Another rant from the Bearded One

[Martin the Martian]

Watch out, chaps. Sharkey's got a new book out.

amazon.co.uk/dp/1631298674/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_rYvlFbYQZZT75?fbclid=IwAR3RjPZYOM5acQ64gka tkJdsS8HtVBHC32LttqR712gs617PMWhgOj7vP3U


This book relates the part played by Royal Navy Top Guns in defence of UK’s global National Interests since World War II. It is an intimate account of the author’s “technicolour” journey to Top Gun status, the fighter pilot élite of Britain’s armed forces, and provides insight into the real world behind the blockbuster movie.

It is about the attitude and making of a war-fighter.

Instructively, it then goes on to provide the unfortunate history of the recent decline of the UK’s Naval Service revealing misleading propaganda and untruths that have been used to fraudulently influence Ministers and the UK Government.

The two stories are interlinked through personal experience of

Phantom F-4K operations from the deck of HMS Ark Royal,
Nuclear Intelligence duties within NATO,
Running Sea Harrier development and production in the Ministry of Defence,
Successful air combat as “Mr Sea Harrier” during the Falklands War,
Internecine battles within the Ministry of Defence, Whitehall.

Major-General Julian Thompson CB OBE, Royal Marines: “Painstaking preparation of his Squadron, superlative personal flying skills, and a determination to engage the enemy more closely, made Sharkey Ward a fighter leader in the mould of Bader, Johnson, Ball, and others in the past”.

Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, Carrier Battle Group Commander: “If Sharkey Ward had not disobeyed orders, we could not have won the Falklands War”.

A Royal Navy Top Gun and Air Warfare Instructor, Sharkey was Senior Pilot of 892 Phantom F4-K Squadron in the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal during the Cold War. He personally introduced the Sea Harrier Fighter Aircraft to Naval Service, commanding the Intensive Flying Trials Unit 700A Squadron, 899 Headquarters Squadron and then 801 Front Line Squadron in the Falklands where he was Senior Sea Harrier advisor to the Command on all aspects of the fast jet air war. He flew over sixty war missions by day and night, achieved three air-to-air kills (& one damaged) and was involved in or witnessed eight further kills.

The chapter headings give a good idea of what to expect.

[ORAC]

Paperback £27.80?

Not so much non-put-downable as not-pick-up-able......

[BATCO]

I hope Sharkey appreciates being compared with "..Bader, Johnson, Ball,....." rather than inter alia Orr or Hay.

[Ken Scott]

I realise that he was a fighter pilot but it doesn’t sound like a modest and humble analysis of his own supreme brilliance.

[ex-fast-jets]

By quoting from his book, and discussing it/him, you are providing him with the oxygen he needs to breathe.

[Archimedes]

I hope Sharkey appreciates being compared with "..Bader, Johnson, Ball,....." rather than inter alia Orr or Hay.

You mean compared with men who've been described (respectively) on Pprune over the years as a brave but remarkably arrogant and deeply unpleasant man, a rather nasty piece of work and a bit of an anti-social weirdo?



[I appreciate that these might not be fair analyses of the trio and are open to debate, just noting that the assessments exist...]

[Coochycool]

Pretty odious individual by all accounts.

Not quite sure how you get through service life with such poor interpersonal skills.

Who were Orr and Hay?

[finestkind]

You mean compared with men who've been described (respectively) on Pprune over the years as a brave but remarkably arrogant and deeply unpleasant man, a rather nasty piece of work and a bit of an anti-social weirdo?



[I appreciate that these might not be fair analyses of the trio and are open to debate, just noting that the assessments exist...]Having read a bit about Bader and meet people that knew him to the extent of lived next to him etc he was not an overly pleasant individual. However in his defence having read what his second wife replied to an interview on Bader’s rudeness, it was that he was unaware of his abruptness or rudeness and would have been upset if thought so. A bit difficult to believe that someone somewhere had not pulled him up on this during his life. I guess you could say it’s a bit like the saying “when your dead you don’t know your dead, it’s those around you feel the pain. Which is the same as when you’re stupid you don’t know you are but those around you,,,,,,,,,,”

[Finningley Boy]

Never having come across Sharkey Ward or Douglas Bader, I feel certain I've met their characters before in uniform. They suffer fools lightly, are very sure of themselves and yes indeed, expect unquestioning obedience from their juniors but there isn't a rule or military order which they are not prepared to sweep aside. The other most prominent legend of the WWII RAF, Wg Cdr Guy Gibson, was, I have always read, a difficult individual to get to know. Rumours about his popularity with the ground crew were particularly notable, one chap who served alongside Gibson, can't recall in what capacity, but described Gibson as having been unpopular with those who didn't like the idea of being sent on regular PI exercises, such as cross-country runs or around the airfield. At the other extreme is one of the books in the 'Ghost Station' series by Bruce Barrymore Halpenny, an ex-Provost Marshal. Bruce suggests in one chapter that the loss of Gibson and his Navigator in the pathfinder Mosquito they flew over Holland on the night of 19 September 1944, was a result of sabotage by Gibson's ground crew? Err, I'm committing another thread drift crime, so I'll stop! Sharkey is in good company, RAF wise I suppose.

FB

PS Sabotage was unlikely as Gibson swapped aircraft at short notice, but without giving a reason why. The crew of the other aircraft were unhappy with being ordered to climb into the reserve aircraft which Gibson and his Nav were to have flown!?

[charliegolf]

Not quite sure how you get through service life with such poor interpersonal skills.



Stick the tw@t on a boat out the way.

CG

[AllTrimDoubt]

Still… he shot down the bad guys and not one of ours, eh?

[Archimedes]

Having read a bit about Bader and meet people that knew him to the extent of lived next to him etc he was not an overly pleasant individual. However in his defence having read what his second wife replied to an interview on Bader’s rudeness, it was that he was unaware of his abruptness or rudeness and would have been upset if thought so. A bit difficult to believe that someone somewhere had not pulled him up on this during his life. I guess you could say it’s a bit like the saying “when your dead you don’t know your dead, it’s those around you feel the pain. Which is the same as when you’re stupid you don’t know you are but those around you,,,,,,,,,,”

Indeed - I should perhaps not that I was simply attempting to observing that Julian Thompson's comparison wasn't necessarily as glowing as he might have thought - but didn't make the point clear.

[Asturias56]

"“If Sharkey Ward had not disobeyed orders, we could not have won the Falklands War”.

Really???? :rolleyes:

[Visitation]

Whilst acknowledging the flying skill of Ward, surely the real keys to the successful air campaign, were the AIM 9L and the positioning of a long-range radar and ELINT facilities in southern Chile to provide early warning of raids taking off from Argentina?

On the subject of Guy Gibson’s death, I have read that he was unfamiliar with the type of Mosquito he few that evening, but he rejected the offer of a quick brief from one of the other pilots on the various differences. The aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed probably because Gibson didn’t know how to locate and operate the fuel transfer switches located behind his seat.

[Auxtank]

"“If Sharkey Ward had not disobeyed orders, we could not have won the Falklands War”.

Really???? :rolleyes:

Yes, Asters. Agreed it doesn't look right but with Sandy having unfortunately died in 2013 he's scarcely in a position to confirm or deny if he said that.
Also, if you search that "quote" the only two references to it on the whole Internet are in. . .you guessed it;
This very Thread and an Amazon page selling his book.
Knowing the Bearded one - were I to order the book I'd need to add a hefty amount of salt to the order to have by my side whilst reading; my thought being that very many pinches would be required to be taken to make it palatable.

If that was really Sandy's mind - there'd be a few more than the two occasions it has been mentioned. I call Bearded Bollocks on that one.

[POBJOY]

This is the problem with any book with a particular theme, you have to make your own judgement on when it is getting 'away' from hard facts.
Comparing previous well know 'personalities' with present day individuals is also a sure fire way to cloud the issue as their own histories have indeed now been laid bare by intense scrutiny and the power of computer research, and not confirm popular hype of the time.
To gain a true insight of any situation or individual requires proper research, not gained by a couple of books. A good read should be entertaining and contain hard facts together with the writers OWN SLANT on the situation which may vary with other opinions. When I read Wards original missive I considered it informative and not lacking in non pc comments about anything. However he also readily recalls some of his less memorable mistakes like crashing his car whilst U T I which at least seemed to be honest. A reader has to be his own 'filter' in any book and this sometimes is as much entertainment as the book itself. Every person has 'their moment' if they choose to share that with others they do so knowing the feedback can be quite withering. I am sure SW cares not a hoot about what is said one way or another which is in itself probably why his latest missive will be 'entertaining', I may well grab a copy when it comes up on ABE at a sensible price in a couple of years.

