Naval Scheming?

[insty66]

This appeared to me today Commons Submission (http://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/1248/pdf/)

There doesn't seem to be much objectivity in it. If it's been posted before my apologies but it's definitely new to me.

[air pig]

Did Sharky write it for them?

[Speedywheels]

Did Sharky write it for them?

According to the first line of the document, your answer is YES

[Archimedes]

Yes. Look at every Select Committee inquiry or similar where there might be a slight chance to bash the RAF and he’s in there with a variation on this submission. Indeed, if it’ll be the submission’s 10th anniversary appearance (although now minus the implication that the RAF Tornado chaps who died during Granby did so as the result of their own incompetence, which was how the first such stab at doing this read [in fairness, I don’t think he meant it to]).

[The B Word]

Ah, the Bearded Bullsh!tter strikes again...

So Sharkey, just remind me on your b0110cks statement about the Sea-Going Jumping Bean again?

Iraq. Policing the no-fly zone.
Bosnia/Kosovo. Policing the no-fly zone

What is the difference compared to the F3 doing the same? Oh yes, no kills for the Shar too and also the F3 flew the OCA protection for the rescue package that went in to pick up the Shar pilot that got shot down over BH. He mentions 8 aircraft lost with the Tornado in Gulf War One and then fails to mention in the same list that a Shar was lost on DENY FLIGHT. Also he fails to mention that the Shar couldn’t land back on with its bomb load if it failed to drop (which it did) during the summer months. It either had to land at an airfield or ditch the bomb over the side before it landed on the through-deck cruiser.

The whole thing is utter garbage and the guy needs to go back to his care home...Nurse?...Nurse?...The Screens! :bored:

[The B Word]

PS. There were 171 Tornado F3 and 228 Tornado GR1 - totally different to his figures too!

[The B Word]

PPS. Also, no infrastructure costs at Yeovs for the Shar, which is another omission, the very visible Ski Jumps are a start as are the modifications to allow VTOL too. I am sure there would have been new engine facilities, hush houses, etc... There are so many holes in this paper, that it looks like a 10 year researched it!

[msbbarratt]

PS. There were 171 Tornado F3 and 228 Tornado GR1 - totally different to his figures too!

Still, it's pretty hard to dismiss the large imbalance between investment in carrier capable and non-capable aviation.

Anyway, I think it's high time the RAF were closed down, and the assets (such as they are) absorbed into the FAA. It's been an interesting experiment but clearly it's run its course. A floating runway is a lot more useful than a runway in the wrong country, and it's kinda nuts that the RAF is allowed to deliberately buy aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy. Can't RAF pilots cope with bracing airs and sea sickness? I know they can't spot when snowmen have been built around concrete bollards.

(Tin hat on, ducking for cover behind the keyboard, fly swat at the ready :}).

[air pig]

Still, it's pretty hard to dismiss the large imbalance between investment in carrier capable and non-capable aviation.

Anyway, I think it's high time the RAF were closed down, and the assets (such as they are) absorbed into the FAA. It's been an interesting experiment but clearly it's run its course. A floating runway is a lot more useful than a runway in the wrong country, and it's kinda nuts that the RAF is allowed to deliberately buy aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy. Can't RAF pilots cope with bracing airs and sea sickness? I know they can't spot when snowmen have been built around concrete bollards.

(Tin hat on, ducking for cover behind the keyboard, fly swat at the ready :}).

Considering policy at the time was war in Europe and UK air defence it's positively worthless to buy overly large floating targets.

[PapaDolmio]

Ho Ho!

if I'm reading para 37 correctly it proposes having a QE and T45 permanently deployed 1300 miles from the UK to protect the country from ALCM?

Never heard the F3 called a Vehicle either.......a few other things maybe.

While not wishing to run down what the Harrier force did in Afganistan and Iraq, I don't think the GR4 force were slacking. 27mm, Brimstone, Paveway, Lightening and Raptor anyone?

[ex-fast-jets]

Why should anyone pay attention to your comments when you simply cannot make proper use of the English language..........

You are probably Russian, or Chinese, or even American............

"high time the RAF were closed down" - should be "was"........

" it's kinda nuts" - very American - certainly not English...........

