Oh my word - this article only goes to show how out of touch some of the 'old and bold' really are. I'm very surprised that Steve Jermy put his name to this piece of work (and I use that phrase loosely) since he was incredibly supportive and complimentary re JFH during his tenure in the JAMO...the fact that Sharkey Ward's name is also attached and that it was he who posted the article is not a surprise at all. Just to feed the debate, here's some of the more interesting comments from this article, which I'm sure will generate interesting discussion...
the failed Joint Force Harrier experiment
I'm sure the current crop of JFH pilots would have something to say about this throw away comment, including Sharkey's own son! I guess the team that constructed this article forgot to notice that JFH did phenomenally well in Op ALLIED FORCE, Op TELIC and Op HERRICK - all told, the force has been involved, more often than not, with high tempo, kinetic, dynamic air ops since 1999, and IMHO, performed exceptionally well. If that's what we can achieve with a 'failed experiment' just think what we'll achieve with JSF.
Britain’s Invincible-class carrier force is in the weakest state of its thirty year life and, for example, would be unable to mount an operation to re-take the Falklands Islands.
Firstly, why would we need to retake the FIs - there is absolutely no need to, and the last time I looked we already have a sizable force based there to 'deter' a would-be aggressor. Secondly, at present day, JFH's ability to project relevant, precise and timely air effect from the carrier far far far outweighs what the RN has been able to achieve in the past, even during the Falklands War (this is just a point, I am not denigrating what was achieved during the FI war, because it was undeniably an amazing achievement by both FAA and RAF embarked Harrier pilots).
The Fleet Air Arm (FAA) officer structures require 30% less aircrew and 40% less senior officers than RAF equivalents
This is a pretty broad-brush statement, especially since the FAA rely upon the RAF structure to get their pilots to the front line. I'd like to see the current stats regards FAA FW pilots v support pers (eg how many CSG pers are there v front line pilots?). More importantly, if the FAA were told to 'go it alone' without the help of the RAF structure, I wonder what the stats would look like then?
The FAA has over a 100 years’ of corporate carrier experience, and represent this country’s only carrier professionals
I'm afraid that this is no longer the case, and the sooner the RN realise this and face the fact that the RAF now also has a LOT of embarked experience to offer, the sooner our attempts at jointery will have more success. It may be a hard nettle to grasp, but it is essential that the RN start to acknowledge this fact - in not too many years, the RAF's recruitment poster will have an aircraft carrier on it!
all other carrier navies in the world have their own naval air forces, whose officers also go on to command ships
How many FAA Harrier pilots have gone to command an RN carrier - not many (I think I can think of one). Does the RN suppose that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be commanded by ex-JSF pilots? If this is the case, will an RAF JSF pilot who has spent his/her life projecting 5th gen airpower from the sea be eligible to command the carrier vice have a station command tour? (jointery at its best perhaps!)
I could go one - and all the above from only the Executive Summary!
Ready and waiting for the spears...