[olster]

As a commercial pilot for many years I remain fascinated by all aspects of aviation including naval. I doubt whether I would have had the guts / ability to land an F4 onto a pitching Ark Royal. I have flown in the airline context with more than a few Falklands Harrier veterans and a very close friend of mine was on his F4 squadron. I have not heard any of them talk ill of him. What is it that attracts such animus and what character traits are optimum exactly when we ask people to go to war on behalf of squabbling politicians? Genuinely curious as an outsider so no flak please.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

WARNING! Thread drift!

On the subject of Guy Gibson’s death, I have read that he was unfamiliar with the type of Mosquito he few that evening, but he rejected the offer of a quick brief from one of the other pilots on the various differences. The aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed probably because Gibson didn’t know how to locate and operate the fuel transfer switches located behind his seat.For all his alleged personality faults, Gibson was acknowledged to be a first-class pilot, so I am not inclined to believe the fuel-mismanagement hypothesis. Consequently, I am more predisposed to support the more recent theory that he and Warwick were victims of a Friendly Fire incident involving the rear-gunner of a Lancaster returning from the ill-fated operation. (See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047476/Dambusters-legend-Guy-Gibson-shot-BRITISH-airman.html and before anyone castigates me for using a DM link/source this was covered in the ‘quality’ MSM too – I use the DM link as its not behind a paywall!).

Eye-witness reports from the locals at Steenbergen also described the Mosquito emerging from the cloud base ‘ablaze’ and in a steep dive, which would not support the ‘fuel starvation’ scenario. I understand that Luftwaffe records show that no night fighters were lost to enemy action that night in the vicinity of Steenbergen either, but the shoot-down in the area of Steenbergen was witnessed and reported by other Lancaster crews in the returning bomber stream. Finally, many gunners were trained on the maxim: “if an aircraft comes up behind you, count the number of engines. If its less than 4, OPEN FIRE!” Any gunner able to tell a JU 88 from a Mosquito in the split-seconds of a night engagement was a rare commodity indeed. That does not – by any means – imply any criticism whatsoever of Sgt McCormack or any of his colleagues whom I hold in the highest regard; fratricide is an unfortunate aspect of all conflicts.

[Asturias56]

As a commercial pilot for many years I remain fascinated by all aspects of aviation including naval. I doubt whether I would have had the guts / ability to land an F4 onto a pitching Ark Royal. I have flown in the airline context with more than a few Falklands Harrier veterans and a very close friend of mine was on his F4 squadron. I have not heard any of them talk ill of him. What is it that attracts such animus and what character traits are optimum exactly when we ask people to go to war on behalf of squabbling politicians? Genuinely curious as an outsider so no flak please.


I´ve never seen anyone on here get at Ward on grounds of his flying skill nor his bravery in the FI War. it´s his mono-maniacal belief (which seems to get worse with age) that

a) only the FAA were there,

b) everyone else is an idiot at best and a danger to The Nation at worst

There's no balance, no discussion, no........... sensibility......

[ExAscoteer2]

What is telling for me is that, if you read his Combat Report of the C-130 shoot down (and I did before I first deployed onto 1312 Flt), and then read the 801 NAS Official History, and then read his account in 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands', all 3 accounts differ.

[Auxtank]

I´ve never seen anyone on here get at Ward on grounds of his flying skill nor his bravery in the FI War. it´s his mono-maniacal belief (which seems to get worse with age) that

a) only the FAA were there,

b) everyone else is an idiot at best and a danger to The Nation at worst

There's no balance, no discussion, no........... sensibility......

Absolutely this.
His bravery and flying skills were above and beyond; taking on Daggers and Mirages, outnumbered 3:1

[just another jocky]

b) everyone else is an idiot at best and a danger to The Nation at worst


But specifically the RAF. He hates us with such a vengeance that it completely warps his viewpoint and thus makes it impossible to take him seriously. Even his own service folk disown his rantings and he seems only favoured by a few old mates.

Such a shame for one who was once so capable.

[Lonewolf_50]

What is it that attracts such animus I am going to guess that this sentiment is RAF-centric, and that the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) vets may be less likely to get all up in arms over whatever Ward sends forth. (Granted, he seems to have an ax to grind with the RAF).

[Auxtank]

Nobody who's seen action in either the RAF or FAA has any axe to grind with one another. Apart from a few beers being chucked in messes and a piano or two being mercilessly burned to the ground, a flag being snatched from the stern, there is only quiet camaraderie.
And those in the know don't need to give a monkey's anyway.

Let's get this straight; the man is trying to sell his books.

[POBJOY]

I am going to guess that this sentiment is RAF-centric, and that the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) vets may be less likely to get all up in arms over whatever Ward sends forth. (Granted, he seems to have an ax to grind with the RAF).

Except that he credits he RAF Harrier training scheme for training the SH pilots so well. I think his main beef is with the 'Political level Top Brass' not the drivers. He also seems to encompass the Navy system when he gets going. Lets face it, it does make for an 'entertaining' read' when you edit out the more extreme bits !!! Good value on ABE for a couuple of quid. He needs to drink more milk.

[Finningley Boy]

But specifically the RAF. He hates us with such a vengeance that it completely warps his viewpoint and thus makes it impossible to take him seriously. Even his own service folk disown his rantings and he seems only favoured by a few old mates.

Such a shame for one who was once so capable.
This is the Golden Jackpot question with Sharkey, where does his, and other service veterans', from outside the RAF, animosity hale from? I believe he did some training early on with the RAF and possibly the UAS? Did some miserable old sweat of a QFI give him a wrap over the knuckles unduly perhaps?

FB

[FODPlod]

I suspect his resentment stems mainly from the near demise of FAA fixed wing being predicated on the RAF being able to provided global air cover for the Fleet when quite clearly it couldn't/didn't, particularly during the nasty business involving the heavy loss of ships and sailors in 1982. Landing the odd bomb on the runway at Stanley provided little consolation.

[Finningley Boy]

I suspect his resentment stems mainly from the near demise of FAA fixed wing being predicated on the RAF being able to provided global air cover for the Fleet when quite clearly it couldn't/didn't, particularly during the nasty business involving the heavy loss of ships and sailors in 1982. Landing the odd bomb on the runway at Stanley provided little consolation.
Indeed FODPlod, in fact the RAF didn't get what it was angling for at the time which was for the Government to refrain from scrapping the F-111 and other bits and pieces. The defence review of 1966 was classic case of pitting each of the three services against one another, the idea being they would destroy each other's case, this ploy always works as governments do not hold any real brief for defence spending. This time around of course we have a government advisor at the helm! Incredible.

FB

[Asturias56]

It's his lack of balance that puts me off - - and he seems to get worse with age

It's very sad

[SOX80]

I have some sympathy for Sharkey Ward for the following reason:

His Son was a Navy Harrier pilot (and a very fine chap for those who knew him).
His Son effectively 'lost his job' when the Harrier was culled, a decision that many in the Navy blamed on the RAF.
His Son went on to fly for Jet 2 but took his own life on 15 Nov 2018.

I do not pretend to know the reasons behind this but as a father myself I can only imagine the effect that such an event would have on someone.

[charliegolf]

I have some sympathy for Sharkey Ward for the following reason:

His Son was a Navy Harrier pilot (and a very fine chap for those who knew him).
His Son effectively 'lost his job' when the Harrier was culled, a decision that many in the Navy blamed on the RAF.
His Son went on to fly for Jet 2 but took his own life on 15 Nov 2018.

I do not pretend to know the reasons behind this but as a father myself I can only imagine the effect that such an event would have on someone.

Very fair points, but Sharkey's anti-RAF rancour can be traced officially to his first book; and probably predates the Falklands War by years.

CG

[Bill Macgillivray]

Finningley Boy

I was Sharkey's QFI and Flt. Cdr. at Linton when we still did the basic flying training (JP 3&4) for the RN. He was a Lt. and thus the senior student and course leader. Never a problem - in fact he used to save me a lot of time and effort in the way he managed his course. A first class student who took any advice/critiscm as it was meant. A great guy in the late '60's certainly!