"to deliberately buy" - split infinitive - not acceptable..........

"aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy" - what FAA aircraft does like getting its wheels soggy?.............

I shall build up the enthusiasm to respond to the important content of this thread after I have had a good night's sleep.

[msbbarratt]

Considering policy at the time was war in Europe and UK air defence it's positively worthless to buy overly large floating targets.

I'm not convinced that concrete runways can be moved out of harms way. Though these days I'm not sure what's more dangerous, a 1000lb bomb or a property developer. I know it's a lot harder to build a housing estate on an aircraft carrier...

[2Planks]

No wonder the country is a mess if this is the standard of submissions that get through to the decision makers! I can't be bothered to Google the list of supporters but I trust there are no serving RN officers on it. Embarassing all round.

[Jobza Guddun]

I like the way the author got all those officers from the Sea Cadets to support their case....

[air pig]

I'm not convinced that concrete runways can be moved out of harms way. Though these days I'm not sure what's more dangerous, a 1000lb bomb or a property developer. I know it's a lot harder to build a housing estate on an aircraft carrier...

Sink one aircraft carrier no floating airfield, smash one land airfield plenty of other places to operate from.

[alfred_the_great]

I apologise for that utter bilge.

[msbbarratt]

Why should anyone pay attention to your comments when you simply cannot make proper use of the English language..........

You are probably Russian, or Chinese, or even American............

"high time the RAF were closed down" - should be "was"........

" it's kinda nuts" - very American - certainly not English...........

"to deliberately buy" - split infinitive - not acceptable..........

"aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy" - what FAA aircraft does like getting its wheels soggy?.............

I shall build up the enthusiasm to respond to the important content of this thread after I have had a good night's sleep.

I'm an Oxfordshire lad, though possibly one of poor education and a terrible TV habit. Grew up in Abingdon, sniffing Jag engine fumes every time they ran one on the test stand.

"What FAA aircraft does like getting its wheels soggy?" Ones that can land on a wet deck...

[safetypee]

Neddie Seagoon; re the defence of England."Build a full scale cardboard replica of England...
Anchor it off the coast of …. Then when the … have invaded it, we tow it out to sea - and pull the plug out."

The gist, with apologies, taken from 'The Goon Show', BBC radio, many years ago.
http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_show.asp?title=s06e01_the_man_who_won_the_war"

Enter Bluebottle wearing doublet made from mum's old drawers;
Bluebottle, waits for audience applause... not a sausage; or strikes heroic pose, but trousers fall down and ruin effect. "Thinks...".
Little Jim; " He's fallen in the wah-taa! "

[msbbarratt]

Para 37 is moderately intriguing (Russian bombers carrying lots of 1600 mile supersonic cruise missiles). They have omitted to mention that a long term 24/7 naval solution to that task would probably require 4* dedicated carriers, 4 T45s, and a lot of aircraft, all of which would probably cost more to run than buying a few more MRTTs and EJ200 spares. And I think they'd also struggle to find a patch of ocean to put them in that's up-threat and out of range of a NATO friendly airfield somewhere or other...

On the whole I think that naval aviation is a good thing; there are scenarios where a properly equipped floating runway is the best answer. However, naval aviation is not going to flourish if weak arguments like this are put forward.

* Just like there's 4 V boats - one on station, one in workup, one in the workshop, etc.

[ivor toolbox]

Ah....ye olde Sharkey Ward "Bring ye back ye Harrier" again.

He really has a chip on his shoulder doesn't he.
(Actually more like a whole sack of spuds)

Ttfn

[muppetofthenorth]

The whole argument can be summed up as "the RN are (excrement) at lobbying".

[cynicalint]

He missed off four words at the start of the submission, and six at the end. "once upon a time" and "They all lived happily ever after". Paragraph 33 is a BLATANT LIE!
Quote "Combat Operations. 33. Nimrod was significantly absent from the effective direct support of the Falklands War, 1982, and from all other conflicts engaged in since that time." unquote.

[Airbubba]

Why should anyone pay attention to your comments when you simply cannot make proper use of the English language..........

If that's how you type an ellipsis you need to get that keyboard fixed before you claim to be the grammer police here. :D

[cynicalint]

Airbubba
grammar...

