James - first, Admiral Woodward made an observation which might suggest that he's not up to date. That immediately runs the risk of a reasonably informed observer of the sort that the Admiral is attempting to influence asking how much else is out of date.
Next, he makes the fatal mistake of believing BEagle's favourite beard-wearer, who alleged that only 3 GR4s, each carrying one Storm Shadow (sadly, the good Cdr Ward seems to have had an ID faff between RAPTOR and Storm Shadow) were ready to launch on the first night of the war. Ignoring the fact that neither Ward nor Adm Woodward appear to have any comprehension of the ATO for the first night (or if they have, it appears to have been fed to them by someone wanting them to look stupid), there's photographic evidence, some of which is from non-MoD sources which contradicts this charge
Then, he compounds it with a correction in the Mail (I think it is, the link is elsewhere) which suggests - nay, shows - that he's not got the point that the F3 and the GR4 are (were) rather different aircraft, adding in a cheap - and inaccurate - shot about the GR4 over Libya (if the govt's strategy is bobbins, it doesn't matter if you've got a fleet of X-Wing fighters (retained, to the sound of much bitching, in lieu of Ti-Fighters), since what they can do against unclear strategic direction, ROE influence by same, etc, etc isn't by and large, going to be altered by whether they operate from a CVS or Gioia.
The point, therefore, is that if you believe that an argument can be sustained to good effect based upon multiple factual inaccuracies, then fair enough - just don't complain if inaccurately-based argument brings about an outcome you don't like.
If, though, you retain the quaint notion that a proper argument needs to consist of well-reasoned analysis supported by clear-cut facts, then you tend to find Admiral Woodward's contribution rather disappointing...