Bill

[FODPlod]

Very fair points, but Sharkey's anti-RAF rancour can be traced officially to his first book; and probably predates the Falklands War by years.
CG
Yes, possibly as far back as the 1966 Defence Review which saw the cancellation of CVA-01, the planned ‘full fat’ replacement for the RN’s rapidly ageing aircraft carriers, in favour of RAF global coverage. He had already joined the RN and this was just two years before he qualified as a fixed wing pilot. In his eyes, the losses of ships and sailors to aerial attack in the Falklands no doubt demonstrated the tragic folly of this decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Defence_White_Paper#Inter-Service_Rivalry_and_the_Defence_Budget

[Finningley Boy]

Finningley Boy

I was Sharkey's QFI and Flt. Cdr. at Linton when we still did the basic flying training (JP 3&4) for the RN. He was a Lt. and thus the senior student and course leader. Never a problem - in fact he used to save me a lot of time and effort in the way he managed his course. A first class student who took any advice/critiscm as it was meant. A great guy in the late '60's certainly!

Bill
Indeed Sir, I hope I didn't come across as overly flippant, I suspect as many are posting now that his enmity toward the light blue began during the inter-service conflict provoked by Healy's quest for heavy defence cuts to help pay for the planned expansion in public expenditure. The RAF's consolation prize, the F-111, for dipping out on the TSR2, was lost when the government did what they assured all they wouldn't do, devalue the pound. Aimed at improving export orders thus helping to balance the books, always a forlorn hope, instead achieved what was certain, a much less favourable exchange rate with the dollar price of an F-111 being much higher. Hence, the cancellation announced in January 1968. You'll of course recall the RAF abandoned Geilenkirchen at the same time, and after only just pulling out of our commitment to Aden. So there's the smoking gun for Sharkey's fury at the junior service.

FB

[alfred_the_great]

And whilst I bow to no-one in thinking Sharky has turned into a tiresome bore about this all, there is a small percentage of the RAF who continue behaviour that sustains the fires.

Only recently the (attempted) behaviours of a RAF 2* was enough for an Army 3* to give him a “cease and desist” order over his attitude to the F-35 programme*. That kind of thing poisons the well for everyone, but against that, said RAF 2* is reportedly loathed by most of his own Service and MoD MB...


*The individual concerned wasn’t in the F-35 programme BTW.

[Finningley Boy]

And whilst I bow to no-one in thinking Sharky has turned into a tiresome bore about this all, there is a small percentage of the RAF who continue behaviour that sustains the fires.

Only recently the (attempted) behaviours of a RAF 2* was enough for an Army 3* to give him a “cease and desist” order over his attitude to the F-35 programme*. That kind of thing poisons the well for everyone, but against that, said RAF 2* is reportedly loathed by most of his own Service and MoD MB...


*The individual concerned wasn’t in the F-35 programme BTW.
This isn't the F-35A versus the F-35B argument again is it? From the RAF perspective, the A is the only choice. For the Navy....

FB

[alfred_the_great]

This isn't the F-35A versus the F-35B argument again is it? From the RAF perspective, the A is the only choice. For the Navy....

FB

No, dickwaddery of the highest order about something else by someone sticking their oar in. Indeed, my understanding is that it pissed off the Lightning Force just as much as NCHQ.

And in all likelihood it was done deliberately just to muddy the waters...

[sandiego89]

What is telling for me is that, if you read his Combat Report of the C-130 shoot down (and I did before I first deployed onto 1312 Flt), and then read the 801 NAS Official History, and then read his account in 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands', all 3 accounts differ.

What is the gist of the 3 differing accounts? I have only read the one in Sea Harrier over the Falklands, which I seem to recall as a report from a ship of a blip on the radar screen, Sharky instantly turning to intercept, ID, AIM-9 and cannon fire. Thank you.

I did enjoy the book immensely by the way (and other books from those that were there). Each provides a unique perspective, and personalities and perceptions do creep more into some accounts more than others.

[Treble one]

Wasn't he on CAP when BB1 was inbound to the FI, and they (in the Vulcan) didn't acknowledge his greeting to them? Its surely not something a simple as that?

[Willard Whyte]

This isn't the F-35A versus the F-35B argument again is it? From the RAF perspective, the A is the only choice. For the Navy....

FB

... C

probably

[Finningley Boy]

... C

probably
Indeed Sir, indeed. I reckon we should treat the F-35 the same way we did the V-Force, have some of all three then see how we get on before deciding which is the best!

FB

[bridgets boy]

No, dickwaddery of the highest order about something else by someone sticking their oar in. Indeed, my understanding is that it pissed off the Lightning Force just as much as NCHQ.

And in all likelihood it was done deliberately just to muddy the waters...

This thread drift could have more mileage than the original story...

[Union Jack]

Finningley Boy

I was Sharkey's QFI and Flt. Cdr. at Linton when we still did the basic flying training (JP 3&4) for the RN. He was a Lt. and thus the senior student and course leader. Never a problem - in fact he used to save me a lot of time and effort in the way he managed his course. A first class student who took any advice/critiscm as it was meant. A great guy in the late '60's certainly!

Bill
VMT for such a measured and enlightening response - not so miserable....:ok:

Jack

[alfred_the_great]

This thread drift could have more mileage than the original story...

Not really - known toxic dick continues to be toxic dick.

[Archimedes]

This is an extract from some of Sharkey's contribution to the Select Committee Report on the Integrated Review:


Although the GR1/4 has been deployed in small numbers for combat operations over Iraq, Bosnia, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria, its track record has been less than remarkable – predominately achieving the destruction of pick-up trucks, mud huts and small groups of Jihadi fighters.
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 (Number of combat losses incorrect; BOI reports misrepresented; only one aircraft carrying JP233 lost. Apart from that...)
Tornado GR operations over Libya were conducted from UK, Italy and Cyprus with major tanker and logistic support at an estimated deployment cost of at least £1.4 billion. Effectiveness of ordnance delivered was limited. Storm Shadow deliveries suffered from misfires, guidance and warhead failures and were totally ineffective.
Similar non-cost-effective Tornado operations were conducted over Syria at an estimated cost of £4 billion for the first three years: roughly £1 million for each Jihadi reported killed
In Afghanistan, Tornado GR4 was significantly less effective than RN Fighter Wing and RAF Harrier squadrons that preceded it.

And,

Annex B: A List of Successful Combat Operations Associated with Each Group of Aircraft

Type: Tornado F1/F3 [sic]: Combat Achievement: None
Type: Tornado GR1/GR4. Combat Achievement: Iraq – Desert Storm. Eight aircraft lost with little return; Kosovo.Close Air Support of allied forces when weather permitted land-based flying; Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. Expensive and ineffective
Type: Nimrod MPA/MRA Combat Achievement: None
Type: Typhoon Combat Achievement: None (Fighter Escort for Tornados in Libya and Syria was against a non-existent air threat)


Having lit the blue touch paper, I shall now retire...

[Fareastdriver]

It just shows you how effective all these electronic gizmos and organised 'win win situation' battle plans work out.

[ivor toolbox]

His Son effectively 'lost his job' when the Harrier was culled, a decision that many in the Navy blamed on the RAF.


Except that Harrier was culled by the bean counters, when they worked out the true cost of Blair and Brown signing all maintenance and support over to BAe. It wasn't helped when BAe broke a few jets by mishandling them, and then under the contract terms, charged the Gov. for the repairs.

Ttfn

[SOX80]

Except that Harrier was culled by the bean counters, when they worked out the true cost of Blair and Brown signing all maintenance and support over to BAe. It wasn't helped when BAe broke a few jets by mishandling them, and then under the contract terms, charged the Gov. for the repairs.

Ttfn
No doubt, but I don't think Sharkey is one to let Truth get in the way of his tirade. He is one of those people, and there are many out there, who make up their mind on something and then look for evidence to back up their claims. He is getting to be in the same league as the Flat Earthers.

[Martin the Martian]

As I remarked in the previous thread concerning the committee report, I would like to think that one day an ex-Tornado pilot or nav or two might just take Mr. Sea Harrier to one side and explain a few facts of life to him.

The man is full of spite and bile.

[hoodie]

“If Sharkey Ward had not disobeyed orders, we could not have won the Falklands War”.
I've not seen it explained anywhere, so what were the actual orders he disobeyed and how did that mean the war was not lost?

