More nonsense from Nigel - who has written a new book!

[Jackonicko]

https://hushkit.net/2020/06/23/myths-mistakes-of-falklands-war-we-ask-commander-sharkey-ward/?unapproved=54258&moderation-hash=5965399d86cee9cc0b359753190bc060#comment-54258Snippets:

Q: If you could have changed one thing about British air operations in the Falklands what would it have been?

“There are two subjects that continue to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

"One is the completely disingenuous propaganda campaign conducted by the Royal Air Force immediately after the war which sadly persuaded the gullible British public that they, the RAF alone, had won the air war over the Falklands. The full story of this deception and attempt to rewrite history is told in detail in my new book, soon to be published......"

"All the air to air combat kills were achieved by naval aircraft (indeed, it is worthy of note that all air to air kills by British forces since 1948 have been achieved by naval aircraft – not one by RAF aircraft – and yet they claim they won the air war in Operation Corporate, the Falklands war).

"Adding insult to injury, the propaganda campaign glorified the small but extremely expensive part that RAF Vulcan bombers played in the conflict. The real facts are that of the 63 bombs dropped by the Vulcan in three missions against Port Stanley runway, only one bomb was on target and that only damaged the side of the runway which was repaired on the same day. The four other Vulcan missions delivering anti-radar missiles only managed to hit one small radar emitter, that of a radar-controlled anti-aircraft gun on the outskirts of Port Stanley. These seven missions had no material effect whatsoever on the course of the Falklands conflict. To claim otherwise is wishful thinking."

"The suggestion that the Nimrod aircraft played any effective part at all in or near the combat zone is also facetious propaganda."

"In relation to the Falklands War, the Royal Navy made no big mistake. They and the Amphibious Brigade land forces contrived and achieved a remarkable victory against all odds. The only major failure was that of the Royal Air Force who, despite their earlier outrageous claims to Ministers, were unable to provide the Task Force with any air defence or antisubmarine capability en route to the conflict or during combat operations. They have not yet been held accountable for this abysmal failure.

My new book attempts to rectify this.” No-one claims that the RAF won the Falklands Air War alone or unaided, and I’ve never heard any RAF officer deny the tremendous contribution of the Royal Navy. His contention that “They proclaimed loudly and strongly to the British public that the Royal Air Force had won the air war over the Islands” is deluded.

On the other hand, Nigel Ward himself has spent most of the past 38 years trying to deny that the RAF made any contribution, and has consistently denigrated and rubbished its personnel and aircraft. (That’s when he hasn’t been vociferously shouting down the other Sea Harrier squadron in the Falklands – you know, the one that scored more kills than Ward’s…..)

Ward claims that “all air to air kills by British forces since 1948 have been achieved by naval aircraft – not one by RAF aircraft.” That ignores the kills scored by RAF pilots in RN and USAF aircraft, not least one Flt Lt Dave Morgan – the leading scorer in the Falklands War.

Moreover he picks the 1948 date very carefully, as, on 22 May 1947, the RAF did shoot down four Egyptian fighters (Fg Off Cooper and Fg Off Bowie both shot down one REAF Spitfire each and Fg Off McElhaw got the other two), all while flying Spitfire XVIIIs with 208 Squadron).

Some reports suggest that the Tempests of No.6 Squadron downed an Israeli Spitfire. There are also persistent rumours that certain 208 Sqn pilots later extracted their revenge on the IAF by shooting down any IAF aircraft they later encountered, including a number of transport aircraft, and that this was subsequently hushed-up to avoid escalating the situation.

In Korea, a Flight of RN Sea Furies did down a MiG-15, while RAF pilots, including Sqn Ldr John Merrifield, Flt Lts John Nicholls, John Granville-White, RTF Dickinson, John Lovell got MiG kills while flying Sabres in Korea, with Nichols claiming a Mig on his 99th mission. Squadron Leader Graham Hulse got three kills in Korea. A further 4 kills were made by Canadian nationals who were still in the RAF and flying USAF Sabres in Korea.

Some sources also list Alan Jenkins, and Dennis Dunlop.

With regard to Black Buck, Ward repeats the tired old ‘only one bomb on the runway’ trope, when the plan – to drop a stick diagonally across the runway meant that this was exactly what was intended. Black Buck was also intended to demonstrate that the mainland was ‘at risk’ and this was achieved.