+ two for characters

[Airbubba]

Airbubba
grammar...

Your right. :ok:

[cynicalint]

you're welcome!

[ozbiggles]

Sounds like someone is a operating a carrier missing a few aircraft on the flight desk.

A report lacking any evidence other than the author’s opinion. Do I take it this isn’t a new thing?

[Two's in]

The pearl clutching and smelling salts is all a bit unnecessary though.

The document starts with the phrase "Written evidence..." but in fact there is little evidence in here at all. It's full of dramatic hyperbole, emotional gushing and a distinct paucity of any balance or structure. If you had enough carriers for a few CAGs and the aircraft to deploy with them, there might be some validity in parts of this, but when your force projection relies on "One on, and one in the wash" while hoping your protective screen will keep going long enough to get out of Plymouth Sound, you might have missed the point of Strategic Maritime Policy.

The greatest technological advancement associated with modern carriers is that the Chinese no longer have to bother trying to reduce the CEP of their Anti-Ship weapons, so it's not all bad news.

[tucumseh]

Forgive my intrusion in this inter-Service bunfight, but I don't recall the author having worked in Director General Aircraft (Navy) HQ - in the 80s, at least. Had he drafted any such 'submission' our Admiral would have invited him to the 5th floor for a career brief on his brief career. After he'd been kicked up and down the 3rd floor by the Admiral's Technical Advisor.

But quietly, boss would ask his most recent recruit to identify the truths, and what to do. While waiting, he'd make the tea. When (not if) you cracked it, it was back up to the 5th floor for sherry - giving the ongoing kicking a body swerve as you passed the FW office. (All FW in one small office, which is related to one of the few truths). In total, a pleasant 15 minute diversion and back to work.

[insty66]

Does the RAF have a similarly devoted author of such documents? Also how does the RAF go about re-balancing the discussion?

Despite the creative use of numbers and outright lies contained in them, if these are regularly submitted is there a danger someone might actually believe it?

[tucumseh]

insty66

In general terms, there is always a government minister whose role is to 'engage' with retired senior officers. Quite often the Defence spokesman in the House of Lords. I imagine the retired Air Staff will have had a word, although that does raise the question of who is the greater liar.

[Bob Viking]

Every time his name surfaces on here my thoughts are the same.

Why would a man who did such sterling work in the 80’s (I know he was a marmite character even then but nobody can deny he did a good job in the Falklands even if his opinion of his own self worth may be a little exaggerated) allow himself to turn into such a comedy character?

I don’t know how staff work looked in the 80’s but if I’d submitted something like that at any point in the last 20 years it wouldn’t make it off the Sqn let alone anywhere near the corridors of power.

If I were Navy I’d be pleading with him to STFU. He is not doing anyone any favours, least of all himself.

Anyone with half a brain can see his submission is basically a bunch of inane and completely incorrect ramblings. Surely nobody takes any of his work seriously?!

BV

Edited to add to Tucumseh, didn’t Sharkey retire as a Commander? If a government minister has to engage with every retired officer of OF4 rank and above they wouldn’t have time to sleep. The bottom line is that someone of that rank may have fulfilled an important role whilst serving but they can hardly be regarded as a policy maker.

[Darvan]

I stopped reading this submission when I got to the bottom of the first page and saw that a Lt Cdr Lester May had supported the narrative. Indeed, this document reads very much like a piece of his own work. Anyone who has read his bigoted and ant-RAF letters to The Times over the years will recognise his hand in this comical piece of staff work.

[Caramba]

Is it possible that at some point in the past an RAF officer’s dog pissed on Sharkey Ward’s shoes?

It was Father’s ambition to train the family lab to bark at Naval officers, and then station him at the door to the mess at Northwood. At least I now have some grasp of the old man’s antipathy.

[Not_a_boffin]

Perhaps we might change the thread title from "Naval Scheming" which demonstrates a certain paranoia among some, to "Another Random Sharkey Rant". There are no serving dark blue in that list - and as ATG notes, no support from those currently serving.

[Martin the Martian]

Sharkey Ward is like that embarrassing relative who turns up at family occasions and just as think it will all be alright he starts shouting off about c***s and n*****s.