[TEEEJ]

This is an extract from some of Sharkey's contribution to the Select Committee Report on the Integrated Review:

Annex B: A List of Successful Combat Operations Associated with Each Group of Aircraft

Type: Typhoon Combat Achievement: None (Fighter Escort for Tornados in Libya and Syria was against a non-existent air threat)



Just shows you that Sharkey wasn't really paying attention to ops in Libya and Syria. Typhoon was dropping bombs in Libya and Syria. For ops in Libya Typhoon was employing Enhanced Paveway II. Initially buddy designating with Tornado, but later self designating. Typhoon in Syria was using Paveway IV and Brimstone.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x600/ellamy9061104160075outfxfs_950963b7521c4d1a9d9e8c1d6f7045643 851aedb.jpg
A RAF Typhoon departs from Gioia del Colle, equipped with Enhanced Paveway II bombs, air to air missiles and a Litening pod in support of the UN sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya. 16 April 2011 Picture: Sergeant Pete Mobbs RAF, Crown Copyright/MOD 2011

[FODPlod]

Just shows you that Sharkey wasn't really paying attention to ops in Libya and Syria. Typhoon was dropping bombs in Libya and Syria. For ops in Libya Typhoon was employing Enhanced Paveway II. Initially buddy designating with Tornado, but later self designating. Typhoon in Syria was using Paveway IV and Brimstone.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x600/ellamy9061104160075outfxfs_950963b7521c4d1a9d9e8c1d6f7045643 851aedb.jpg
A RAF Typhoon departs from Gioia del Colle, equipped with Enhanced Paveway II bombs, air to air missiles and a Litening pod in support of the UN sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya. 16 April 2011 Picture: Sergeant Pete Mobbs RAF, Crown Copyright/MOD 2011
In fairness, how much air-to-air combat did those operations involve?

[Darvan]

In Sharkey’s Annex B that tries to summarise the success rate of each participating RAF aircraft in recent combat zones, he forgets to mention the RAF aircraft and aircrew in GW1 that, in the words of General Sir Peter de la Billiere, “Saved the reputation of the Royal Air Force”.

[Asturias56]

We've had this discussion before but I think its true that the RAF haven't been involved in any air-to-air combat (as opposed to strike) since 1945 - they weren't in Korea (tho some of the pilots were), Suez was a bit one sided................

[TEEEJ]

In fairness, how much air-to-air combat did those operations involve?

In Libya that would be zero. Just like Saddam Hussein in 2003 Gaddafi didn't challenge Coalition aircraft with fighters. Pretty pointless situation for the Libyan Air Force with the amount of assets enforcing the No-Fly Zone. It would have been a Turkey shoot. In Syria although their fighter force was active they never sought to directly challenge Coalition aircraft. It would have been a pointless task for the Syrians as they would only have depleted their inventory of types that they needed for bombing missions.

[Jackonicko]

We've had this discussion before but I think its true that the RAF haven't been involved in any air-to-air combat (as opposed to strike) since 1945 - they weren't in Korea (tho some of the pilots were), Suez was a bit one sided................

With Palestine, Korea and the Falklands, I believe that RAF pilots scored marginally more kills than RN pilots did. Not counting bombed MiGs taking off, Harriers, F-4s or manoeuvre kills in Indonesia.

[sycamore]

With Palestine, Korea and the Falklands, I believe that RAF pilots scored marginally more kills than RN pilots did. Not counting bombed MiGs taking off, Harriers, F-4s or manoeuvre kills in Indonesia.
Care to elaborate the ref. to Indonesia....?

[Marcantilan]

What is the gist of the 3 differing accounts? I have only read the one in Sea Harrier over the Falklands, which I seem to recall as a report from a ship of a blip on the radar screen, Sharky instantly turning to intercept, ID, AIM-9 and cannon fire. Thank you.

I did enjoy the book immensely by the way (and other books from those that were there). Each provides a unique perspective, and personalities and perceptions do creep more into some accounts more than others.

I have 801 NAS Report of Proceedings & Sharkey´s book and, a detail more or a detail less, both accounts are the same!

[MAINJAFAD]

I have 801 NAS Report of Proceedings & Sharkey´s book and, a detail more or a detail less, both accounts are the same!

Just out of interest how many Argentinian strike missions were aborted due to direct visual contact with a Sea Harrier or warnings from the Stanley Radars? (not counting successful / unsuccessful interceptions)

[Islandlad]

Just out of interest how many Argentinian strike missions were aborted due to direct visual contact with a Sea Harrier or warnings from the Stanley Radars? (not counting successful / unsuccessful interceptions)
Is it true that the Argentinean radar was allowed to keep radiating to ensure they knew the Sea Harriers were up?

As I remarked in the previous thread concerning the committee report, I would like to think that one day an ex-Tornado pilot or nav or two might just take Mr. Sea Harrier to one side and explain a few facts of life to him.
Plenty of them. Not a lot of noise. Maybe they would rather there was not a closer look into some of the events in GW1?

In Sharkey’s Annex B that tries to summarise the success rate of each participating RAF aircraft in recent combat zones, he forgets to mention the RAF aircraft and aircrew in GW1 that, in the words of General Sir Peter de la Billiere, “Saved the reputation of the Royal Air Force”.
That is not exactly high praise. Which war were the RAF described as "Utterly, utterly useless!"?

[MAINJAFAD]

That is not exactly high praise. Which war were the RAF described as "Utterly, utterly useless!"?

2006 / Afghanistan / aircraft type HARRIER!!!! Plus the Army major who said it had nothing but praise for the USAF.

https://raincoaster.com/2006/09/23/major-james-lodens-emails-the-raf-have-been-utterly-utterly-useless/

[bobward]

Having read most of the book, there are a couple of things i don't understand.
First, after the Falklands War, why didn't the RN 'management' publicise their successes?

Second, with the new carriers, they are committed to F35B only. They cannot operate any other type of fixed wing air. Why?

Third, if the MoD were hell-bent on F35B, why not have built Invincible class ships, instead of QE2 class? Surely they could have had many more of the smaller vessels, allowing
more control of sea lanes etc, than they could with a single QE2 class?

If a person with no military background, and a GCE in Geography, can see this, why can't our professional military?

(Apologies if I'm raking over previous questions on these issues)

[charliegolf]

If a person with no military background, and a GCE in Geography, can see this, why can't our professional military?

They probably can, but admirals don't get past spads. Told to me by someone 2-3 steps away from 1SL.

CG

[hulahoop7]

The Invincibles were too small for F35b. A cut and shut was considered, adding a section just ahead of the bridge. But this was thankfully ditched, for being expensive and offering little extra life.

In the end the offer from the treasury was for 2 larger to replace 3 smaller. If the RN had insisted on staying small, it would have just ended up with 2 smaller, far less effective ships. The size of the QEs was (sensibly) based on what was required to deliver a predetermined capability.

[Bengo]

If a person with no military background, and a GCE in Geography, can see this, why can't our professional military?

(Apologies if I'm raking over previous questions on these issues)


The through life cost of ships is mostly in the sailors. The capital cost is not that important and supports UK jobs, so is more palatable to Treasury.

3 new CVS would have consumed too many sailors. The QE'S were designed for low complements compared to other carriers. Hence things like the fancy weapon handling system.

Engines is the chap for F35B history, but at program inception the UK got onboard as a Tier1 partner because of BAe's expertise in STOVL, and RR experience with the sort of engine needed. The plan then was to operate the F35B from the Invincibles until the QE"s were ready.
The best laid plans....
N

[just another jocky]

Maybe they would rather there was not a closer look into some of the events in GW1?


Ok, I'll bite....meaning exactly what?

I was there and events have been analysed and discussed thoroughly numerous times. What do you have that is new or do you just enjoy trying to deflect by casting aspersions with no basis in fact I (a bit like Sharkey does)?

[POBJOY]

SW is akin to NF in that everyone can have their say against him, but lots of home truths come out in the process. Its a book, and this thread will ensure more copies are sold.
My opinion is that all military operations are basically always trying to cope with political overtones and equipment issues, however it does not take away anything from the 'people' who are tasked with carrying out these duties in demanding circumstances. The top end may well get wobbly, but the people at the sharp end always deliver as best they can. (just like 80 years ago)

[FODPlod]

...If a person with no military background, and a GCE in Geography, can see this, why can't our professional military?

(Apologies if I'm raking over previous questions on these issues)

Perhaps you are only seeing what you want to instead of all the evidence contradicting your 'vision'.

[Rheinstorff]

2006 / Afghanistan / aircraft type HARRIER!!!! Plus the Army major who said it had nothing but praise for the USAF.

https://raincoaster.com/2006/09/23/major-james-lodens-emails-the-raf-have-been-utterly-utterly-useless/

I love this one. Wasn’t he complaining about the female pilot and the guns pass, not recognising the RAF didn’t have female Harrier pilots in Theatre and the Harrier wasn’t fitted with a gun?

