Cdr 'Sharkey'Ward RN [Archive]

Dancing Bear

24th August 2007, 08:15

Had the great pleasure of meeting Sharkey during a period of counter Narcotics Ops in the West Indies a couple of years ago. He was in spectacular form, hugely welcoming and entertaining and seemed to be enjoying his place in the sun. The thing that impressed me most was his fantastic carpentery skill with which he has finished off his residence, amazing. Needless to say with the proliferation of rum in the area the few days we spent there were in a suitable haze but Grenada is a beautiful Island and Sharkey has discovered some fantastic spots and beaches which he was good enough to share with us. If any one is in regular contact please pass on my very best, I believe he is still a regular contibutor to the Telegraph and Times via the letters page and adds his twopenneth' worth on current MoD policy. :ok:

Kolibear

24th August 2007, 09:55

Never met Sharkey, but I can vouch for Grenada. Its a wonderful island

Moe Syzlak

25th August 2007, 09:13

He flew in a T8 with his son when said son graduated from 899. He spent an hour in the crewroom bragging about himself. One particular dit I remember was "how easy it was to wax an F16 in an FRS1". When challenged on this by a very experienced SHAR pilot he said "just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done". Silence all round, I'd have thrown him out except his son was there. Son is an excellent chap by the way. Sooooo this god of the air went off for his flight-and they had to return early because he was airsick!! Nobody laughed about that!! He may have been good once but has always been regarded as an arch bullsh***er. He really offended a lot of people that day and even more at the end of SHAR bash at Greenwich when he was beyond embarrassing. Grenada can keep him- I won't be going.

Jackonicko

25th August 2007, 09:52

Thank goodness. Someone from the force said it, when a Journo would rightly be castigated for initiating criticism of such a disinguished bloke.

I'm not one for building people up and then demolishing them for no real reason, but what Moe says does chime with a lot of what you hear around the bazaars.

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

But he has said and written some appalling things about his fellow professionals, many of whom were his equals (if not his betters). Anyone would think that he won the Falklands War single-handed, and that the other SHar unit down there (who got more kills, and whose kills didn't include a sitting duck Hercules) were incompetent non-achievers.

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

Double Zero

25th August 2007, 10:09

I have not met S.W, and I know he has rubbed a lot of Navy people up the wrong way; I was told of a 'phone conversation with a Navy Test Pilot which basically ended with " last seen languishing in a latin American jail "...

However I have found one navy test pilot since to be so absolutely full of himself, & arrogant way beyond rude that he was hated by all around - not very professional...

When the Indian Navy bought Sea Harriers, the Flight Test team that went out for trials reckoned the Indians could teach the R.N. a lot about operations, rather than organising cocktail parties. Note the low loss rate.

A neighbour is an ex-R.N. Admiral who happily gave up flying so as to get command of a ship, which says a lot.

I'd tend to think the Royal Navy is still a lot more concerned with B.S. Than doing things right ( though the maintenance of the Seajets was reckoned better than RAF ) - so I would take whatever Sharkey says, in a diluted form, as about right.

As for the F-16, the FRS1 ( note not using BVR ) was said to beat it & about anything else, though obviously that would require tactics, not the Sun 'newspaper'- described viffing.

I attended a talk by the late Navy Test Pilot Taylor Scott who happily chatted about waxing F-14's in an exercise, simply by using radar on standby & detecting the other guys by emissions.

Like Sandy Woodward's description of sneaking into a U.S. CBG, I think this relied on peace-time rules rather than what would happen in an all-out war.

BEagle

25th August 2007, 12:15

Al R - a consummate gentleman fighter pilot who was an excellent single seat fighter pilot and mentor to many a struggling student.

Scruff, that is. Not that Bearded Bull!!!!ter Ward, who I have also met.

Sad to hear of Scruff's passing away.

Edited because I misss-spoolled 'hear' earlier - and then ran out of Internet time in the Frankfurt Airport Senator lounge!

Double Zero

25th August 2007, 13:15

Beagle,

well you've been closer than I, but I expect even Sharkey Ward can spell.