I note that he combines assets such as Nimrod and Sentinel into his big list to be compared with the Harrier. Presumably his precious SHAR can do all of those tasks as well. I would like to think that one day a former Granby Tornado crewman will quietly take him aside and explain a few facts of life.

[Jackonicko]

This appeared to me today Commons Submission (http://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/1248/pdf/)

There doesn't seem to be much objectivity in it. If it's been posted before my apologies but it's definitely new to me.

Nor fact. Nor sanity.

Is poor old Sharkey well?

[Easy Street]

I can’t be arsed to address the rest of the bilge but feel compelled to address this slur (and outright lie):

In Iraq, Desert Storm, eight aircraft were lost in quick succession but a formal inquiry found that only one of these was due to enemy action. The majority of the losses resulted from unfamiliarity with the JP 233 delivery profile.

Eight losses were:
13 Jan - CFIT in Oman during theatre familiarisation training
16 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack, famously carrying 1000lb bombs (Peters/Nichol)
17 Jan - flew into ground minutes after completing JP233 attack. SAM hit suspected but not publicly confirmed.
19 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack. Not publicly released which weapon carried, but it is known that four of the 8-ship were armed with JP233 and four with 1000lb bombs.
20 Jan - technical failure shortly after takeoff.
22 Jan - flew into ground near target (some sources claim shot down by MiG-29). Weapon load not publicly released*
24 Jan - premature detonation of 1000lb bomb.
14 Feb - shot down by SAM during medium level LGB attack.

To my mind, being shot down counts as “enemy action” irrespective of any other causal factors which may have put the aircraft at increased risk. So of the 8 losses, ‘only’ 6 were in combat; 3 were confirmed as due to enemy action, with 2 ‘possible’; *just one* was confirmed to have no Iraqi involvement. In only one, gusting 2 cases can vulnerability during JP233 delivery be cited as a likely part of the story. How that translates to ‘most’ or ‘unfamiliarity’ is beyond me. I can only conclude that some FAA types *still* hate everything to do with Tornado after SDSR10 and don’t care about making unfounded slurs against it and some extremely courageous aircrew to support their case. Easy to forget at 30 years’ distance that Iraqi air defences were considered highly capable before the decline which ensued after the war.

I have no doubt we’ll see a couple of commenters on here saying “well he gets you RAF lot wound up nicely, why don’t you just ignore him if it’s so much rubbish?”. Ignoring him is undoubtedly the best policy in official circles, and whatever you think of politicians they are all switched-on enough to recognise the submission for what it is. Trouble is, in the cesspit of the Internet (where a list of senior endorsements is probably enough for some to take the material as credible) it’s a matter of honour to push back against material as wilfully and offensively wrong as this.

* With respect to 22 Jan, the JP233 delivery profile (being straight and level) was much less likely to result in CFIT than the extremely hazardous “loft” (actually, toss) profile used for the 1000lb bombs. So if they were carrying JP233 - which the MOD has not seen fit to confirm - the only way it’s likely to have contributed to this loss is if it led to the aircraft being hit by ground fire before crashing. There is no claim of that by either side so I don’t see how this one can be pinned on JP233 in any case.

[Asturias56]

Nor fact. Nor sanity.

Is poor old Sharkey well?

I thought it was an April Fool when I read it . It is appalling - most of it is knocking land based programmes, there is no discussion of exactly what missions these carrier aircraft will achieve, he doesn't mention the carriers (cost, time frame, manning issues) only . The sort of argument that "jimmy has been given a new ball so I have to have one as well" - bereft of logic and argument

Sad really.

[MPN11]

I wasted a bit of this morning reading this infantile scribble, and regret it. Even with my non-aircrew background it strikes me as emotional and in places tragically inaccurate.

I believe the phrase is "Situating the Appreciation", starting with the desired answer and selectively adding 'facts' to support it.

[Fortissimo]

I stopped reading this submission when I got to the bottom of the first page and saw that a Lt Cdr Lester May had supported the narrative. Indeed, this document reads very much like a piece of his own work. Anyone who has read his bigoted and ant-RAF letters to The Times over the years will recognise his hand in this comical piece of staff work.

Lester May is also a repeat offender when it comes to airing his bigotry with the Evening Standard.