Isn’t he also the guy who later, as 2IC of 3 Para, turned the deploying battalion right out of Kandahar Airfield towards Pakistan rather left towards Kandahar / Helmand? Utterly useless indeed...:rolleyes:

[tucumseh]

To be fair to the 3 PARA major, he was writing only 2 weeks after the disgrace that was the Kajaki Dam incident. Wrong radios. No batteries. No CSAR. MoD's porkies. A Brigadier later taking it upon himself to personally reply to FoI questions, to ensure the truth about the batteries was known. And even then he didn't know the full story as he'd been lied to. The Major had every right to have a drip, but unfortunately very few know all the background and their aim is often off or they choose the wrong target.

[Just This Once...]

SW is akin to NF in that everyone can have their say against him, but lots of home truths come out in the process...

Ok POBJOY, find one home truth in his musing that you can personally back-up with that open mouth of yours.

[POBJOY]

Well JTO
He quite plainly credits the RAF with providing an excellent Harrier training regime for the Sea Harrier jockeys, and singles out various members as giving them an excellent introduction in to safe operations. That's a good start, even if it is only one of his less voluble 'trants'. He has written a book**, no one is forced to buy it and take an exam on the contents, it can be classed as entertainment, and judged against others that cover a similar subject.
** Now another one.

[Jackonicko]

Mr Ward makes Lewis Page look like a sane and balanced commentator.

[sycamore]

Jacko,see #58

[Davef68]

Having read most of the book, there are a couple of things i don't understand.
First, after the Falklands War, why didn't the RN 'management' publicise their successes?

Second, with the new carriers, they are committed to F35B only. They cannot operate any other type of fixed wing air. Why?


Numerous reasons, including the fact that studies (including of Falklands operations) indicated STOVL aircraft could operate in more sea states/weather conditions than their conventional cousins; cost of catapult and arrestor systems, bith in the initial decsion and in the reversion to STOVL following Cameron's change to CATOBAR in 2010, the fact that F-35 was originally intended as the harrier replacement (and managed to morph into the Tornado replacement)


Third, if the MoD were hell-bent on F35B, why not have built Invincible class ships, instead of QE2 class? Surely they could have had many more of the smaller vessels, allowing
more control of sea lanes etc, than they could with a single QE2 class?


The QE class are deisgned to replace both the Invincibles and HMS ocean, so they need to be big enough to have helo ops and troops on board as well as sustain fixed wing operations

[Islandlad]

Originally Posted by Islandlad
Maybe they would rather there was not a closer look into some of the events in GW1?

Ok, I'll bite....meaning exactly what?

I was there and events have been analysed and discussed thoroughly numerous times. What do you have that is new or do you just enjoy trying to deflect by casting aspersions with no basis in fact I (a bit like Sharkey does)?
It is a fair point. I did make the comment.

New? Nothing at all. It has been done before. But do you really want to bite? I'm sure you will get all hot and bothered about it. After it was all over and the numbers came out it was interesting reading. Just the numbers. It rather makes Sharkeys point. Answer me the following.

What % of aircraft did the RAF contribute?
What % of sorties did the RAF contribute?
What % of those combat aircraft were casualties (lost RAF combat aircraft excluding F3s)?
And why they were lost?
Would (political aside) it have made an atom of difference to the outcome of GW 1 if the RAF had not turned up at all?

Compare that to the Sharkey arguments and the FAA in the Falklands War if you want.

[pr00ne]

Islandlad,

It wouldn't have made an 'atoms difference' to the operational outcome of GW1 if ANY other force other than the US had turned up seeing as the massive mismatch in numbers and resources, and that includes the RN. The coalition was a political alliance and that was the importance. The US could have handled each and every single coalition military endeavour since 1945 entirely on their own if they wished, they chose not to, for political and cohesion reasons.

Your stab at the RAF does you no service whatsoever.

As to your questions, go to Google and find out for yourself, you may be a little surprised by THE FACTS as opposed to your obvious agenda.

[Jackonicko]

Jacko,see #58

There are persistent rumours of RAF Hunters scoring kills during the confrontation, with these being hushed up for political reasons.

Nonsense? Possibly. But they keep coming back.

[Evalu8ter]

Islandlad,
A few things to ponder. Firstly, the RAF contributed a significant proportion of the aircrew deployed on Corporate. Not only the GR3 and Chinook crews, but also a number of SHar pilots and RN rotary pilots (including one that later became CAS…). Add in the Vulcan/Tanking (whatever value you may or not perceive in that enterprise), MRR by both Victors and Nimrods, long range resupply of crucial parts/people to the TF via C-130 and a number of other more covert activities, it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could. Sharkey's myopic, misinformed, error strewn and clearly not proof-read paper would be comedic if it wasn't so supinely supported by the usual cohort of RN Grandees, most of whom likely still think the Navy won at Jutland and can't quite understand why 'shiny guns' are not as accurate as German ones….

[FODPlod]

Islandlad,
A few things to ponder. Firstly, the RAF contributed a significant proportion of the aircrew deployed on Corporate. Not only the GR3 and Chinook crews, but also a number of SHar pilots and RN rotary pilots (including one that later became CAS…). Add in the Vulcan/Tanking (whatever value you may or not perceive in that enterprise), MRR by both Victors and Nimrods, long range resupply of crucial parts/people to the TF via C-130 and a number of other more covert activities, it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could. Sharkey's myopic, misinformed, error strewn and clearly not proof-read paper would be comedic if it wasn't so supinely supported by the usual cohort of RN Grandees, most of whom likely still think the Navy won at Jutland and can't quite understand why 'shiny guns' are not as accurate as German ones….
Like it or not, the message is clear. If you want to be CAS or shoot down enemy aircraft in aerial combat, deploy to hot spots with the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm. :)

Incidentally, weren’t all but one of the Chinooks destroyed with the Atlantic Conveyor owing to the deplorable lack of air cover?

As someone who was seariding in HMS GLOUCESTER when she shot down the Iraqi ASM during GW1, I’m not sure I entirely agree with your synopsis about the efficacy of our ships.

[Ken Scott]

Like it or not, the message is clear. If you want to be CAS or shoot down enemy aircraft in aerial combat, deploy to hot spots with the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Tongue in cheek perhaps, but if the last Air-to-Air kill was in the Falklands War then several generations of fighter pilots in the FAA have had no more opportunity for aerial combat glory than their counterparts in the RAF.

[Asturias56]

To be fair the FI campaign really was very much a Navy/Army affair. The Navy remember were the people who convinced Thatcher the islands could be retaken and then more or less isolated them and managed to get the troops onshore. Once the troops were there ashore it wasn't going to end well for the Argentinians. The RAF weren't that involved in most of the critical actions although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets.

but then there have been other campaigns where the RAF have led the way - such as in the Middle East and the Navy have been doing logistics. That's why you have all three armed services.................

[FODPlod]

Islandlad,
...it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could….
P.S. The extent of your ignorance, not to mention arrogance, is breath-taking. Which other navy did the USA trust exclusively to alternate with their own ships as primary up-threat AD picket during GW1 and GW2?

Which navy was uniquely able and willing to take the lead in clearing the 1,300 mines laid by the Iraqis in the NPG during GW1 and open up the port of Umm Qasr for the seaborne delivery of humanitarian aid in GW2?

As you seem unaware, I’ll tell you. It was the ‘farcical’ Royal Navy in each of these cases.

[SLXOwft]

FODPlod - re Atlantic Conveyor and the lost 3 of 4 Chinooks and 5 of 6 Wessexes etc. I think it depends on your point of view. You pays your money etc.

Following the "Handbrake" broadcast from Exeter there was lots of chaff in the air and having been decoyed by Ambuscade's the missiles acquired AC which had no defensive measures or point defence armament other than machine guns. So it could be down to lack of defensive fit.
If Hermes had still had a catapult she could have carried Gannets so the threat would have been detected earlier and disposed of by SHAR. So it could be down to lack of AEW. (My particular belief)
Later on SHAR 2 with AMRAAM could have possibly taken out the missile. So perhaps inadequate contemporary AAM fit. (I'm assuming there would have been a standing patrol if such a fit was available)
I assume there was no intelligence on the departure of the Etendards from Rio Grande. The routing using AAR to approach from roughly north-west seems to have come as big surprise. So perhaps lack of adequate intelligence and threat perception led to the AC being in a vulnerable position and the asset, Brilliant, that had a system designed to take out similar ASMs not positioned on the correct threat axis and Coventry was no longer afloat to be the forward picket north of the FIs.
A general observation is that the bulk of the SAM fit of the fleet was obsolescent (Sea Dart (except perhaps on Exeter)) or obsolete (Sea Cat and Sea Slug).