The R.N. is still full of B.S. procedures, and anyone mentioning it seems to get ousted - Sandy Woodward's own book '100 days' hardly shows an aircraft minded person ( I have met him & he seemed a charming chap, but switched off when I mentioned I'd worked with Sea Harriers, that was in about 1995 ).

As for being air-sick as someone mentioned, I'd have thought it common knowledge that tolerance builds up & reduces according to the amount of vigourous flying one does; I got to the stage where I was pretty 'bullet-proof' in a light aircraft, but after a break then being strapped into G-Hawk I was not well at all - didn't actually heave but close to it.

Seems to me from the outside ( just, I was involved in a mild way from UK during the Falklands ) Sharkey was the right man in the right place at the right time - I worked with someone who had been his wingman who seemed to think so.

Not everyone wants to brown-nose their way to ship driving...

BEagle

25th August 2007, 18:46

Double-zero, you're probably right.

His book proved that he could spell "I" and "me" on many an occasion.....

Double Zero

25th August 2007, 18:59

Beagle,

Haven't we all met people like that, surpisingly few in aviation ( but dozens of RNLI types at my sailing club, who all reckon they were special forces )

at least a " there I was, nothing on the clock but the maker's name " story can be worth listening to, even if only to take to bits afterwards...

BEagle

25th August 2007, 19:03

Hmmm.....

I'm a RNLI supporter. A 'governor', actually - whatever that means.....

Would far sooner listen to their tales than any of Ward's.

Yes, he did a very good job back in 1982. That will always be true.

TheSmiter

25th August 2007, 22:34

What a great fighter pilot Sharkey was; won the air war single handledly by his own account.

Was almost perturbed that my own involvement was irrelevant, but then so was that of the other SHAR sqns so not too bothered.

Good on you Sharkey, hope you're prospering.:D

seafuryfan

26th August 2007, 07:18

Thanks everyone.

Was thinking of buying the book - but I'd rather have a balanced read.

Clockwork Mouse

26th August 2007, 07:31

Buy it - it is a good read, and now you know a bit about his personality you can interpret what he writes in context.

BEagle

26th August 2007, 07:40

I recommend:

'RAF Harrier Ground Attack, Falklands' by Jerry Pook as well as 'Hostile Skies' by David Morgan.

You can buy both together from 'Big River' for £19.37, I see.

They also sell Ward's book 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands: A Maverick at War'.

Pierre Argh

26th August 2007, 08:05

A neighbour is an ex-R.N. Admiral who happily gave up flying so as to get command of a ship, which says a lot. what it actually says is Double 0 doesn't understand the way the RN used to work.

The Navy's primary business is, hardly surprisingly, driving ships... a task given to the Executive Branch, and flying was a sub-specilisation of that branch. The RN Officer corps was streamed into the General List and the Supplimentary List. Thus a Junior Pilot could be either GL(X)(P) or SL(X)(P).
To rise above the rank of Commander you had to be GL... and this is the important bit... it was expected you would have had command of a small ship (typically a frigate or destroyer).

Most aircrew were recruited onto the SL, it got them through the training pipeline quickly as they started flying training on graduation from Dartmouth. Therefore an SL(X)(P) with career aspirations would a. have to request transfer to GL, and b. go off to complete his Bridge Watchkeeping ticket and gain seamanship experience.

Some GLs were allowed to fly but would only do 2-3 tours before returning to ship-driving for the sake of their careers (If they chose to keep flying they too would be unlikely to rise above Cdr.)

So, Double 0, your neighbour obviously had aspirations, and as he made Admiral that was obviously a good decision? As far as I know things are slightly different today; everyone leaves Dartmouth on a level playing field and those who show potential for high rank, from any specialisation, are groomed after the first few years service; and their career managed appropriately.

It is still, generally, the case that to rise high you need to acquire broad experience... what use a Captain of an Aircraft Carrier who can land a GR7 on the pitching flight deck, but can't put the ship alongside the wall in Guz (aka Plymouth)?