Ward’s slur on the Nimrod ASW effort is unworthy even of him, but I was pleasantly surprised that his Hush Kit piece was at least less full of lies, exaggeration and nonsense than his recent evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee.

Ward’s visceral hatred for the RAF is such that you’d almost think that someone in RAF blue had slapped him in his pram, or that he’d been failed by OASC...

[RHINO]

Wait till he starts on the effectiveness of the RAF in Gulf War One.......

[T28B]

It would appear that his publisher finds that controversy sells more books.

[Just This Once...]

...and that his doctor thinks the local mental health services are already severely stretched.

[Archimedes]

Oh dear.

Well, we need to bear in mind that 21 of the 63 bombs delivered against Stanley weren’t aimed at the runway - they were meant to be airburst, but the old adage that the 90 way selector gave 89 opportunities to get something wrong kicked in, and they ended up impact-fused. Two of the four SEAD missions didn’t reach the islands (BB3 was cancelled and didn’t launch because of adverse headwinds and BB4 because one of the tankers’ HDUs went US and the refuelling plan was scuppered, leading to an air abort) so he’s twisting the figures again to suggest that a single radar was struck out of 4 sorties, when it in fact saw one radar struck out of two.

His claims about the Nimrod are quite untrue - while the files show a number of problems, he’s clearly not bothered to read them and is regurgitating the same inaccuracies about the Nimrod that he has been for the last ten years at least.

As I’ve said numerous times before, I yield to nobody in my admiration for him as the boss of 801 Sqn, or his development work on the SHAR before that - but his ludicrous attempts to reframe history based upon his perceptions and recollections, despite literally tons of evidence to the contrary is execrable and can only be regarded with dismay at best...

[MPN11]

Also, counting 1,000 lb bombs on Stanley, let’s not forget the psychological impact on those poor Argentinian conscripts in their tents. The craters from Martin Withers’ stick are still clearly visible on Google Earth.

[Trumpet trousers]

Wasn't this the same person, who IIRC, (according to Rowland White's book - Vulcan 607,) compromised COMSEC on BB1 by trying to contact the Vulcan? By all means have a different viewpoint on another Sevice's contribution, but to knowingly put that crew at risk is, at best, unprofessional to say the least. Clown.

[MPN11]

Having worn both shades of Blue, I do find this inter-Service rivalry rather sad. I thought we were all on the same side?

[Blue_Circle]

Also, counting 1,000 lb bombs on Stanley, let’s not forget the psychological impact on those poor Argentinian conscripts in their tents. The craters from Martin Withers’ stick are still clearly visible on Google Earth.
Blimey! So they are.

[Jackonicko]

Having worn both shades of Blue, I do find this inter-Service rivalry rather sad. I thought we were all on the same side?

Sharkey Ward would not agree.

[RHINO]

Mad, Sad or Bad.....take your pick...

[just another jocky]

Oh dear.


As I’ve said numerous times before, I yield to nobody in my admiration for him as the boss of 801 Sqn, or his development work on the SHAR before that - but his ludicrous attempts to reframe history based upon his perceptions and recollections, despite literally tons of evidence to the contrary is execrable and can only be regarded with dismay at best...

Totally agree, he did a hugely impressive job down there.
But since then, his rantings are not worthy of him and his slurs on the professionalism and sacrifices of so many, especially those no longer with us, make him a very sad figure.

[zomerkoning]

I never met the gentleman, nor do I particularly want to after hearing some of the stories here and from other people who actually know him.

Maybe he is annoyed about the new Harrier 809 book that is coming out (not to hijack the thread)

https://www.waterstones.com/book/harrier-809/rowland-white/9781787631588

Looking forward to reading that one, mostly because I have a family member who server on 809 NAS in the Falklands.

[air pig]

Looking at the link above, they need a number of pre-orders to actually publish the book, I doubt many here will be buying it.

[Jackonicko]

That's for Joe Coles' 'Hushkit' book, which will be an entertaining read, not for Nigel Ward's latest piece of self aggrandising apoplexy-inducing nonsense, and certainly not for Rowland White's superb Harrier 809, which I've read, and which is astonishingly good.

[fokker1000]

Now come on children, play nicely. Just think of your index linked pensions....
Now run along with you calculators.