I think "a deplorable lack of air cover" is excessively harsh. With adequate warning SHAR would probably have eliminated the threat or caused the COAN/CANA pilots to abort. (On reflection I may have taken your comment too seriously :O)

Apologies for the thread drift.

Regarding GWs1&2 my view is given the limitations of size and available equipment both the RAF and RN performed their assigned roles to the high standard one would expect

[air pig]

To be fair the FI campaign really was very much a Navy/Army affair. The Navy remember were the people who convinced Thatcher the islands could be retaken and then more or less isolated them and managed to get the troops onshore. Once the troops were there ashore it wasn't going to end well for the Argentinians. The RAF weren't that involved in most of the critical actions although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets.

but then there have been other campaigns where the RAF have led the way - such as in the Middle East and the Navy have been doing logistics. That's why you have all three armed services.................

I suggest that you read this book, fascinating.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1909716278/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[SLXOwft]

Asturias - you are not the first in underestimating the contribution of 1(F).

[Just This Once...]

Or the Victor Force doing long-range MRR so the fleet could have surface picture under EMCON.
Or the Hercules Force providing airdrop to the fleet of both stores and troops (and very nearly a gutsy raid on the mainland).
Or the Nimrod R1 providing ELINT and COMINT.
Or the Nimrod MR2 proving surface and sub-surface capability, both for the fleet and providing a problem up and down the Argentinean mainland.
Or the Victor Force providing AAR for all the above.
Or the SH force sailing south only to loose all-but-one aircraft to an Exocet.
... and so it goes on.

The Maritime component was the indeed the 'supported command' but it would be unwise to forget the 'supporting commands'. Nor should we forget the inviduals who volunteered from the RAF to support the RN directly, often with the briefest conversion to type and/or role. Remarkable courage.

[SLXOwft]

JTO - to me the Victor "virtual SR.2" flights, especially to South Georgia and the very long ferry flights in single-seat single-engined Harriers are remarkable and remarkably unsung feats of airmanship.

However, without wishing to be seen as Sharkey in disguise, I do feel that the feats of the crew(s) of ZA718 have greatly overshadowed the RW efforts of the CHF, 3CBAS, the AAC and the FAA ASW in the popular imagination (flown by pilots of whichever service) except perhaps the Bluff Cove rescuers.

Addenda:
1) My reference to 1(F) was to their direct support of the land campaign which seemed pertinent to Asturias's post.
2) Regarding the Argentinian AN/TPS-43 my understanding was that (apart from the spoof sites) the risk of civilian casualties was deemed to high for an air attack. I assume a ground forces attack was deemed impractical/suicidal. However, I read somewhere of GR3s being "hastily wired" to take Shrikes - can any of those PPruners directly involved enlighten us to how seriously this was taken?

[Georg1na]

"although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets."

No it did not! The runway was too short for fast jets.................also not one bomb hit it!!

[Ken Scott]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/271x169/a781b2fa_c81e_40c6_9321_d834b44d3fbc_fe0338459013332d6bc6beb a82b22d3fca3b1b81.gif

[taxydual]

"although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets."

No it did not! The runway was too short for fast jets.................also not one bomb hit it!!



Well.........There is photographic proof that one bomb, may have had some, perhaps, accidental meeting with the runway surface. To look at it another way, what would be the point in totally destroying a runway that one could possibly use at a later date? One bomb, well or accidentally placed, perhaps gave the opposition a 'Think Again' moment thus preventing FJ ops from Stanley. Even though the opposition were well atuned to using RHAGS and other Arrestor Gear. Either way, to be at the receiving end of a stick of 'big bangs' must have concentrated the opposition's minds somewhat.

[Fareastdriver]

Next time you are driving through town have a passenger with an egg. As you cross an intersection at normal town speed tell him to plant it on a white stop line as you pass it.

[LastStandards]

Having operated from Stanley's runway in the last year... The filled in craters are still visible. The closest struck on the side of the runway, a spot now used for engine checks etc by the resident FIGAS Islander fleet, but outside the bounds of the current licensed runway. It felt more than a little poignant to taxi onto the crater site and stop for final pre-flight preparations. Locals are still happy that one of the raids demolished a building they'd wanted rid of for a while!

Surely, as frequently cited, the main aim of BB was to prove the capability?

[chopper2004]

Couple of uncles on my old mans side served with the FAA during the Falklands, embarked both Invincible and Hermès. Anyhow regarding Desert Shield / Storm we didn’t reply any 9f the Invincible class with SHAR. Only offensive capability and good one was Lynx with Sea Skua scoring hits (I’ve got a copy of Weapons Free written by former SAS/MAS/PAS chief pilot about his adventures from recruiting office to the Arabian Gulf), Junglie Commando (including newly established Sqn) and maybe 3 BAS were around (?) .

What was the decision not to send Sharkey‘s old mob into Desert Storm was it one of the carriers under maintenance and other two different
parts often globe? I’m just chucking stuff into the wind here..

Post Storm, it was Op Provide Comfort and hardly finished cleaning thr desert sand off the Junglie Commandos of desert paint then they and 3 BAs got dispatched on Argus to protect the Kurds...

cheers

[Asturias56]

I suggest that you read this book, fascinating.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1909716278/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I have it - I referenced on here a month back on Nimrod ops -

YES the RAF made a contribution but it wasn't anywhere near as critical as the other two services in this war - other wars have been very different

BB meant that the Argentinean AF ops based in the islands were severely restricted - after all they had had enough time extend the runway if they'd got their act together

[wiggy]

The closest struck on the side of the runway, a spot now used for engine checks etc by the resident FIGAS Islander fleet, but outside the bounds of the current licensed runway.

It's (obviously) been a while but I vaguely recall you could get a bit of jolt from the remnants of that crater when operating off the "old" PSP set up that was in place late 82/83 etc..

[Georg1na]

This should put the cat amongst the crabs!!

[orca]

Fascinating thread.

To summarise - we all accept the Sharkey is ‘right if arc’ in his bitterness towards another service but it seems he is not alone in his readiness to criticise others based purely on the hue of their uniform. Anyone who has contributed such a view is the same as Sharkey - just a different shade of grey.

[Darvan]

So the next paper to be released by this team of charlatans will posit that Black Buck 5 did not temporarily suppress the TPS 43 by damaging its waveguide assembly and fracturing the cable that connected the antenna to the Ops caravan. Or that Black Buck 6 did not completely destroy a Skyguard radar unit resulting in 4 enemy fatalities.

[just another jocky]

Surely, as frequently cited, the main aim of BB was to prove the capability?

This!

Whether the bomb hit the runway (or not), it showed the Argentinian government that we had the capability to strike them anywhere, anytime.

Anything else just an inter-service pi**ing contest.

[Archimedes]

This should put the cat amongst the crabs!!

Not amongst any who've read the articles - with photos - which appear in various editions of the RE Journals from 1983 and 1984...

Certain former members of the naval service need to perhaps remember the line 'I beesech thee in bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken' in their increasingly bizarre attempts to downplay the Vulcan attacks. While there's no doubt that spotters magazines, some elements of the RAF (particularly post Sea Harrier Over the Falklands) and the Rowland White book attempted to spin the effects too far the other way, there's one critical point about the raids.

Which is that they did what Admirals Leach and Fieldhouse wanted, as the various Chief of Staff documents confirm. The raid against Stanley was being discussed even before the Argentine occupation forces were fully established ashore, and the Chief of the Air Staff spent a not insignificant period of the initial planning phase advocating that the Sea Harrier be used to attack the runway rather than Vulcans. It's all there in the files at Kew. Including the fact that the difficulty of cross-cutting the runway meant that the raids were to disrupt Argentine operations rather than to guarantee knocking the runway out. ACM Beetham made clear that he'd want at least 25 and 'preferably 50' attacks to guarantee that the runway was rendered incapable of further use by anything other than helicopters.

There is also evidence - from the Argentine side - that the crater was sufficient to ensure that the C-130 resupply flights had to arrive carrying a much lighter load lest they end up going through the makeshift repair to the crater. I forget the figure off the top of my head, but the air delivered logistic requirement was significantly higher than anything that the C-130s could practically manage after 1 May. Add to that the fact that supply by ship was rather curtailed because of concern that HMS Conqueror might quietly add to its tally and the combined effect - which was what the chiefs of staff were looking for - was significant.