Double Zero

26th August 2007, 08:15

Fair enough,

But in other more enlightened Navies the skipper of a carrier is a pilot;

as for berthing manouvres, I thought that was left to the sweating 1st / executive officer, and in real life is controlled by the tug-master !

Aspirations are one thing, but one is either a flyer or not...

Evalu8ter

26th August 2007, 10:54

Double Zero,
Quite so. The US Navy understand that the purpose of a CV is to project air power, and therefore the skipper must have a fundemental understanding of its employment in the exactly the same way an RAF Station Commander is supposed to. Hence both the skipper and CAG are aviators. I believe that the XO is normally a boat-driver who can deal with the "wet" issues on the skippers behalf.
The ability for a skipper to be able to land aboard his own boat is a simple form of leadership and engenders respect from the nugget to the CAG.
It also enables aviators to have proper careers, helping to retain the brightest and the best, rather than encouraging them to "jump ship" to the RAF / airlines to carry on flying.
It will be interesting to see how the RN play this, as really the CVS' have always seem to have been seen as large ASW destroyers by the RN, and skippered accordingly.
My concern is whether the RN can retain enough pilots of sufficient quality to produce CV skippers; perhaps in this era of "jointness" the skipper should be an RAF Group Captain?!!:}

Double Zero

26th August 2007, 11:31

Thanks for that !

As to the 'bridge watchkeeping ticket' - I presume that's what the very junior poor sod on the Glasgow had when it was T-boned by a tanker & carried into harbour on it's bulbous bow ?!

The navy never seem to learn - if we get 2 large carriers,

A; one will be in dock

B; they treat people so badly - it needs more than I-pods- they can't crew them ( where have I heard that before, press gangs ?! )

C; They don't even as far as I know make out if they're going for the F-35B ( to me an obvious choice, but some Phantom huggers seem to think they're getting the Nimitz ) or what.

There seems a very poor chance of having a pool of Navy fast jet pilots,
as the last lot saw their aircraft & station binned...

Shaft109

26th August 2007, 11:57

Why did he try to contact the Vulcan on Black Buck 1?

Fareastdriver

26th August 2007, 12:40

His book seems to be similar to Chuck Yeager's book.

NST

26th August 2007, 13:21

I read Sharkey's book a month or so ago and have a sneaking suspicion that he didnt like the Air Force much .. :suspect:

If you said you had been to Tenerife I bet he would claim to have been to Elevenerife.

Gave my copy to a charity shop.

AR1

26th August 2007, 14:42

Was almost perturbed that my own involvement was irrelevant, but then so was that of the other SHAR sqns so not too bothered.Then you should get your copy in Pronto. Why sit back when you can have the real Falklands story as told from your perspective.

All the books here are a good read IMHO, haven't read Morgans yet. But I have got my own pictures of his** & Pooks handiwork north of Mt Kent!

**Hare not Morgan, I'm getting old.

Double Zero

26th August 2007, 16:33

I had the honour of being present when one of Sharkey's wing-men ( a poor description for someone who became an ace then navy Test Pilot ) gave a talk - just as he was leaving to drive an airliner, having been made an offer he couldn't refuse !

If really really bored, dial in 'harrier' then 'history' & 'harrier testing'...

My father was an engine fitter on escort carriers in WW2, & he reckons the internal politics then were more of a snag than the axis forces, inc Kamikaze !

Which, along with my own experience with BAe - first run like a swiss watch by John Farley, later run like a rubber spanner by accountants - is why I see a fair bit of truth in Sharkey's tale.

charliegolf

26th August 2007, 17:44

FarEast: In what ways, exactly?

CG

St Johns Wort

26th August 2007, 18:13

CG
I think that its a size thing.............ego that is.

Check your PMs

mstjbrown

26th August 2007, 19:07

Double Zero

PPRune is a good place for vigorous (sic) discussion but if you wish to undermine BEagle's post by criticising his spelling you need to make sure that your own is faultless. Alas it isn't.

