should have done, in the Litening III image displayed in my cockpit.”

“We have proven that the jet can carry weapons a long distance, drop them accurately, land and get pumped full of fuel, reloaded with weapons and go and do it again, day in day out. That makes this capability enduring, and while it may seem like a milestone to some, it’s just a hurdle that had to be overcome at some point. It has been done, and we will drop more over the life of the aircraft. I think people are just pleased we’ve got the first one out of the way.”

http://bfbs.com/news/raf/typhoon-pilot-describes-first-air-ground-strike-46743.html

Typhoon with Litening pod and Paveway II taken during 2011 (Op Ellamy)

http://www.abload.de/img/ellamy9061104160075outfxfs.jpg

A RAF Typhoon departs from Gioia del Colle, equipped with Enhanced Paveway II bombs, air to air missiles and a Litening pod in support of the UN sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya. 16 April 2011 Picture: Sergeant Pete Mobbs RAF, Crown Copyright/MOD 2011

RAF - Litening III (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/litening-3.cfm)

Now why can't Sharkey do this simple bit of research?

[MOSTAFA]

Sorry but some of you blokes really need to take your heads out of your arses and no I am certainly not Cmdr Ward or his son, but I do respect and extremely grateful for what he did and so should you be. I think it is really sad to see so many rubbish the contributions of, because it appears to damage RAF ego's, albeit a now a 72 year old ex fighter pilot, who commanded a Sqn at war and was awarded both the Distinguised Service Cross and an Air Force Cross for trying. He shot down a puccara with a canon and a Mirage V on the same day ffs.

I am now outa here:O

[Biggus]

MOSTAFA,

So still no admission/agreement that he has got his facts wrong then (which is pretty much all anyone has pointed out in the last 3 or 4 posts)!

Which is not "rubbishing" his contributions, in terms of the article which started this thread, merely examining them in the light of day and pointing out the (many) inaccuracies which are what actually destroys his credibility more than anything else.

I don't think anyone on here has anything but respect for what he did in 1982. However, that doesn't make him an expert on all military matters for the rest of his life, nor does it mean that his opinions shouldn't be challenged.


So you're off.... bye!

[Phil_R]

Not to argue, but I do seem to recall hearing that Typhoons had to be accompanied by Tornado in Libya. I didn't and don't know why, but if you'd asked me at the time, I'd probably have mumbled something about perhaps the Typhoons not having a working laser designation system.

In April 2011, the Telegraph said "In a further embarrassment, laser targeting pods for the Typhoons, which cost £160 million, have been left in packing crates because the RAF has not been able to pay for its pilots to train to use them."

Reuters said "Some military analysts view the deployment of the Typhoon and the French Rafale in Libya as a move to give the two aircraft battlefield credentials in an effort to win orders."

The RAF response was "The advantage of flying mixed pair is that there are three different types of weapons available for use as well as the fact that Typhoon can use the benefits of the Tornado, whose pilots have huge experience of air-to-ground missions."

The BBC has more recently summarised the situation: "Tornados were used more than Typhoons during Nato air strikes in Libya in 2011 because the former were equipped with Brimstone and the latest 500lb Paveway IV laser and GPS-guided bomb. Typhoons have only been able to use Paveway IV since 2014, and in Libya they had to use the older and larger 1,000lb or 2,000lb Paveway II."

P

[TEEEJ]

MOSTAFA,

Typhoon during Libya 2011 carrying 4 x Enhanced Paveway II, Litening III pod on centre-line, 2 x ASRAAM and 1 x AMRAAM.

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10044/upfile/201202/20120204152313.jpg

A Royal Air Force Typhoon takes off for Libya from Gioia del Colle, southern Italy.

As RAF Typhoon aircraft play a greater part in deliberate targeting operations, where targets are pre-planned, more are carrying four of the 1000lb Enhanced Paveway II bombs. The aircraft's ability to use its Litening III targeting pod to direct the highly accurate bombs means that a single Typhoon can have a devastating effect on Qadhafi regime targets.

From

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Royal_Air_Force_Typhoon_Takes_off_for_Libya_from_Gioi a_del_Colle,_Southern_Italy_MOD_45152839.jpg

I fear that it will make no difference. Sharkey and his supporters will still probably be ranting at these current Tornado and Typhoon operations. I bet that it won't be long before we see claims that the Typhoons can't deploy their Paveways without a Tornado GR4 designating the target? No doubt it will be linked back to one of these closed comment Sharkey webpages?

[Just This Once...]

Not to argue, but I do seem to recall hearing that Typhoons had to be accompanied by Tornado in Libya.