I am not sure on what evidence Storm Shadow is written off as 'dis-functional' and with no record of successfully interdicted targets. From the photographs I saw it had done quite a good job. I particularly enjoyed the image of a long range 'double-tap' against a bunker where the entry breaches were less than a foot apart, though I expect the SHAR would have got much closer and at far less expense...

Wouldn't it be nice if the two Services could be allowed to get on with a joint operational capability without all the nonsense from people still trying to fight the Falklands campaign again. Has anyone told Sharkey that the current OC 617 is dark blue?

[Ken Scott]

I did enjoy this bit:


14. This Submission does not address the cost of our new carriers and the joint F-35B program. Nor does it address the major cost of land-based airfields, establishments, logistic support and personnel structures needed to enable Expeditionary Air Wing deployments.

So, to summarize: ‘my side of the argument looks much better if I ignore those big costs that don’t support it’.

[Fareastdriver]

The United Kingdom cannot afford to research, design and put into production a 21st century fighting aeroplane. It will have to be a joint venture with other countries, almost certainly European. They don't need carriers so they are not going to help to develop carrier based aircraft just because the UK wants to.

[Avionker]

The United Kingdom cannot afford to research, design and put into production a 201st century fighting aeroplane. It will have to be a joint venture with other countries, almost certainly European. They don't need carriers so they are not going to help to develop carrier based aircraft just because the UK wants to.

If they order it from BAE now it might be operational by the year 20,100.

[Archimedes]

I can’t be arsed to address the rest of the bilge but feel compelled to address this slur (and outright lie):



Eight losses were:
13 Jan - CFIT in Oman during theatre familiarisation training
16 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack, famously carrying 1000lb bombs (Peters/Nichol)
17 Jan - flew into ground minutes after completing JP233 attack. SAM hit suspected but not publicly confirmed.
19 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack. Not publicly released which weapon carried, but it is known that four of the 8-ship were armed with JP233 and four with 1000lb bombs.
20 Jan - technical failure shortly after takeoff.
22 Jan - flew into ground near target (some sources claim shot down by MiG-29). Weapon load not publicly released*
24 Jan - premature detonation of 1000lb bomb.
14 Feb - shot down by SAM during medium level LGB attack.

To my mind, being shot down counts as “enemy action” irrespective of any other causal factors which may have put the aircraft at increased risk. So of the 8 losses, ‘only’ 6 were in combat; 3 were confirmed as due to enemy action, with 2 ‘possible’; *just one* was confirmed to have no Iraqi involvement. In only one, gusting 2 cases can vulnerability during JP233 delivery be cited as a likely part of the story. How that translates to ‘most’ or ‘unfamiliarity’ is beyond me. I can only conclude that some FAA types *still* hate everything to do with Tornado after SDSR10 and don’t care about making unfounded slurs against it and some extremely courageous aircrew to support their case. Easy to forget at 30 years’ distance that Iraqi air defences were considered highly capable before the decline which ensued after the war.

I have no doubt we’ll see a couple of commenters on here saying “well he gets you RAF lot wound up nicely, why don’t you just ignore him if it’s so much rubbish?”. Ignoring him is undoubtedly the best policy in official circles, and whatever you think of politicians they are all switched-on enough to recognise the submission for what it is. Trouble is, in the cesspit of the Internet (where a list of senior endorsements is probably enough for some to take the material as credible) it’s a matter of honour to push back against material as wilfully and offensively wrong as this.

* With respect to 22 Jan, the JP233 delivery profile (being straight and level) was much less likely to result in CFIT than the extremely hazardous “loft” (actually, toss) profile used for the 1000lb bombs. So if they were carrying JP233 - which the MOD has not seen fit to confirm - the only way it’s likely to have contributed to this loss is if it led to the aircraft being hit by ground fire before crashing. There is no claim of that by either side so I don’t see how this one can be pinned on JP233 in any case.

Only one of the aircraft lost was carrying JP233 when lost.

Dave Waddington is on record that he was carrying 1,000lb bombs (19 Jan); the 22nd Jan loss of Sqn Ldrs Lennox & Weekes was flown against a radar site and I've seen (somewhere, years ago) a source describing the plan being for them to carry out a loft attack.