Cattivo

26th August 2007, 20:05

I read Sharkey's book a month or so ago too and I thought it was a bloody good read. It did descend into farce however when he began accusing the RAF of 'calculated insults' ie when he wasn't given seniority and allowed to disembark the VC-10 first on return to Brize, when he wasn't invited to the welcome-home party for the returning batallion etc etc. Basically everyone was a w****r except him. I was disappointed because the guy obviously did a brilliant job in the South Atlantic but at the end of the book he simply comes across as a c**k.

Al R

26th August 2007, 21:17

His book seems to be similar to Chuck Yeager's book.

Far East,

In what way?

threeputt

26th August 2007, 21:19

When I was a staff officer at HQ STC the great majority of the 3 Gp Harrier maffia were of the opinion that the great "Sharkey" Ward was a complete embarrassment to the FAA. Not to be trusted with confidential information and also a go it alone knob. What say you Spon?:ok:

3P

Double Zero

27th August 2007, 09:03

Mstjbrown I agree re spelling - touche...

I certainly did not mean to undermine Beagle's or anyone else's post - but I did think we were supposed to discuss points of view here ?

I must say I get more than a hint of " not one of the in crowd " - officer's messes are not a great way to judge people...so effectively disregards if Sharkey was effective in role or not.

As a separate item not particularly involving Sharkey, " The Secret War For The Falklands " by Nigel West is worth a go, though my girlfriend would kill me for saying that as he was an annoying prat during her previous husband's spy scandal ! As far as I can make out he ( not N.West ) was innocent - and as a military aircraft photographer I'm on shaky ground for that as well as my spelling.

For what it's worth, I agree with the comment re. Yeager - as far as I can make out his great skill to get to Mach 1 was being either brave or daft enough to hang on - & his interview by J.Clarkson revealed a pretty unlikable character - " The Spitfire was a pony-arsed airplane "

Well I wouldn't mind seeing a turning fight between a Mk9 & a Mustang; then again who was it who dropped his tanks & tried shooting them for fun, when the rest of his squadron was in one of the largest fights at the end of WW2 ?!

Thread drift, hat, coat...

XV277

27th August 2007, 15:25

Well I wouldn't mind seeing a turning fight between a Mk9 & a Mustang;

Or the P-51's .5 mgs v the Spits 20mm cannon.

RileyDove

27th August 2007, 18:42

Or the Mk9 Spit against the Allison engined Mustang before the guys at Hucknall worked their magic on it!

Double Zero

27th August 2007, 19:34

Are you referring to Mrs Schilling's orifice, or later 2-stage mod's ?!!!

Sorry, was thinking of Allison-built Merlins...

shavian

27th August 2007, 21:07

Back to Scruph Oliver for a minute..anyone know what happened to him?

Al R

27th August 2007, 21:15

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=289316

XV277

27th August 2007, 23:07

Or the Mk9 Spit against the Allison engined Mustang before the guys at Hucknall worked their magic on it!

low down, the Tac Recce guys loved the Allison Mustangs

brickhistory

28th August 2007, 02:03

I wouldn't mind seeing a turning fight between a Mk9 & a Mustang;

Would that be with a take-off from West Malling and the fight over, say, Berlin? :E

Brian Abraham

28th August 2007, 03:56

was thinking of Allison-built Merlins

Mr Packard will forgive you for this senior moment, as does Mrs Continental. :8

A little more respect please Brick, lets remember who put up the brass to have the 51 (Maytag Messerschmitt) designed, built etc etc ;)

West Coast

28th August 2007, 05:37

"Hence both the skipper and CAG are aviators. I believe that the XO is normally a boat-driver who can deal with the "wet" issues on the skippers behalf"

Perhaps at one time this was true in the USN, but not now. Some CVN skippers aren't even pilots but Naval Flight Officers. All the XO's are brown shoe types-air wingers.

Thels8

28th August 2007, 09:58

I've just read the book - the guy comes across as a complete twunt.

Bruiser Loose

28th August 2007, 10:03

Get off the fence Thels8. You'll get splinters in your ar*e!