[charliegolf]

So, for balance, are any fisheads stepping up to support Mr Ward?

[Vendee]

Ward claims that “all air to air kills by British forces since 1948 have been achieved by naval aircraft – not one by RAF aircraft.” That ignores the kills scored by RAF pilots in RN and USAF aircraft, not least one Flt Lt Dave Morgan – the leading scorer in the Falklands War.

Moreover he picks the 1948 date very carefully, as, on 22 May 1947, the RAF did shoot down four Egyptian fighters (Fg Off Cooper and Fg Off Bowie both shot down one REAF Spitfire each and Fg Off McElhaw got the other two), all while flying Spitfire XVIIIs with 208 Squadron).

Some reports suggest that the Tempests of No.6 Squadron downed an Israeli Spitfire. There are also persistent rumours that certain 208 Sqn pilots later extracted their revenge on the IAF by shooting down any IAF aircraft they later encountered, including a number of transport aircraft, and that this was subsequently hushed-up to avoid escalating the situation.

In Korea, a Flight of RN Sea Furies did down a MiG-15, while RAF pilots, including Sqn Ldr John Merrifield, Flt Lts John Nicholls, John Granville-White, RTF Dickinson, John Lovell got MiG kills while flying Sabres in Korea, with Nichols claiming a Mig on his 99th mission. Squadron Leader Graham Hulse got three kills in Korea. A further 4 kills were made by Canadian nationals who were still in the RAF and flying USAF Sabres in Korea.

Some sources also list Alan Jenkins, and Dennis Dunlop.



To be pedantically correct, the last RAF air to air kill was 25th May 1982 in RAFG. ;)

[cynicalint]

"In relation to the Falklands War, the Royal Navy made no big mistake."
Switching off air defence radar to make radio calls, failure to adjust EW database to recognise Exocet as hostile were obviously minor errors then, losing more than one ship and many lives.
I realise that this sounds awful; it is not aimed the RN, who were constrained by technical details, but to Ward himself.

[Georg1na]

"I never met the gentleman"

I have and he is not a gentleman..........................

[ozbiggles]

Did a RAF pilot sleep with his wife?

[FantomZorbin]

b****r! There goes another keyboard :D

[OvertHawk]

Mad, Sad or Bad.....take your pick...

I pick all three!

[charliegolf]

My slightly more serious hypothesis about Sharkey:

He's one of those people who is his job. His job is gone, both in SHAR and retirement/career terms, and he can't let it go. He was an accomplished, brave, committed fighter pilot who doesn't see the bigger picture- he was a big fish in a tiny pond locally; but (like everyone else here who served) only a little cog in the big scheme of things. That's demonstrated by his one-dimensional whining about the RAF/carriers/Navy etc.

CG

[Bob Viking]

I completely agree. His naivety and narrow outlook is astounding for someone who reached the rank of Commander.

BV

[Video Mixdown]

Seems particularly graceless in the week that hard work by RN and RAF personnel have seen QNLZ and her crew declared trained and safe to conduct carrier strike operations. Perhaps some (maybe understandable) bitterness that a world he once dominated now goes on without him?

[Trumpet trousers]

His naivety and narrow outlook is astounding for someone who reached the rank of Commander. ....and thereby, perhaps, is the clue. Was he prevented from going higher, where arguably he could have attempted to cause more sh*t-stirring? Or did he see the writing on the wall and leave? Either way, rather than reflecting on a worthy career and enjoying his retirement, he chooses to grind his axe ad infinitum... If he carries on, he'll end up as an incoherent, mumbling OAP sat in a corner and avoided by most people. Sad in a way, but it's his choice...

[esscee]

With a book on its way, then to some people any publicity is good for them.

[Legalapproach]

Ward claims that “all air to air kills by British forces since 1948 have been achieved by naval aircraft – not one by RAF aircraft

He must have forgotten about the Jaguar downed by an F4 in Germany

Sorry, Vendee just noticed you got there first!

[Asturias56]

Its all very very sad- someone coming across his mad raving & ranting now will just pigeon hole him forever as a bitter and twisted nut case. he was better than that once..............

[Jackonicko]

Its all very very sad- someone coming across his mad raving & ranting now will just pigeon hole him forever as a bitter and twisted nut case. he was better than that once..............