Much of the debate is nothing more than inter-service back-biting and assertion and fails to stand up against the array of records that exist and which are now in the public domain.

[MG]

The Beardy One and and Ewan S-T will end their lives bitter that they have not got their way in getting the world to believe their own, narrow view of events nigh on 40 years ago. What they don’t Seem to realise is that the rest of us have only a passing interest and then get on with own own lives, content to not really care as much as they believe we should. It’s definitely their loss.

[SLXOwft]

I have deep respect for those dismissed as "charlatans" above but I think they are missing the point of BB and are being somewhat petty. Although the COAN/CANA had rejected use of Stanley following a survey, partly on the grounds of likely met conditions use in an emergency was always possible before BB1.

One night a departing C-130 clipped the BB crater and nearly didn't get airborne; it would appear MB-339 ops were impeded. I have always understood the aim was to undermine the runway so as long as it was in contact its exact point of impact was irrelevant.

This web page show repairs being made by 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers to some of the five craters including the BB1 one which was partly packed with oil filled drums
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/operation-black-buck/post-conflict-and-raf-stanley/

Darvan - just for clarity I was referring to a locally launched attack without using ARMs or LGBs. I appear to have found an answer to my own question in that the GR3 wiring on Hermes was completed on 12 June according to Ethell and Price, only two days before the Argentinian surrender.

[MAINJAFAD]

JTO - to me the Victor "virtual SR.2" flights, especially to South Georgia and the very long ferry flights in single-seat single-engined Harriers are remarkable and remarkably unsung feats of airmanship.

However, without wishing to be seen as Sharkey in disguise, I do feel that the feats of the crew(s) of ZA718 have greatly overshadowed the RW efforts of the CHF, 3CBAS, the AAC and the FAA ASW in the popular imagination (flown by pilots of whichever service) except perhaps the Bluff Cove rescuers.

Addenda:
1) My reference to 1(F) was to their direct support of the land campaign which seemed pertinent to Asturias's post.
2) Regarding the Argentinian AN/TPS-43 my understanding was that (apart from the spoof sites) the risk of civilian casualties was deemed to high for an air attack. I assume a ground forces attack was deemed impractical/suicidal. However, I read somewhere of GR3s being "hastily wired" to take Shrikes - can any of those PPruners directly involved enlighten us to how seriously this was taken?

Shrike Missiles were delivered to Hermes via C-130 airdrop. Mod kits were also produced for aircraft already deployed and sent down on air drops.

This Argentinian site covers the TPS-43F deployment to the Falkland and other aspects of its operation. Most of the stuff on it is in locked PDF format, so can't be cut and pasted for translation. There are diagrams showing its location (right on the south west edge of the town) and a strike plot of where the Shrikes impacted (both within 20-30 metres of the radar convoy).

Radar Malvinas (http://www.radarmalvinas.com.ar/index.html)

[Darvan]

I have a translation of the section on the Black Buck missions should anyone be interested in learning the truth about BB5 and 6 from the perspective of the Argentinian radar operators. Perhaps I will post/attach it here later on.

[MAINJAFAD]

I have a translation of the section on the Black Buck missions should anyone be interested in learning the truth about BB5 and 6 from the perspective of the Argentinian radar operators. Perhaps I will post/attach it here later on.

Please, though it will not I suspect, tell me anything I didn't already know from an internet conversation with Argentinian Army Officer on one of the forums who was down there with the TPS-44.

[Marcantilan]

Hello all,

I am aware of the current discussion about the runway. Quite an interesting topic. This is the report made by Grupo I Construcciones (I Group Eng) CO.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/517x336/sin_t_tulo_84a4e7e0feddbeef7bdc85d968844a916bda0310.jpg
He clearly reports, that, on 1 May 1982, the aerial bombing affected the paved runway and a bomb made a crater 18 meters in diameter and 6,8 meters deep. The crater was repaired and, also, the group constructed three simulated craters.

The runway was available until the last day, because: 1) the crater was filled and 2) the runway was wide enough and just one bomb impacted there. In fact, "the side effects" of BB1 were more interesting, damaging equipment, supplies and light airplanes. Of course, I regret the loss of life.

Regards to all,

[SLXOwft]

MAINJAFAD/Darvan I have been able to select and copy from a couple of the pdfs on the Radar site and have been using g@@g£3 translate as my Spanish is very basic.

It's interesting the radar unit were expecting a US aircraft as the delivery system if Shrike was used. Also they considered Martel might be used - I assume either on the basis of structural commonality with Sea Eagle (the SE development SHAR was the first to be shot down IIRC) or delivery by Nimrod?

Their preparations to counter a possible attack show a great deal of ingenuity. I'd be interested to know the actual targets of the Harriers they thought were possibly targeting them. Especially the alleged attack on the Stanley water supply.

Seems they thought some of the BB Vulcans were SHARs heading to their CAP stations so were slow to react.

I love the story of using the vibration of a fire extinguisher mounting to calculate the fall of shot from NGS ships.

38 years gone by and still learning new things.

Marcantilan - interesting post - "Three simulated craters were built on the main runway in order to deceive the Enemy Forces, before the possibility of reconnaissance" (my interpretation of his statement )

I am looking forward to reading your new book, disfruté leyendo el anterior.

[Georg1na]

What I think some of you are missing is the fact that all of us agree on the amazing logistical effort to achieve BB and skilled flying on the day. Quite amazing. What is not so good is the efforts by whomsoever in the RAF or RAF museum to alter the facts by doctoring the photographs taken at the time. It has happened before.

[MAINJAFAD]

MAINJAFAD/Darvan I have been able to select and copy from a couple of the pdfs on the Radar site and have been using g@@g£3 translate as my Spanish is very basic.

It's interesting the radar unit were expecting a US aircraft as the delivery system if Shrike was used. Also they considered Martel might be used - I assume either on the basis of structural commonality with Sea Eagle (the SE development SHAR was the first to be shot down IIRC) or delivery by Nimrod?

Their preparations to counter a possible attack show a great deal of ingenuity. I'd be interested to know the actual targets of the Harriers they thought were possibly targeting them. Especially the alleged attack on the Stanley water supply.

Seems they thought some of the BB Vulcans were SHARs heading to their CAP stations so were slow to react.

I love the story of using the vibration of a fire extinguisher mounting to calculate the fall of shot from NGS ships.

38 years gone by and still learning new things.

Marcantilan - interesting post - "Three simulated craters were built on the main runway in order to deceive the Enemy Forces, before the possibility of reconnaissance" (my interpretation of his statement ).

I am looking forward to reading your new book, disfruté leyendo el anterior.

AR Martel was one of the weapons specified in the NSR for the Sea Harrier when it was issued in 1971/72. Carriage trials were done with an early GR1 and a photo of those trials appeared in a copy of Janes All The Worlds Aircraft in 1976 (Photo in a book that you will find in any decent air force tacint cell).. There is also a photo of the missile hanging off an early GR3 kicking about as well. I suspect the requirement for the missile fit was somewhat delayed in 1972 because of some belt tightening done in the Long Term Costings for the Martel buy done by the Chiefs of Staff Committee, before full scale development of the aircraft was authorised and most likely chopped when Sea Eagle development was started.

https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/87349-impressive-weapons-load-2-again

However, a number of navies had shown interest in a Maritime Harrier in 1971 which was one of the main reasons full development in 1975. I suspect HSA put out documents stating AR Martel could be part of the final package if the customer wants it and can pay for it. One of the Navies Interested actually bought the SHAR, One was going to buy it along with a Carrier in 1982, which was cancelled and another had its Air forces trashed by it.

[Archimedes]

The allegedly doctored photograph appears in the 101 Squadron F540/F541 for the period Apr-Aug 1982. The file was assembled by the AHB in late 1982, with the photograph forming part of the annexes. Unless we are to believe that there was some post-facto disassembly and reassembly of the document prior to public release (which, given the position/tautness of the treasury tags holding it together would have damaged the originals) the photo must be pretty contemporaneous, and added for internal (at SECRET level) consumption.

In this photograph, which is, as far as can be ascertained, an original, the runway is neither (to quote from the Word document) fuzzy nor has it 'grown a new crater'. It is also singularly lacking the craters seen in the recce photo by Charlie Cantan taken after BB2. Furthermore, if as the Word document claims, Charlie Cantan's photo was the first one taken after BB1, how on earth could Admiral Woodward know on 2nd May what the initial photographs of the raid appeared to show?