Thels8

28th August 2007, 11:05

I'd hardly say I'm sitting on the fence! Cmdr Ward is obviously a fantastic pilot, but the whole book might just as well be titled, "How I won the war". Everything he does is fantastic, anything others do is rubbish. I will give him credit for always looking to better his fighter pilot skills and learning from others. However, he just speaks such cr*p. Talk about the SHAR bettering the F15, sorting out errant colleagues with knifes at dawn style air combat, "the boys in blue", "The lines of strain...but the eyes tell a different story!", etc, etc.

Once I decided to laugh at him, rather than be annoyed at his arrogance, I actually enjoyed the book a lot more.

AR1

28th August 2007, 11:53

To cut him a bit of bearded slack, the clue is in the title of the book, provided you get past the first couple of words!

fade to grey

28th August 2007, 15:57

Hi,
Blimey,seem to have stirred up a hornet nest with this one.The chap clearly has strong views.......At the risk of getting shot down I would think his views on the vulcan raids were right.It seemed to take a truck load of fuel to do very little although I guess the pschological warfare aspect may have been useful.
Not a pop at the RAF,but if his figures are correct I think he said the navy could have lobbed 1200 bombs on the airport for the amount of fuel used.

I don't like the way he constantly slagged off his fellow FAA SH squadron though, you would have thought they would have had a more harmonious union.

hulahoop7

28th August 2007, 16:50

I thought the Vulcan argument was one of his weakest. Who gives a toss about fuel! Christ we were at war. What was he.. some kind of eco pilot or something?

To get the desired effect a hand full of SHARs would have needed to fly in at a very compromising altitude. Unfortunately we could afford to loose a Vulcan, but we needed everyone of those seajets.

Great man though... and there is plenty of good criticism in the book too.

fade to grey

28th August 2007, 19:03

Well, I imagine the MOD would 'give a toss about fuel' because those missions can't have been cheap.

its all about whether the end result justifies the expenditure - I'm not sure in this case it did.

Anyway before this thread creaps too much...thanks to those who answered the original question.The old chap (love him or hate him) is alive and well and flogging experiences on an island.Good luck to him.

soddim

28th August 2007, 19:26

I think, fade to grey, that cost is not such a great consideration in war. You use what you have because that is why you have it.

The enemy at the receiving end of a very expensive weapon is not greatly concerned what you paid for it.

Cost only really counts when one is trying to persuade the government to buy it in the first place.

The Vulcan achieved much for the price of the fuel. The Argies were not in the least worried that Sharkey might attack their mainland - they were worried after the first Vulcan raid and that diluted their efforts against the allied invasion force.

passpartout

28th August 2007, 20:05

Well, I imagine the MOD would 'give a toss about fuel' because those missions can't have been cheap.
its all about whether the end result justifies the expenditure - I'm not sure in this case it did

What a load of arse. I can just imagine the outrage if someone stood up and said, "We succumb to aggression because it might be a bit expensive to fight for what's right.":mad::mad::mad:

gareth herts

28th August 2007, 21:27

The other thing that stood out for me from reading Ward's book was the apparently completely different opinion of the SHARS radar kit held by the squadrons in theatre. I still can't quite work out how it was that Ward and his boys thought it was so good in comparison to the guys on the other squadron? Almost as if they were flying a different aircraft at times.

Union Jack

29th August 2007, 01:36

"The old chap (love him or hate him) is alive and well and flogging experiences on an island ...."

.... laughing all the way to the bank as he reads this thread (which he could well draw on for his next book)!:)

Jack

Archimedes

29th August 2007, 10:55

fade to grey - the Vulcan raid has been discussed at length several times on Pprune. Somewhere - and I'm afraid I've not the time to find it at the moment - on one of the threads, I posted the observations of Admiral Woodward about Blackbuck, and the rationale behind the attacks as given by MRAF Beetham (CAS in 82).

Admiral Woodward, and Admirals Lewin, Fieldhouse and Leach were all keen on the possible psychological effect that such attacks might have on the Argentine junta and thought it well worth the fuel.