When was that? He was virulently and vituperatively anti-RAF (and anti-800, and anti-anything that wasn;t him or his) even before his first book.

[MPN11]

Let’s be a weeny bit fair. He’s not the only somewhat peculiar individual on the block.

Anyone here ever worked for/with AJCB? Or a few other rather strange personalities? At my retirement interview, taking redundancy, I mentioned a few to my AOC, who replied “Oh, you had drawn a few short straws”. I declined to mention he was on the list!

[megan]

he was better than that once.....Perhaps he found his Falkland experience later took a toll on his mental state, I wouldn't be so ready to judge too harshly, have seen it occur.

[The B Word]

he’d been failed by OASC

Yes, for not being handsome, witty and intelligent enough...obviously! They’ve all been hit with the ugly stick in the FAA :E

[ExAscoteer2]

WAFUs :rolleyes:

[Fareastdriver]

"All the air to air combat kills were achieved by naval aircraft (indeed, it is worthy of note that all air to air kills by British forces since 1948 have been achieved by naval aircraft – not one by RAF aircraft
Maybe the baddies were afraid to face RAF aircraft.

[Bill Macgillivray]

I was his QFI/Flt. Cdr. at Linton (JP's) in the late 60's when we had RN courses. He was the course leader (Lt. RN) and I found him one of the most competent students going ! What happened since then I have little idea, but did meet up again briefly in mid -70's at MOD, and he still seemed the same reasonable guy that I remembered. (Maybe it is my fault !!)

Bill

[BEagle]

Met him at Deci during ACMI. Seemed a reasonable chap, but he spun some yarn about RM (or Para?) having shot dead some mercenaries they discovered in some hut on the Falklands...

He didn't show any antipathy towards the RAF at the time.

[kghjfg]

If you ask the standard person on the street about the Falklands,
a) they’ll say that the Vulcan raid was the most important part of the air war. They’ll not even know there was more than 1.
b) they’ll say that the RAF Harriers were brilliant. (They’ll have no idea Fleet Air Arm exists, all flying things are RAF right?)
c) They’ll say we lost all those ships because the French gave the Argentinians the codes to launch Exocet.
(I’ve not even checked if it’s true, I’ve been told it so any times, I’ve presumed that’s how it was reported at the time)

Do a a straw poll of any friends who have not served and this will be what they say, I guarantee it!

i think that’s all Mr Ward is grumpy about.

[just another jocky]

i think that’s all Mr Ward is grumpy about.

That may all be true, but it's his attacks ON the RAF, not his disputes over who did what, that bring him so low in our eyes.

[FODPlod]

I can understand some cause for bitterness. Given that the RAF assumed the mantle of air defence of the Fleet following the decommissioning of HMS Ark Royal in 1979 and the cancellation of her replacement, CVA-01, something seems to have gone wrong during the Falklands conflict. That’s how many baffled South Atlantic Medal holders see it, anyway. Unlike Dunkirk, RAF fighter cover wasn’t merely operating out of sight of the dark blue jobs and PBI either.

The Harrier carriers were designed as platforms for ASW helicopters and one can only surmise how much worse things would have been without their lash-up conversion, albeit without AEW.

[megan]

Given that the RAF assumed the mantle of air defence of the FleetSimilar experience in Oz that caused some angst in the Navy. RAAF said they could do all the fleet work so the FW branch was folded and our A-4's sold to New Zealand, RAAF didn't have the ability to handle the work, so what to do? Get the Kiwis to base a flight of A-4's in Oz and pay them to do the job.

Was sent on a post cyclone rescue mission, RAAF Herc flew us and our two Navy Hueys to the site, where we were placed under RAAF operational control, two weeks and never turned a blade, all missions were flown by RAAF. Years later was on board a ship that visited the city and at the cockers p the Mayor mentioned that he wished there had been more helicopter support available in the cyclone aftermath. Interservice politics and rivalry, was ever thus.

[Whinging Tinny]

In the link below are a couple of extended podcasts done by the naval air history website on the Falklands Air War.

The first episode features Commander Tim Gedge (CO 809 NAS) and Commander Larry Jeram-Croft (Lynx pilot, HMS Andromeda) and their views of the campaign. It includes the 'sinking' of HMS Invincible on May 30th.