I don't currently have access to the two RE Journal articles of which I was originally thinking, but in Maj-Gen GB Sinclair, Brigadier FG Barton & Lt LJ Kennedy, 'Military Engineering in the Falkland Islands 1982-83', Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers Pt 1, 1984, Vol 76. (Feb).'There was a single large crater on the runway caused by a 1,000lb bomb dropped by an RAF Vulcan... A plan was devised to repair the northern half of the runway first, thus avoiding the Vulcan crater in order that [RAF] Hercules could land as early as possible.... The northern half of the runway was repaired in three days and the first Hercules landed on 24 June right on schedule. The remaining repairs to the airport runway, including the large Vulcan crater, took longer...(pp.273-274)
Anyway, as these chaps only repaired the runway, their accounts are clearly unreliable. So, let's see what the Argentine BDA map has to say, shall we?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1504x1125/argentine_bda_map_9b0cc5b2b63d237dd58f3d78effb2334accdd518.j pg



Ah, pity. Someone appears to have erroneously put a blob almost in the middle of the runway and, worse yet, has recorded it as a bomb from a Vulcan. How careless of them. And strangely enough, it appears that at least one Argentine soldier seems to remember that the bomb hit the runway - not bang in the middle, but the argument began with the bomb not hitting the runway at all to then not hitting bang in the middle.

On 1 May (UK time), C-in-C Fleet gave a verbal sitrep to No.10 (PREM 19/623) which states: 'The Vulcan cratered the middle of the run-way [sic] and the Harriers cratered either end of it'. Since the RAF couldn't have provided doctored photos to Admiral Fieldhouse and the Vulcan crew had no idea where the bomb landed, do we perhaps think that there might have been some photo-imagery or other information which suggested a bomb had landed on or near the centre?

And then, the Chiefs of Staff meeting, 17 May 1982 (FCO 7/4474)There was considerable discussion about the exact state of Port Stanley airfield. DCDSI reported that the Vulcan raid landed one direct hit which had caused a crater of 50' in diameter. The raid on 4 May had scored no hits, but a subsequent raid by Sea Harriers had 'scarred' the runway. A further Sea Harrier attack on 16 May had caused one further crater. It appears, however, that the north edge of the runway is unharmed and that aircraft have a free run of 2000' and 1800' on either side of the main crater. [the one caused on 1 May]. This is adequate to allow a C-130 with a 12½ ton load to land and take off. No detailed information was available about the extent of damage... nor has there been any report as to where the other 1000lb bombs landed. The Chief of the Air Staff spoke very strongly about this, saying that he could not understand why photographic reconnaissance could not provide better information, and why repeated requests for information had received no reply.
So what we have is confusion over the amount of damage, but agreement from a variety of sources that the Vulcan did put a crater in the runway somewhere where it was perceived by intelligence sources, Argentine troops and the Royal Engineers who repaired the damn thing as being reasonably near to the middle.

Something may be being doctored here, but I'm beginning to think it's not the photograph.

[Mogwi]

Who cares? We won and the world (especially the USSR) was amazed.

mog

[Georg1na]

Mog - very true - but you did not fib about your amazing achievements. Did you!! ?

[MG]

Mog - very true - but you did not fib about your amazing achievements. Did you!! ?
Again, who cares? History is full of little fibs and none of them are ever going to be changed. Why try to prove a point that's unprovable? You'll drive yourself mad in doing so and the rest of the world will just get on with their lives without noticing.

[Ken Scott]

Who cares? We won and the world (especially the USSR) was amazed.

indeed, but sadly there are plenty who do care, care enough to persistently claim that BB 1 missed, that the RAF faked the photos as part of a wider argument that the service is ‘utterly, utterly useless’, write books and papers that make that claim at the time of a defence review with clear intent to try and undermine it.

A pity when those those of us who served in the years after the Falklands War know how much better a tri-service organisation works than one pitted against each other.

[MPN11]

WRT to the Vulcan crater, during my safe tour there as SATCO (’summer’ of ‘83, decidedly their winter!) the AM2 in the crater area had to be lifted to enable the RE to reinforce the substrate, as the planking had sunk slightly.

[Archimedes]

Who cares? We won and the world (especially the USSR) was amazed.

mog

You're quite right, of course, Mog.

The reason I respond to this is not, as might be thought, because of a desire to unthinkingly defend the light blue but because the last time this playground-level nonsense came up, it was seen within certain political circles as an unofficial, plausibly-deniable effort by the RN to 'win' the forthcoming defence review. And rather than help the RN, it caused the service some damage (source, university-era friend who er... was in a position to know how the government was thinking). This was why Admiral Zambellas invited those pushing these sorts of stories to shut up prior to the 2015 review.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

WRT to the Vulcan crater, during my safe tour there as SATCO (’summer’ of ‘83, decidedly their winter!) the AM2 in the crater area had to be lifted to enable the RE to reinforce the substrate, as the planking had sunk slightly.

That would have been the second time, then! The centre of the Vulcan crater - which I can confirm from personal inspection on numerous occasions - was offset to the south of the RW centreline, but with the peripheral edge of the damage 'circle' affecting the centreline significantly. At one point, whenever a F-4 took-off, the (very obvious and pronounced) lateral rocking caused as the aircraft traversed the damaged area frequently rendered the F-4's AI radar US, leaving said F-4 with only 4 x AIM-9s and the SUU-pod to fend off the potential incoming hordes; the first call when airborne being the brevity code for the equivalent of WWII's 'weapon bent'! Therefore, it caused us as much of a problem as it did the previous, short-term, tenants as the crater continually 'settled'.

Towards the end of '82 the RE's were tasked with pulling up the AM2 matting in the area of the crater, back-filling it and also addressing the issue of the AM2 matting 'walking' through predominant use of RW 26; details of this amusing little exercise I recorded in another thread. (Mil Aviation - Nimrod queries post #11)

[Tocsin]

Mog - very true - but you did not fib about your amazing achievements. Did you!! ?

FFS, stop your evidence-less sniping, refute the detailed information given above by Archimedes and others - or STFU

Clear enough?

[Georg1na]

In would never ever snipe at Mogs - He is a chum and it was lightly meant - as for you Toxin? Well that another matter entirely......................

[ex-fast-jets]

I refer you all to my previous post #5.........

By quoting from his book, and discussing it/him, you are providing him with the oxygen he needs to breathe.

This is supposed to be a network for Professional Pilots and their Professional supporting folk.

If you are in one of those categories, then great.

If you were there, then your opinion might be valid - if not, then you are just offering a speculative opinion.

If you are in the latter category, then please take your opinions elsewhere.

At working level, the RN and RAF have got on very well together to do the task that was/is necessary.

It is very unfortunate that some 40 years after the Falklands, we are still having to deal with irrational and deep rooted paranoia.

The current people that are having to get on with joint operations deserve better.

[TEEEJ]

"although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets."

No it did not! The runway was too short for fast jets.................also not one bomb hit it!!

One bomb did crater the runway. Argentine deception techniques made the crater appear larger for daylight photo-recce Harrier runs. Simple mud and earth ring on the runway gave the impression that the runway had suffered greater damage.

This crater caused problems with UK forces after the Argentine surrender. RAF News, April 26th 2002, has a piece from retired Air Commodore John Davis. Davis was the first commander of the operations wing at RAF Stanley. In relation to the runway crater from the first Black Buck mission Davis wrote "This rogue crater required a succession of repairs amid what soon became high intensity air operations."

[just another jocky]

Seems to me that most of the current/ex-RN/RAF on here agree that the Falklands War was more a Navy Op than a RAF Op, whereas GW1/2 were more an RAF Op than a Navy Op.

No surprise there as we all actually do Joint Ops quite well.

Then there's trolls trying to do what they do....troll.

[MPN11]

ummm ... yes, and it was almost ever thus.

Although Wellington in the Peninsula War managed to keep the Navy on-side, thus ensuring his logistics chain. They didn’t get much credit for that, but made a vital contribution to the whole. Isn’t that what All-Arms battles, and Combined Forces, is all about ... instead of infantile single-Service willy-waving?

[just another jocky]

ummm ... yes, and it was almost ever thus.

Although Wellington in the Peninsula War managed to keep the Navy on-side, thus ensuring his logistics chain. They didn’t get much credit for that, but made a vital contribution to the whole. Isn’t that what All-Arms battles, and Combined Forces, is all about ... instead of infantile single-Service willy-waving?
A point all those currently serving know very well!