Before BLACKBUCK 1, CAS told the war cabinet that he would need at least 25 Vulcan sorties to shut the runway at Stanley, and would prefer to use 50 - nevertheless, it was thought that the attack was worth it, even if it was known that the chances of shutting the runway with one or two attacks were negligible.

fade to grey

29th August 2007, 20:05

fair enough ,that puts a different spin on it all,if it was made clear to the government just what would be the end result.
As I am aware, the government made it clear it would be prepared to put a polaris on buenos aires if it didn't go our way,
Passpartout, I'm not getting into a fight on this...but i don't think a crater on the runway was necessarily the way to counter this.

Oh sod it ,yes I am...if you are french you should be ashamed of flogging the exocets to them in the first place;)

WE Branch Fanatic

29th August 2007, 21:03

I do not wish to get involved in an argument, but I wonder if the difference between the 800 and 801 in their attitudes to radar had something to do with the reduction in air defence skill levels as the Fleet Air Arm was run down in the 1970s. Did all the pilots have experience in using the radar? I believe some sets of Blue Fox were delivered on the way South. That might explain it.

Also, the FAA run down may have meant that the Flag (Woodward) and his staff lacked experience of using a fighter as a task force weapon?

Both these things (which some of us expressed concerns about for the next few years in between Sea Jet and CVF/F35 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)) may have been a source of great frustration for him, particularly since he bore much of the responsibility for development of the Sea Harrier.

Just my theory, of course.

Bruiser Loose

29th August 2007, 21:12

***k me. We almost got away with a thread that mentioned the word 'SHAR' or 'Seajet' without WEBF getting involved.

gareth herts

30th August 2007, 09:44

As a civvie (albeit a well-read one!) I'm in no position to start an argument! Genuine question as it seemed an incredible situation to be in - I couldn't help but come away with the feeling that the different squadrons had been working up in complete isolation to one another and reading a completely different manual about the jet. Bizarre.

WE Branch Fanatic

6th September 2007, 19:18

Hmmmm.......

I wonder if the difference between the 800 and 801 in their attitudes to radar had something to do with the reduction in air defence skill levels as the Fleet Air Arm was run down in the 1970s. Did all the pilots have experience in using the radar? I believe some sets of Blue Fox were delivered on the way South. That might explain it.

Also, the FAA run down may have meant that the Flag (Woodward) and his staff lacked experience of using a fighter as a task force weapon?

My theory as to why Sharkey Ward comes across as frustrated and angry.

Whilst in a bookshop I noticed one called Forgotten Voices Of The Falklands, a collection of comments relating to various incidents during Operation Corporate. In the section on the loss of HMS Sheffield the then Operations Officer of Broadsword comments that since the run down of the FAA in the seventies, there had been little practice of using aircraft as a task force weapon for air defence (or anything else).

This would appear to support my theory.

Postman Plod

6th September 2007, 22:22

"Forgotten Voices" also puts much of the Sharkey / Woodward ego battle into context, very much on the side of Sharkey Ward, with a significant amount of frustration and disbelief at some of the actions of Sandy Woodward. I've done a fair bit of reading on the Falklands, and this book certainly bridged some of differences of opinion on many of the autobiographies, and answered some of the credibility questions.

EDIT: Sorry, dont get me wrong, I still thenk hes egotistical, but others who probably aren't quite as self promoting as him have put both his and Sany Woodwards autobiographies in a bit more context.

[email protected]

7th September 2007, 15:24

Just started reading the book and it only took a couple of pages for me to decide he was an egotistical, self-promoting a*se

oh hang on...just looked in the thesaurus under fighter pilot.......egotistical etcetc:)

He should have transferred to the RAF - he would have made CAS easily:)

slim_slag

7th September 2007, 15:44

One seems to remember from the actual time, that part of the deal in allowing the US to have a base on Ascension was that the US had to supply all the fuel required for UK operations. So the Yanks provided the fuel free of charge, in effect. Could be wrong of course, long time ago.