The MiG-29 kill is deeply questionable - the story has changed several times, I believe. First change had to be because the pilot credited with the kill had been dead for two days; second change was moving the date so that he was then credited with the 19th Jan loss, but since the crew survived and were - and are - able to describe how they were shot down (SAM), this necessitated another change to bring the loss of Sqn Ldrs Lennox & Weekes forward three days. When it was pointed out that there was a fair amount of evidence that they were most definitely still with us on the 19th, the date was shifted back to 22nd and the kill attributed to another pilot. I believe that there is now some evidence which also calls this into doubt, too (something along the lines of the pilot concerned having to eject after collecting an AIM-7 amidships and sustaining injuries which meant that he'd not have been able to fly even a paper aeroplane on 22nd Jan).

[Mr. Vice]

Combat Air in the UK is currently made up of a mixture of FAA and RAF on both fleets which I can report get along with each other very well. It seems this rivalry of yesteryear has disappeared almost entirely, the FAA and RAF fast jet pilots go through the same training system and currently serve side by side on operations.

I find most of this paper hilarious but it is downright offensive and crass to smear the well documented combat operation record of so many of your countrymen. They deserve better, especially given the history of the author.

Just to clear it up, Typhoons and Tornados (until almost the day it retired) have flown on operations engaging Daesh every single day for nearly the last 5 years with FAA and RAF crews. Not to mention the rest of the service history of the GR4.

What a low end piece of made up research. It also blows the credibility of any of the names mentioned at the start.

Mr Vice.

[MG]

Annex B of that paper is the best part, it’s utterly laughable. It studiously ignores Typhoon’s work in Syria and it goes on to praise the SHAR in Sierra Leone, where all they did was get in the way of proper, RW, operations.

Any unthinking idiot can see that it reads ‘sea Harrier can do absolutely everything and none of this light blue stuff is needed’. It’s beyond childish and I’d be amazed (and hope) that it’s given the stiff ignoring that it warrants

[Darvan]

If the FRS Mk 1 is included in Annex B, then so should the Vulcan. If the GR1 and F3 are included in GRANBY then so too should the Buccaneer. Including these 2 types enhances the RAF’s success rate.

[Bob Viking]

I remain at least partially convinced that he regularly submits these papers just so he can log onto this website and laugh at all of us for taking him seriously.

Despite his illustrious history the man is either mentally challenged or a massive b@llend. I still can’t quite decide which.

Before you ask, yes, I would tell him to his face.

If these submissions consist of his honestly held beliefs then any collateral he built up during the Falklands campaign has long since evaporated and he has lost any respect he should deserve.

BV

[Jackonicko]

I remain at least partially convinced that he regularly submits these papers just so he can log onto this website and laugh at all of us for taking him seriously.

Despite his illustrious history the man is either mentally challenged or a massive b@llend. I still can’t quite decide which.

Before you ask, yes, I would tell him to his face.

If these submissions consist of his honestly held beliefs then any collateral he built up during the Falklands campaign has long since evaporated and he has lost any respect he should deserve.

BV

Bob,

If ever anyone is struggling for an example of a false dichotomy, you have provided a great one.

Sharkey Ward does seem to be mentally challenged, on this and plentiful other recent evidence and is demonstrably at the massive end of the Bellend scale.

J

(A false dichotomy is a type of informal correlative-based fallacy, in which a statement falsely claims an "either/or" situation, when both examples are correct.)

[Jimlad1]

I stopped reading this submission when I got to the bottom of the first page and saw that a Lt Cdr Lester May had supported the narrative. Indeed, this document reads very much like a piece of his own work. Anyone who has read his bigoted and ant-RAF letters to The Times over the years will recognise his hand in this comical piece of staff work.

I had the misfortune of meeting him once - for years I thought that such an utterly obnoxious individual had to be a made up 'nom de plum' to wind people up.

Sadly he is even worse in the flesh and I'd suggest does more damage to the Naval Service cause than can be easily calculated.

[bigsmelly]

Well if i had my retrospective way, the UK would have previously standardised on one CATOBAR capable type across the services , with a "future one" in the works to replace it. - and the new carriers would have cats n' traps.

I.e. F-18 moving to F35-C - Canada seems to get on quite well with the F-18 without having a carrier..

