Cdr 'Sharkey'Ward RN
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was thinking of Allison-built Merlins
A little more respect please Brick, lets remember who put up the brass to have the 51 (Maytag Messerschmitt) designed, built etc etc
"Hence both the skipper and CAG are aviators. I believe that the XO is normally a boat-driver who can deal with the "wet" issues on the skippers behalf"
Perhaps at one time this was true in the USN, but not now. Some CVN skippers aren't even pilots but Naval Flight Officers. All the XO's are brown shoe types-air wingers.
Perhaps at one time this was true in the USN, but not now. Some CVN skippers aren't even pilots but Naval Flight Officers. All the XO's are brown shoe types-air wingers.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oxford
Age: 49
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd hardly say I'm sitting on the fence! Cmdr Ward is obviously a fantastic pilot, but the whole book might just as well be titled, "How I won the war". Everything he does is fantastic, anything others do is rubbish. I will give him credit for always looking to better his fighter pilot skills and learning from others. However, he just speaks such cr*p. Talk about the SHAR bettering the F15, sorting out errant colleagues with knifes at dawn style air combat, "the boys in blue", "The lines of strain...but the eyes tell a different story!", etc, etc.
Once I decided to laugh at him, rather than be annoyed at his arrogance, I actually enjoyed the book a lot more.
Once I decided to laugh at him, rather than be annoyed at his arrogance, I actually enjoyed the book a lot more.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi,
Blimey,seem to have stirred up a hornet nest with this one.The chap clearly has strong views.......At the risk of getting shot down I would think his views on the vulcan raids were right.It seemed to take a truck load of fuel to do very little although I guess the pschological warfare aspect may have been useful.
Not a pop at the RAF,but if his figures are correct I think he said the navy could have lobbed 1200 bombs on the airport for the amount of fuel used.
I don't like the way he constantly slagged off his fellow FAA SH squadron though, you would have thought they would have had a more harmonious union.
Blimey,seem to have stirred up a hornet nest with this one.The chap clearly has strong views.......At the risk of getting shot down I would think his views on the vulcan raids were right.It seemed to take a truck load of fuel to do very little although I guess the pschological warfare aspect may have been useful.
Not a pop at the RAF,but if his figures are correct I think he said the navy could have lobbed 1200 bombs on the airport for the amount of fuel used.
I don't like the way he constantly slagged off his fellow FAA SH squadron though, you would have thought they would have had a more harmonious union.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk to SHARS
I thought the Vulcan argument was one of his weakest. Who gives a toss about fuel! Christ we were at war. What was he.. some kind of eco pilot or something?
To get the desired effect a hand full of SHARs would have needed to fly in at a very compromising altitude. Unfortunately we could afford to loose a Vulcan, but we needed everyone of those seajets.
Great man though... and there is plenty of good criticism in the book too.
To get the desired effect a hand full of SHARs would have needed to fly in at a very compromising altitude. Unfortunately we could afford to loose a Vulcan, but we needed everyone of those seajets.
Great man though... and there is plenty of good criticism in the book too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, I imagine the MOD would 'give a toss about fuel' because those missions can't have been cheap.
its all about whether the end result justifies the expenditure - I'm not sure in this case it did.
Anyway before this thread creaps too much...thanks to those who answered the original question.The old chap (love him or hate him) is alive and well and flogging experiences on an island.Good luck to him.
its all about whether the end result justifies the expenditure - I'm not sure in this case it did.
Anyway before this thread creaps too much...thanks to those who answered the original question.The old chap (love him or hate him) is alive and well and flogging experiences on an island.Good luck to him.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, fade to grey, that cost is not such a great consideration in war. You use what you have because that is why you have it.
The enemy at the receiving end of a very expensive weapon is not greatly concerned what you paid for it.
Cost only really counts when one is trying to persuade the government to buy it in the first place.
The Vulcan achieved much for the price of the fuel. The Argies were not in the least worried that Sharkey might attack their mainland - they were worried after the first Vulcan raid and that diluted their efforts against the allied invasion force.
The enemy at the receiving end of a very expensive weapon is not greatly concerned what you paid for it.
Cost only really counts when one is trying to persuade the government to buy it in the first place.