Enjoyed reading Ward's book when it came out. Have to say a lot of you are coming over being very bitter about such a brave man.

Archimedes

7th September 2007, 16:13

Don't think anyone disputes his courage, slim_slag.

The reason Ward gets it in the neck (at least from me) is that there's now a lot of evidence about to sustain the charge that while the book is a cracking, forthright read, it is deeply unfair in many places, inaccurate in others and seems to be accompanied by the faint whiff of vinegar from the chip he appears to have on his shoulder (not just about the RAF), evinced by a mildly Monty-esque tendency to denigrate the efforts of other, equally brave, men.

slim_slag

7th September 2007, 16:22

I don't think anybody is disputing his courage either, but there is a lot of bitterness towards him.

To those of us who are now approaching late middle age, the Falklands conflict was the first real 'war' that came along. The people who fought out there were the first real war heroes the lads of my age (although a bit older than a lad) really had. We weren't around when we actually won anything else before that.

So people like Ward and Col H, and all the others who fought out there and whose names are forgotten, are sort of special, if you know what I mean. Now I think when the historians look at these people they may find character flaws and mistakes they made, like we all have, but I think it's wrong of so many of you lot to have a go at him in such a bitter fashion.

Ward is the sort of person you need to make people sign up, IMO.

Archimedes

7th September 2007, 17:09

At time of first publication of SHAR over the Falklands, I was considering a service career (which didn't happen in the end for reasons which need not detain us here). Having read Ward's portrayal of incompetent command, petty jealousy and general petulance, I concluded that I would not be seeking employment in the RN if further investigation revealed that his representation of the service was halfway accurate...

The problem many people have isn't bitterness - it's the fact that his attacks upon certain people are way over the top and deeply unfair, while his criticism of his own service and of the RAF verges on the pernicious. Should we just leave him be and let the impression that some equally brave men were incompetent knaves and fools persist?

glojo

8th April 2011, 22:34

Pierre Argh has very kindly explained the possible differences between the Royal Navy SL and GL officer listings, namely:

Most aircrew were recruited onto the SL, it got them through the training pipeline quickly as they started flying training on graduation from Dartmouth. Therefore an SL(X)(P) with career aspirations would a. have to request transfer to GL, and b. go off to complete his Bridge Watchkeeping ticket and gain seamanship experience.

In fairness to Cmdr Sharkey Ward and what is being said on this thread this person did serve at sea prior to going to Fixed Wing Flight Training and he did gain his Bridge Watchkeeping Ticket Bridge, plus Ocean Navigation Ticket.

I have read a number of articles written by this retired Naval Officer and yes they are perhaps embarrassing, BUT..... There is None So Deaf as Those Who Do Not Want To Hear and although his remarks are 'perhaps' :) OTT, they are spoke with passion and from the heart with probably not enough thought and definitely NOT ENOUGH TACT!

Cmdr Ward was quite clearly a highly\extremely highly qualified Fleet Air Arm fighter pilot who could talk the talk and walk the walk. The Admiralty recognized that talent and put it to the best possible use regarding the introduction of this much loved aircraft.

Unfortunately this person appears to be a flawed diamond but may I respectfully suggest that we should listen to what he says and perhaps treat it with some respect?

My thoughts were that he was under tremendous strain during the Falklands conflict and sadly it might be possible that this condition may not have been recognised, or if it was then possibly the medical officer was not strong enough to deal with this strong will, self opinionated person?

I say this with the greatest of respect and hopefully folks will take this in the way i am trying to put it across?

To all those folks that have been so critical of this retired officer I will respectfully ask you all this one question:

How many of you have been under the same extreme and prolonged stress as this person? I tend to not listen very much to folks I call armchair critics and it is easy to offer insults from the comfort of the keyboard, but perhaps not so easy when you are ordering your fellow pilots to put their lives on the line day in, day out for weeks on end in an extremely hostile environment where they was a good possibility of being shot down\killed. Plus of course he was also flying these missions and if required writing that last letter to the loved ones of a lost pilot.