[Bob Viking]

Using Canada and the F18 to illustrate your point in a positive light is an interesting approach.

I know what you’re getting at but I don’t think even a Canadian would stand up right now and spout much positivity about the ongoing F18 saga.

BV

[bigsmelly]

Using Canada and the F18 to illustrate your point in a positive light is an interesting approach.

I know what you’re getting at but I don’t think even a Canadian would stand up right now and spout much positivity about the ongoing F18 saga.

BV

Well perhaps a better example would be the F4 or the Bucc - both originally carrier aircraft that performed sterling work for the RAF

[Jackonicko]

Well perhaps a better example would be the F4 or the Bucc - both originally carrier aircraft that performed sterling work for the RAF

Not however, while they were also available for carrier service, because that's a full time job if you have CATOBAR, whereas the Harrier GR7/9 and F-35B can do BOTH

[bigsmelly]

Umm,.. I think i should clarify here.

In my imagined world, both the RN and RAF only operate a single fast jet type , which is CATOBAR and "multirole".. And then there is a successor program for the next generation. ...

Of course that rather rules out European participation unless it's Rafale M or navalised EF.

It's the argument that operating a single type would save a bunch of money.
The point is, historically the CATOBAR carrier weight penalty hasn't stopped these types being very effective at non-maritime roles.
We decided to have carriers, so we might as well have a common aircraft that can operate from it.



(edited, I wasn't clear)

[wiltshireman]

This has got the "junior service" all in a dither hasn't it? Get over it boys, you can still stack on Fridays for the weekends!

"They don't like it up 'em Sir!"

[MG]

You can still stack on Fridays for the weekends!

Locking up after the Navy has long gone on a Thursday night? :)

[Lomon]

If only his 'story' covered the last 60 years, he could have included all the money that was wasted developing TSR2 before an RN supporter lobbied against further development.

There is no mention of Jaguar. (unless I fell asleep scrolling past that bit)

The 'statistics' that Typhoon has had no combat effectiveness completely ignore both Libya and Op SHADER, both of which have proved Typhoon is a combat ready platform that can deliver munitions on target.

There is no mention of the political meddling that cost millions when it was decided that the carries wouldn't have cats and traps, then they would, then they wouldn't, or how much it cost to develop and buy the F35C or how late and over budget it was.

[Just This Once...]

This has got the "junior service" all in a dither hasn't it? Get over it boys...

I'm convinced that any written work that besmirches the bravery of those that served on operations, including those killed or wounded by enemy action, is going to cause a little more than a 'dither'. If you really feel that it is fair game to spread deceit and lies about people I served with then you really need to take a good hard look at yourself.

There is no such thing as inter-service banter when you go after the fallen - it is a despicable act of cowardice.

[Archimedes]

This has got the "junior service" all in a dither hasn't it? Get over it boys, you can still stack on Fridays for the weekends!

"They don't like it up 'em Sir!"

Not as much of a dither as it got certain senior RN officers into before the 2015 review...

[ExAscoteer2]

This has got the "junior service" all in a dither hasn't it? Get over it boys, you can still stack on Fridays for the weekends!

You sir are a - .. -

[Wyntor]

Well said JTO.

Despicable comment from Wiltshireman.

[alfred_the_great]

What's really disappointing is that one of the signatories is a "senior mentor" at the Joint Services Command and Staff College.

Although there is is a minor chance that it's his much nicer doppelgänger, who genuinely has the same name and rank. Only two initials separate them!

[Jackonicko]

Umm,.. I think i should clarify here.

In my imagined world, both the RN and RAF only operate a single fast jet type , which is CATOBAR and "multirole".. And then there is a successor program for the next generation. ...

Of course that rather rules out European participation unless it's Rafale M or navalised EF.

It's the argument that operating a single type would save a bunch of money.
The point is, historically the CATOBAR carrier weight penalty hasn't stopped these types being very effective at non-maritime roles.
We decided to have carriers, so we might as well have a common aircraft that can operate from it.



(edited, I wasn't clear)

Much better, though, to have one fleet of aircraft that can do both. Or not to have carriers at all!

[Lilaccruiser]

Umm,.. I think i should clarify here.