The 2nd episode is an updated interview with the man whom this thread is all about, his views of the war and the future of UK naval aviation. For the first 22 minutes, he gives a balanced view of all sides and then he's off like a Cheltenham Gold Cup runner. At the end he does makes a very good point about the upper echelons of the RN (Tim Gedge also alludes to some high up decisions in his chat as well).

Following on from his interview and post analysis is an interview with Eric 'Winkle' Brown from the late 70's. Makes for very interesting listening about his views also on the upper workings of the RN, naval air power and inter service rivalry. Where Commander Ward chomps at the bit, 'Winkle' Brown comes across like a stately school master.

https://navalairhistory.com/2017/07/12/falklands-air-war-aviation-xtended-podcasts/

[MG]

Sorry, I had to give up. He’s complete poison and contradicts himself when he talks about the RAF telling lies and then goes on to spout the very same himself. The sooner someone takes his internet away from him, the better. He risks being a danger to good inter-service relations. Fortunately, I think the 2 services are far wiser than that and see him for what he is, a bitter old man, but I fear the media (and parliament, potentially) are still prepared to give him the time of day.

[Asturias56]

"I fear the media (and parliament, potentially) are still prepared to give him the time of day"

he creates headline and division - what more could the media want? :(

[Hot 'n' High]

Sorry, I had to give up. He’s complete poison and contradicts himself when he talks about the RAF telling lies and then goes on to spout the very same himself. The sooner someone takes his internet away from him, the better. He risks being a danger to good inter-service relations. Fortunately, I think the 2 services are far wiser than that and see him for what he is, a bitter old man, but I fear the media (and parliament, potentially) are still prepared to give him the time of day.

Not condoning what he says. However, my view is that there is some truth in his overall concerns at the macro level. Re the highlighted, I'm ex-FAA who worked for/with the RAF on many occasions in my 30-odd years (even having an RAF Boss/2RO and 3RO at one point) and had RAF staff working for me. I always enjoyed the interaction and, at my level, it was a "common aim" - despite some (often humorous) misunderstandings of what the other really did at times - always sorted! Sea-going Ops were a bit of a mystery at times to my RAF colleagues ;)

At the higher "political" level, well, I was never too convinced how good inter-service relations were when it came down to things like splitting up the defence budget for example and all the horse-trading associated with that. Some was pure misunderstanding, but sometimes it seemed that the "tribal" element came to the fore - on all sides - certainly not the preserve of just one side or another (bringing the Pongoes into the mix as they were involved too). Some decisions such as the demise of JFH even took some of the Light Blue by surprise. That was an outcome widely discussed/predicted within the FAA when JFH was first set up.

As with all of this (and you think Industry is better? - seen some spectacular in-fighting and "empire builders" at work there while I worked outside!!!! :ok:) the truth is there but so clouded by spin/rumour/messdeck "dits", that it's hard to know what is what. Unfortunately, even within a single Service, there are "empires to be forged"/"Knighthoods to be won" - so even within a Service some decisions are, should we say, "interesting"! What helps no-one is when, seemingly in this case, it all turns into a bit of a rant.

Proof of all of this? Well, as in all such cases, so much is "smoke and mirrors" so who knows. It's like a family row between parents when you were a kid. You know that something is not quite right at the dinner table, but have no idea what it's all about and even less idea who may be in the right - if there is a "right". So, after 3 decades, that's the conclusion I reached in my own mind. I was lucky tho, my RAF colleagues were a great bunch and I had a good time .... and jointly we did a lot of good - well, I think so at any rate! But I could be biased!!!!! ;)

Just my view FWIW. H 'n' H

[Jackonicko]

If you ask the standard person on the street about the Falklands,
a) they’ll say that the Vulcan raid was the most important part of the air war. They’ll not even know there was more than 1.
b) they’ll say that the RAF Harriers were brilliant. (They’ll have no idea Fleet Air Arm exists, all flying things are RAF right?)
c) They’ll say we lost all those ships because the French gave the Argentinians the codes to launch Exocet.
(I’ve not even checked if it’s true, I’ve been told it so any times, I’ve presumed that’s how it was reported at the time)

Do a a straw poll of any friends who have not served and this will be what they say, I guarantee it!

i think that’s all Mr Ward is grumpy about.