The Vulcan achieved much for the price of the fuel. The Argies were not in the least worried that Sharkey might attack their mainland - they were worried after the first Vulcan raid and that diluted their efforts against the allied invasion force.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I imagine the MOD would 'give a toss about fuel' because those missions can't have been cheap.
its all about whether the end result justifies the expenditure - I'm not sure in this case it did
What a load of arse. I can just imagine the outrage if someone stood up and said, "We succumb to aggression because it might be a bit expensive to fight for what's right."
its all about whether the end result justifies the expenditure - I'm not sure in this case it did
What a load of arse. I can just imagine the outrage if someone stood up and said, "We succumb to aggression because it might be a bit expensive to fight for what's right."
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: All over the place
Age: 51
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar...........
The other thing that stood out for me from reading Ward's book was the apparently completely different opinion of the SHARS radar kit held by the squadrons in theatre. I still can't quite work out how it was that Ward and his boys thought it was so good in comparison to the guys on the other squadron? Almost as if they were flying a different aircraft at times.
"The old chap (love him or hate him) is alive and well and flogging experiences on an island ...."
.... laughing all the way to the bank as he reads this thread (which he could well draw on for his next book)!
Jack
.... laughing all the way to the bank as he reads this thread (which he could well draw on for his next book)!
Jack
fade to grey - the Vulcan raid has been discussed at length several times on Pprune. Somewhere - and I'm afraid I've not the time to find it at the moment - on one of the threads, I posted the observations of Admiral Woodward about Blackbuck, and the rationale behind the attacks as given by MRAF Beetham (CAS in 82).
Admiral Woodward, and Admirals Lewin, Fieldhouse and Leach were all keen on the possible psychological effect that such attacks might have on the Argentine junta and thought it well worth the fuel.
Before BLACKBUCK 1, CAS told the war cabinet that he would need at least 25 Vulcan sorties to shut the runway at Stanley, and would prefer to use 50 - nevertheless, it was thought that the attack was worth it, even if it was known that the chances of shutting the runway with one or two attacks were negligible.
Admiral Woodward, and Admirals Lewin, Fieldhouse and Leach were all keen on the possible psychological effect that such attacks might have on the Argentine junta and thought it well worth the fuel.
Before BLACKBUCK 1, CAS told the war cabinet that he would need at least 25 Vulcan sorties to shut the runway at Stanley, and would prefer to use 50 - nevertheless, it was thought that the attack was worth it, even if it was known that the chances of shutting the runway with one or two attacks were negligible.
Guest
Posts: n/a
fair enough ,that puts a different spin on it all,if it was made clear to the government just what would be the end result.
As I am aware, the government made it clear it would be prepared to put a polaris on buenos aires if it didn't go our way,
Passpartout, I'm not getting into a fight on this...but i don't think a crater on the runway was necessarily the way to counter this.
Oh sod it ,yes I am...if you are french you should be ashamed of flogging the exocets to them in the first place
As I am aware, the government made it clear it would be prepared to put a polaris on buenos aires if it didn't go our way,
Passpartout, I'm not getting into a fight on this...but i don't think a crater on the runway was necessarily the way to counter this.
Oh sod it ,yes I am...if you are french you should be ashamed of flogging the exocets to them in the first place
I do not wish to get involved in an argument, but I wonder if the difference between the 800 and 801 in their attitudes to radar had something to do with the reduction in air defence skill levels as the Fleet Air Arm was run down in the 1970s. Did all the pilots have experience in using the radar? I believe some sets of Blue Fox were delivered on the way South. That might explain it.
Also, the FAA run down may have meant that the Flag (Woodward) and his staff lacked experience of using a fighter as a task force weapon?
Both these things (which some of us expressed concerns about for the next few years in between Sea Jet and CVF/F35) may have been a source of great frustration for him, particularly since he bore much of the responsibility for development of the Sea Harrier.
Just my theory, of course.
Also, the FAA run down may have meant that the Flag (Woodward) and his staff lacked experience of using a fighter as a task force weapon?
Both these things (which some of us expressed concerns about for the next few years in between Sea Jet and CVF/F35) may have been a source of great frustration for him, particularly since he bore much of the responsibility for development of the Sea Harrier.
Just my theory, of course.