In my imagined world, both the RN and RAF only operate a single fast jet type , which is CATOBAR and "multirole".. And then there is a successor program for the next generation. ...

Of course that rather rules out European participation unless it's Rafale M or navalised EF.

It's the argument that operating a single type would save a bunch of money.
The point is, historically the CATOBAR carrier weight penalty hasn't stopped these types being very effective at non-maritime roles.
We decided to have carriers, so we might as well have a common aircraft that can operate from it.



(edited, I wasn't clear)


Well said. Not long before his death, Sandy Woodward argued for CATOBAR QEs with the Super Hornet as the air component. One suspects that navalising the Typhoon would have used up an ocean of money but that might have been an option. BAE were keen at one point.

Whatever, we now have these 65,000 ton monsters with a F35B air arm that’s seriously challenged for range and payload and whose AEW is of necessity a low altitude helicopter based system. And don’t start me on the lack of proper missile defences.....

[Bengo]

Well said. Not long before his death, Sandy Woodward argued for CATOBAR QEs with the Super Hornet as the air component. One suspects that navalising the Typhoon would have used up an ocean of money but that might have been an option. BAE were keen at one point.

Whatever, we now have these 65,000 ton monsters with a F35B air arm that’s seriously challenged for range and payload and whose AEW is of necessity a low altitude helicopter based system. And don’t start me on the lack of proper missile defences.....

Engines has previously posted about the real technical and operational difficulties in navalising the Typhoon. BAe studied it for MoD I think.

If you want a good naval aircraft you need to design seaborne characteristics in from the first sketches, and there is plenty of evidence that adapting a land based design usually produces poor results. Trying to make one design suitable for two or three different operational environments has an even worse track record.
N

[Paying Guest]

Engines has previously posted about the real technical and operational difficulties in navalising the Typhoon. BAe studied it for MoD I think.



Quite correct. In fact it was a fairly exhaustive = expensive study. BAe did their best to make it look viable, but the reality was that there were 2 major problems: Typhoon was not designed to live in a maritime environment and in addition would require major redesign of the lower and rear fuselage structures to make it sufficiently robust for CATOBAR.

[wiltshireman]

Now, now don't be touchy!

[Asturias56]

What will Sharkey say when they don't buy any more F35B's???

[SLXOwft]

I have refrained from sticking my oar in until now but here goes.

I have only skimmed the document linked by the OP, but it looks to me like there has been little revision since the previous iteration. I hope it will be just ignored and not used as a stick to beat either service.

I was taught at BRNC, as gospel truth, that the RAF lied and moved Australia 300 miles close to Asia to convince HMG to buy the F111K and can CVA-01 etc. This was I believe reflective of the views of a significant number of the generation to which Sharkey, Linley Middleton and others belong(ed). They had seen a promised bright future of four fully sized properly equipped carriers snatched from them. They resented seeing the aircraft they had been promised used by another service. The saw the RAF as the author of events not the real culprits HMG. Unfortunately some of them never seemed to properly get over it and it clouds/clouded their judgement.

My very limited experience of today's RN suggests such petty rivalries are long forgotten and the current generation want to make jointery work. To which I say, "Good on them!"

I have recently been clearing out my late mother's house and came across a copy of the RAF Yearbook 1977. The keynote article was "The Royal Air Force and the Defence Situation Today" by ACM Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris. Although its main focus was the severe cuts to the RAF, he did not fail to mention cuts to the other services; cuts to the RN in particular (coupled with the reduction in the Nimrod force) as rendering the UK as unable to meet its NATO commitments in the Atlantic and effectively pretending our Southern Flank obligations didn't exist. I mention this because IMHO the only way to preserve any effective defence capability from political opportunism is for the leaders of the three services to have the vision to present a united front. The RN and its supporters providing the politicians excuses to cut the RAF will do the RN no favours in the long run and vice versa. What Sir Christopher and the then CDS Field Marshal Carver (whom he quoted) would say about subsequent cuts, I hate to think.

Asturias - Sharkey wanted CATOBAR carriers and F-35Cs the capabilities of which he considered far more suited to the RN's needs. However, I don't suppose he or anyone with the UK's defence interests at heart would be happy with an F-35 buy that prevents either service from doing its job properly.