This is an almost exact inversion of the truth, and your guarantee is worthless! My own straw poll indicates that:

Most people knew that we 'invited' the Argentine invasion when the Royal Navy withdrew "that ship" (Endurance). Which cost some MInisters their jobs. (Some said John Nott, some Lord Carrington)

They know that Mrs Thatcher then sent a task force, including aircraft carriers. These had fighters that were flown by the Navy. Some knew that they were Harriers/Sea Harriers.

No-one I spoke to thought that RAF pilots had been involved in flying off the carriers.

Some know that the RAF played a tiny part - some knew about Vulcan bombing raids.

All knew that we lost some ships, not all knew about Exocet, let alone that it was French.

So far from the public thinking that the RAF won the war, most don't even know that the RAF was involved, and those who do know that it was think that the part it played was unimportant and peripheral. Those who know about Black Buck tend to echo Ward's thoughts that it was an expensive, pointless failure, managing to put only a single bomb on target. The general impression was that it was a Navy 'show', together with some Paras, Royal Marines and the SAS who mopped up the last remnants of Argentine resistance

[esscee]

Maybe his nickname could be slightly changed to "snarky"?

[Trumpet trousers]

[QUOTE]Maybe his nickname could be slightly changed to "snarky"?/QUOTE]

Or even "mental", because coupled with his surname, that's where he should be

[ShyTorque]

One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard: "Holding onto anger is like holding onto a hot coal. The tighter you hold it, the more it burns you".

Life is too short.

[frodo_monkey]

Or even "mental", because coupled with his surname, that's where he should be

You’re probably not to know, but that was his son’s nickname who sadly passed away recently - ex Harrier pilot.

[MG]

Not n High, I completely agree with your words, there is still, and will always be, some really petty in-fighting in the services and in industry. That’s what happens when humans are involved. However, when listening to him, it’s always the fault of the RAF and the poor, bloody Navy is always on the receiving end. Just not true and it’s totally disingenuous to suggest so. It’s the total lack of balance, and the lack of any credit that annoys me.

[charliegolf]

Enlighten me... who was he slagging off in the podcast, for 'going after the Argy jets on the way out, not the way in, which is a bit late'? The 'other' fishead sqn? Wouldn't that be his job?

CG

[olster]

I don’t know the guy but I know people who do. I have read his book which is fascinating and certainly pulls no punches. However I think it is important to remember that he was / is an extremely courageous man ( as were his colleagues in the south Atlantic). I have a certain sympathy for him actually and I am surprised that there weren’t a plethora of DFCs etc for all the guys who flew combat down there in awful conditions.

[Hot 'n' High]

Not n High, I completely agree with your words, there is still, and will always be, some really petty in-fighting in the services and in industry. That’s what happens when humans are involved. However, when listening to him, it’s always the fault of the RAF and the poor, bloody Navy is always on the receiving end. Just not true and it’s totally disingenuous to suggest so. It’s the total lack of balance, and the lack of any credit that annoys me.

Not a weird case of mutual "back-scratching" MG, but I agree with you too! The problem is that people seem to forget that, if they invest too much hype to support a given viewpoint, it just detracts from the very argument they are trying to make to the point that even their potential supporters just distance themselves in case the grenade (or, is that, "when the grenade"?) goes off!

Maybe my use of the word "rant" was too understated (my apologies for that) but I really didn't want to get dragged into the detail of what is simply a "repeat" argument (Thinks, Monty Python has just sprung to mind - "Is this a 5 minute argument, Sir - or the full half hour?"). I've got windows to sand down and wood oil to apply. Far more important than dwelling on what most folk understand is "life" - us being humans one and all - and has been done to death countless times over the years.

As ever, Shy sums it up nicely in Post #50! All those who made the decisions in the 60/70/80/90's are gone (as in at least retired!) - the best we hope for is that the current generation of VSOs avoid the worst excesses of their, perhaps, less "balanced" forebearers and thus the UK can afford the most appropriate, well balanced, defence for the good of the nation. Sadly, MG, I think you and I will probably share a similar, somewhat pessimistic, view on the likelihood of that happening - but we will always live in hope! :ok:

Alas, my windows await my presence! :uhoh: H 'n' H is awayyyyyyyy! ;)

[Mogwi]

There were in fact 6 DSCs and 2 DFCs awarded to Sea Harrier/Harrier pilots as a result of actions during the conflict.