"Had to" is a little too strong. The aircraft was (and is) fully capable of designating its own targets. Libya was the first time this capability had been used by the Typhoon in a real shooting war. The cooperation with Tornado was mutual and it also gave the Typhoon force some support in a relatively new role for them.

This is something we chose to do and it worked really well. Typhoon pilots went on to prosecute and designate their own targets, with and without cooperation with Tornado crews.

[Genstabler]

I suspect Sharkey is having a very amusing time, every now and then chucking another controversial article into the pond and watching his opponents self destruct in a frenzy of outrage.

[Pontius Navigator]

MOSTAFA, you are clearly had of reading or something.

I said He is clearly a paid up member of the flat earth society

I don't dispute that the missile has the capabilities quoted. First the Tornado will not operate anywhere near the stratosphere. Unless the S-400 uses TPT from the likes of Mainstay or the target is picked up by its remote sensors then earth physics get in the way of its maximum range of 250 miles at 100 feet.

The 9M96E2[35] extended range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 120 km (75 mi), flying altitude 5 m to 30 km

[MSOCS]

So, to summarise:

MOSTAFA comes on, requests facts in place of statements and, once he gets a very comprehensive expansion on each fact, decides to not listen to what's presented as evidence, cautions everyone to respect the inflated self-propelled achievements of a known offender, and then announces his disappearance.

Troll or a child.

[Just This Once...]

... but I do respect and extremely grateful for what he did and so should you be. I think it is really sad to see so many rubbish the contributions of, because it appears to damage RAF ego's...

I've not seen a single negative comment on his contribution to the Falklands campaign on this forum.

I have seen the chap himself show absolutely zero respect for military aircrew in the near-continous campaigns that have followed his retirement. Indeed, he has accused them of dishonesty, disobedience to orders, cowardice and complicity in a cover-up conducted by the RAF to disguise its true actions.

We rubbish his articles because he authors absolute rubbish.

[Rhino power]

Bravo, MOSTAFA, you didn't get the answers you were angling for, lost the argument, and so decided to stomp off like a petulant child... :D

-RP

[just another jocky]

Personally, I don't care if folk like whatsisname accuse us of rubbishing ex-Lt Cdr ward because those of us who know, know he is talking utter tripe and I do not have to justify my opinion to anyone.

Many of us on here are professional pilots in both the RAF and other services and we know when we are talking truth or bolleux. If our civilian brethren chose not to listen, that's their problem.

Sorry, but just sick & tired of it.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Well done JTO (and others) for the comprehensive de-bunk. So Mostafa has cleared off and Tourist has gone awfully quiet...

As for respecting Sharky's achievements, the sad thing is that someone who could have been a legend (maybe not Winkle Brown but not too far off) continues to harm himself as well as others with his bitter rants. No doubt he thinks mentioning RAF Transport Command's failings (remember the 'I didn't go to the Falklands anniversary because I knew that Transport Command would use the opportunity to spoil my day'?) give his rambling tirades some factual punch...to me they just make him look sad and outdated.

[langleybaston]

If he really has gone we can get back to a grown-up discussion then?

How about Godspeed and Good Luck to all the reinforcements and all those in theatre.

Hilary Benn did them proud.

[Onceapilot]

Well done those with the will to correct the carp from disaffected fish-heads and Trolls.:ok:
I think their problem beef is with the reality of funding a real Naval aviation force allied to the cost of the boats, oops sorry, Ships.
I give credit too Sharkey for his Service record on Ops. However, he has chosen to debase himself ever since.

OAP

[BEagle]

Cdr Ward's exploits in 1982 were outstanding.

He then became something of a bearded bull$hitter....:uhoh:

But, rather regrettably, his recent writings do him absolutely no favours at all. However, I am prepared to accept that this is simply the result of anno domini, the Caribbean sun and and perhaps rather too much rum for one of his years.

So I guess I just feel pity for the old salt, rather than exhibit the same sentiments towards him as he seems to feel towards the RAF.....:hmm:

[Courtney Mil]

Very magnanimous, BEags. :ok:

For which one of his years did he have too much rum?

[GlobalNav]

I suppose we must show discretion, but a little rum now and then can be a good thing. ;)

[Courtney Mil]

I think the thrust and purpose of this latest rant from Ward has been missed. The entire piece is designed to discredit the capabilities of Royal Air Force aircraft, leading to the statement

deliberately send ill-equipped aircrew “into harm’s way”

and using a non-existent event to back-up his claims,

a near-mutiny by Tornado squadron aircrew in Kuwait

The aim being to discredit the Royal Air Force leadership thus,

This state of affairs says little for those in the RAF who plan British air power and provide the Government with such dreadfully partisan advice.

and this is the basis for the true purpose of his publication,

In the light of all the above (and the Tornado’s dreadful track record) is it not extraordinary that the Government’s Ministry of Defence has seen fit to appoint two Tornado officers to take charge of the new Royal Navy carriers and their air groups?