Cmdr Ward is clearly Royal Navy through and through but if we all take with a pinch of salt some of the more outrageous remarks and read what he is saying then I would suggest that those who have not read his book should go out, buy a copy and then when we read the criticism regarding the Royal Air Force, perhaps we should remember that a pilot in his squadron was indeed an RAF officer. Flt Lt Mortimer.. (respect to this officer) :ok:

I salute all those brave pilots of both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force that were embarked onboard both the aircraft carriers that fought in the Falklands campaign

I just hope that all their brave efforts are not for nothing and yes I do disagree with the scrapping of our conventional aircraft carriers.

Yours sincerely
John

Strobin Purple

9th April 2011, 01:12

Puhlease, stop with the Sharkey Ward bollox......irrelevant old gipper!

D O Guerrero

9th April 2011, 08:23

Out of the two, One Hundred Days is the better read. I thought Ward's book was quite irritating and concentrated more on how he was right and everybody else was wrong, whilst largely forgetting that Sandy Woodward had a lot more to think about than just Sea Harriers. Not really surprising that Ward didn't go much further in the Service, which was a shame because he was obviously very capable but afflicted by some kind of personality disorder.

moggiee

9th April 2011, 08:30

Why did he try to contact the Vulcan on Black Buck 1?
Because he's a bit of a t1t who thought that the rules, common sense, COMSEC and best practice didn't apply to him?

gileraguy

9th April 2011, 09:30

In his defense it was a better READ than Vulcan 607...

Heimdall

11th April 2011, 09:03

glojo

11th April 2011, 10:54

Like many others who have commented in this thread, I have great respect for Ward’s skill as a pilot (F-4 and SHAR) and it is a shame he appeared to appreciate the efforts of others so little. His book is all me, me, me (he must have met Clive Loader somewhere).

I guess quite a few books go down that route but prior to the Falklands was he that person!

I am not a doctor and have no medical qualifications but may I respectfully still suggest:

Commander Ward is clearly a person that believes in calling a spade a spade, but his comments are now most certainly not welcome, not constructive an maybe even offensive and I still maintain that he is yet another casualty of the Falklands conflict. The book was obviously wrote after that battle and I believe that a number of issues were still very raw in that person's mind and he used the book as his own personal soap box.

Was he a victim of post traumatic stress disorder and did this ailment effect his conduct just as the Falklands conflict was being won and when he should have been celebrating a brilliant effort by EVERY SINGLE person that was involved? Instead of that he was removed from his command and flown home.... A sad end to what was developing into an excellent Naval career.

Sometimes the last person to know they have that illness is the victim and sometimes those closest to them do not realise they are ill, they just think 'the war has changed them!'

I apologise for being 'A bloke on t'Internet' that is playing at being a doctor' but I feel that perhaps we might just try to ignore the objectionable words of someone who was at one point in their career a very exceptional talent.

Regarding Chile,
I think you make an excellent point and they offered more assistance than the radar issue you highlight. Maggie Thatcher never forgot the huge part that that country paid in helping us and that was shown by her loyalty towards General Pinochet when she went to visit him whilst he was here for a short period (Under house arrest)

I have NEVER met Commander Ward and have no connection whatsoever with any one that knows this person and all I am suggesting is that we might cut this person 'a little slack' :)

POBJOY

11th April 2011, 16:32

I could suggest that just as a book and one that gives an insight into some of the events it is well worth a read.
Ok there may be some "non PC comments" re events,people and the high command, but it is still a good read and he is not seeking to win a popularity contest (no argument there).
It is no different to any other book, you either find it interesting for some of the information that gets left out in "official accounts" and also make your own mind up re any "personal comments".
On balance the reader can decide on the above and his "direction" in later years is his affair,he will not get any prizes for going quietly !!

PS i really liked the bit about landing at the BBC Pebble Mill Sudio's;Ok a bit of a stunt,but prooved how versatile the Navy was in those days,what are they allowed to do now.I seem to recall he also gives great credit to the RAF for giving the Navy a good start on operating the Harrier.