[olster]

There were in fact 6 DSCs and 2 DFCs awarded to Sea Harrier/Harrier pilots as a result of actions during the conflict.
All well deserved then Mogwi. I have read your book too, fantastic read. Well done.

[kghjfg]

Out of interest I’ve always wondered whether his assertion that he heard other aircraft co ordinating their aerobatics over the radio when they were meant to be flying CAP is true?

Is the general dismissing of his first book due to the fact that if true some of it is quite concerning?

[Jackonicko]

If Sharkey wrote it and it sounds like bollocks, then it's a safe bet that it is, in fact, bollocks.

[Archimedes]

Is the general dismissing of his first book due to the fact that if true some of it is quite concerning?

'If true' is the key bit there. The problem is that much of what he says is demonstrably not true (unless you want to get into some wild conspiracy theory that the RAF went around carefully rewriting loads of RN, Army, RAF, MoD and Cabinet documents now in the archives and brainwashed a not insignificant number of RAF and RN personnel whose memoirs [published and unpublished] and observations on PPrune(!) are thus inaccurate). He did have a point about some aspects, as noted up-thread, but this got lost in the polemic.

The fact that he turned into an appalling polemicist shouldn't obscure the fact that he and the Ppruners who were at the very sharp and pointy end of Corporate did an astounding job when called upon.

[ex-fast-jets]

I am not certain that he is a polemicist.

I do think that he is a fanatical believer in his own position which has coloured his judgement beyond reason and so he writes the irrational stuff that he writes.

No father should have to bury his son - especially one that he must have been immensely proud of - and rightly so - but his ramblings preceded that, so perhaps he can now not let go.

I make no excuse for him - but I do believe that his controversial positioning makes him vulnerable to logical criticism.

His activities during the Falklands were no "braver" than those of many others who received less recognition. I am not saying that he was not "brave" and a "good leader" - but there were many of those in all three Services.

In my opinion, he loses credibility for his own achievements by his continued ramblings.

I do not know - but I doubt that his son would have approved.

[Jackonicko]

His activities during the Falklands were no "braver" than those of many others who received less recognition. I am not saying that he was not "brave" and a "good leader" - but there were many of those in all three Services.

In my opinion, he loses credibility for his own achievements by his continued ramblings.

I think that his consistent sniping at anyone and everyone who wasn't 801 erodes the respect he would otherwise deserve.

[Asturias56]

I wonder if he's banned from his local pub (in normal times)? I can't bear to think what an evening there with him would be like...... and like Groundhog Day as well - over , and over, and over, and

[MAINJAFAD]

I can understand some cause for bitterness. Given that the RAF assumed the mantle of air defence of the Fleet following the decommissioning of HMS Ark Royal in 1979 and the cancellation of her replacement, CVA-01, something seems to have gone wrong during the Falklands conflict. That’s how many baffled South Atlantic Medal holders see it, anyway. Unlike Dunkirk, RAF fighter cover wasn’t merely operating out of sight of the dark blue jobs and PBI either.

The Harrier carriers were designed as platforms for ASW helicopters and one can only surmise how much worse things would have been without their lash-up conversion, albeit without AEW.

The Invincible class CVS was designed and built from the start of construction to be able to embark Harriers, the decision to proceed with V/STOL aircraft capability in the Ships design was actually made by Denis Healey in January 1970 . The original Naval Staff Requirement (NSR 6451) for the Sea Harrier was formally drafted in early 1972, before the construction of HMS Invincible was approved. The Aircraft turned out to be very close to what was proposed, bar the carriage of Anti Radiation Martel which was in the original draft of the NSR (which would have been a godsend in 1982). Defence Sales were in fact all for the aircraft being developed as they could see at least 5 other Navies being interested in buying a Maritime Harrier and its one of the major reasons that the project survived. (of those five, one actually bought it and another had its Air Forces decimated by it). Fun Fact, when the Navy were trying to push through the start of construction for Invincible in 1972 at the Chiefs of Staff Committee, they had suggested that operations in the South Atlantic were an ideal reason for the ship to be built. The main resistance to this idea came from the Army, not the RAF.