The whole piece is all about Ward's fury that two RAF officers have a role in the future of his precious Royal Navy.

[Danny42C]

"Er....who is there left minding the store back home when the next Bear cruises up and down the North Sea ?"

Danny42C.

[Courtney Mil]

It's only six Typhoons in Cyprus. Plenty more back home.

[alfred_the_great]

"Er....who is there left minding the store back home when the next Bear cruises up and down the North Sea ?"

Danny42C.

The SHAR fleet.

[BEagle]

The SHAR fleet certainly should be! SHAR 2 with L16 and AIM-120 was a very good carrier-based interceptor, which was killed off far too early.

And NOT by anyone in the RAF, I hasten to add - it was the boat peoples' own goal.

[Hangarshuffle]

The @rse has been utterly kicked out of this thread. He's a guy of a certain age....let it go man. This is the internet, its not a duelling ground to the death..everyone agrees to disagree about ...I've forgotten already...RAF virtue or something.

[Just This Once...]

Perhaps the aged one will add tonight's picture to one of his blogs?

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/16606/production/_87045619_typhoonreuters.jpg

[MPN11]

I stopped reading this Sharky-Thread ages ago. Because it's tragic.

But that Typhoon picture up-thread shows what's gone wrong with the RAF. Too many lights everywhere, which the D'aesh flak-gunners will see from miles away.

Regards, Mr Ward (RN retd) ... you, like me, have had your day. :(

[Kitbag]

MPN11, I suspect that the Typhoon drivers may have worked out the advantages of covert lighting by now.

[Courtney Mil]

HS, the "man of a certain age" picks a fight, nothing to disagree about. He allows no means of rebuttal to his disinformation, nothing to agree about. But I admire your blind loyalty.

[Rhino power]

He's a guy of a certain age....let it go man.

Perhaps, Cmdr Ward should also take your advice, unfortunately, he seems distinctly unable to '...let it go man.'

-RP

[Just This Once...]

MPN11, I suspect that the Typhoon drivers may have worked out the advantages of covert lighting by now.

I think there was a detectable amount of sarcasm in MPN's post both with the lights and his words regarding D'aesh flak-gunners.

Well, it made me smile.

:D

[MSOCS]

It seems MPN11 has the same Defence Brief that Sharkey uses.

Hilarious!

[Thelma Viaduct]

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, who is visiting the British base for the Syria mission in Cyprus, said: "Last night saw the full force of the RAF."
Four Tornado jets launched the first UK air strikes in Syria on Thursday.


So 4 jets is the full force, better than nothing i suppose.

[Rhino power]

I notice in this image, and the one posted by, JTO, that the Typhoon is carrying Paveway IV. So I guess full clearance has now been achieved, or is this as the result of a UOR? Obviously, if the answer is not for public consumption, I'll understand if no one replies...

http://www.shropshirestar.com/wpmvc/wp/wp-content/uploads/xmlImages/PA/2015/12/P-0e2d6db5-f4a5-42e2-96b5-8ed24cf1efb2.jpg

-RP

[Just This Once...]

It's been cleared for routine squadron use for a while. A better daylight pic is back at post 128.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/first-paveway-iv-release-for-raf-typhoons-at-raf-lossiemouth-27112014

[Rhino power]

Thanks, JTO.

-RP

[Sevarg]

C. M. It's only six Typhoons in Cyprus. Plenty more back home.
Yes but how many serviceable???

[Pontius Navigator]

C. M. It's only six Typhoons in Cyprus. Plenty more back home.
Yes but how many serviceable???

Don't tell them your name Pike.

If Lord Sugar' s wannabes were to answer the question it would be 110%.

The important point is that you only need 100% availability for intensive operations. For sustained operation you only need enough.

[Onceapilot]

Well Pious Pilot....maybe the Defence Sec WAS telling the truth?:oh::oh::oh:
I rekon he was not far off the mark, Four a/c per night till 2018 is all we can do!:eek::eek:

OAP

[Courtney Mil]

Sevarg,

As you ask, one had a tyre worn to limits on landing at Cyprus from the UK. One was pulled yesterday morning for a faulty fuel sensor in a wing tank and one jet was down for rectification for three hours with a faulty Game Boy Console. Other than that, they're all fine.


Courtney

[Sevarg]

Sorry Courtney, I didn't make my self clear, I was wondering how many in UK were serviceable. I would hope that Cyprus has all the spares they need.

[Pontius Navigator]

According to authoritative sources fewer than half are available.










http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/419422/Half-of-Britain-s-combat-aircraft-is-not-fit-to-fly