Sharkey shows his teeth
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo - I've edited my previous post.
I am not in a pissing contest here, just trying to dispel the notion that those in the falklands were any braver than those in any other theatre where the threat is genuine and where incoming is experienced.
I am not in a pissing contest here, just trying to dispel the notion that those in the falklands were any braver than those in any other theatre where the threat is genuine and where incoming is experienced.
I don't think that anyone would cast aspersions at Cdr Ward's record in the Falklands. He did damn well - apart from trying to call up the Black Buck Vulcan inbound to its target. Others perhaps deserved some...querying. Such as the pilot who hadn't boned up on the differences between GR3 and FRS1 weapons switchery, for example....
Read Mog's book - a much better all round read than Ward's.
However, I do think that there's a danger of military thinking becoming too sandaholic, thanks to the current north-west frontier conflict. Those who take their eye off the ball of world threats to concentrate on the north-west frontier need to heed the lessons of history.
And I wasn't overly impressed at all those Scuds in 1991 - you never knew what the next warhead might have contained. Patriot was far from achieving 100% PK against the wretched things.
I wish Cdr Ward all the best in his Caribbean idyll, but just ask that he gets his facts straight before bursting into print.
Read Mog's book - a much better all round read than Ward's.However, I do think that there's a danger of military thinking becoming too sandaholic, thanks to the current north-west frontier conflict. Those who take their eye off the ball of world threats to concentrate on the north-west frontier need to heed the lessons of history.
And I wasn't overly impressed at all those Scuds in 1991 - you never knew what the next warhead might have contained. Patriot was far from achieving 100% PK against the wretched things.
I wish Cdr Ward all the best in his Caribbean idyll, but just ask that he gets his facts straight before bursting into print.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by unchecked
I am not in a pissing contest here, just trying to dispel the notion that those in the falklands were any braver than those in any other theatre where the threat is genuine and where incoming is experienced.
I 100% agree with you and it insults the bravery of ALL our military to suggest that ANY generation is 'braver' then the current or previous generations. It's not your fault that you can write the history of the Royal Air Force on the back of a fag packet!
(humour)We all must surely defend the reputation of our relevant service and as I keep saying, folks have ever right to rebut what this person is saying and respect to you all for doing just that.
BEagle
I was not going to mention the
Originally Posted by BEagle
GR3 and FRS1 weapons switchery
I will have to try and make the effort to obtain a copy of Flt Lt Mortimer's
book and thank you for mentioning it.
Gentleman Aviator
However, I do think that there's a danger of military thinking becoming too sandaholic, thanks to the current north-west frontier conflict.
'Twas ever thus - we restructure to fight the last war we had. So now we are "sandaholic" - but with boots on the ground, so Libya took us by surprise...
So all the chat - including Mr Ward's - seems to be falling into the same trap. Leaving aside all the fast jet willy waving, whether true or not, the argument is that grey funnel line proper carriers would be really useful off Libya!
It's already been (more or less) agreed that CVSs wouldn't/couldn't/didn't help in Afghan - so why restructure to do another Op ELLAMY. Cos sure as God made little jump jets, that's the one thing we won't have to do next time.
Whilst I agree that with a suitable number of suitably protected CVSs, they are a good "club in the bag" of a balanced force structure, but only if we can afford them - which we probably can't. And if I can be excused sacrilege - same goes for Trident....
But one or two (CVS or bomber) is not much use, except to keep Call-Me-Dave on the Security Council as a Permanent Member....
They do say that in the recent Balkans unpleasantness, without the carrier Air Group in the Adriatic, there would not have been sufficient air defence ..... for the CVS......
We still need a proper policy led SDSR - which ain't rocket (or carrier!) science. It goes like this, between MoD, FO and Treasury, so listen in politicians.
MoD: What d'ye want us to be capable of?
FO: A, B, C, D, E and F.
Treasury: How much will that cost?
MoD: £X squillion.
Treasury: Can't have it.
MoD: What d'ye want us to be capable of?
FO: A, B, C, D and E.......
..... and repeat...... until Treasury will pay for FO's reduced requirement, which will probably be A and maybe some B.....
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As BEags said 'Mog's' I rather think he was talking about Dave Morgan's rather splendid book Hostile Skies. I don't think that Ian Mortimer has gone into print.
Thread Starter
Air Cdr Dai Whittingham (may be he is a lurker on these pages?)
rebuts Sharkey's assertion rather well in today's FT:
Air support draws on successful mix - FT.com
Sir, With reference to Commander Nigel D. MacCartan-Ward’s letter (June 30): it is unfortunate that he should offer his opinion on your views of the Harrier and the Libya campaign without getting his facts straight.
While I understand his desire to see the Harrier resurrected, his claim that it has “at least as good firepower as the Tornado” is simply wrong: it did not carry the same range of weapons, nor could it carry them as far as the Tornado.
However, his assertion that “land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions” is either disingenuous or, at best, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that modern air power is employed.
Close air support missions can be tasked for launch from ground alert, they can be planned to be airborne and ready for immediate response from a predetermined holding position – as is currently the case for Libya – or they can be switched in the air from other tasks such as attacks on pre-planned ground targets.
The coalition operation in Afghanistan very successfully employs the same mix of ground and air alert for close air support missions. Moreover, whether launched from a carrier or an airfield, all air missions are programmed in advance to ensure that aircraft, crew and weapons are ready for the task.
Cmdr Ward characterises the air planning process as an “appalling procedural practice” that places lives at risk in Libya and Afghanistan; he grossly misrepresents the facts.
Dai Whittingham,
Swindon, UK
Air Commodore, Royal Air Force (rtd)
rebuts Sharkey's assertion rather well in today's FT:
Air support draws on successful mix - FT.com
Sir, With reference to Commander Nigel D. MacCartan-Ward’s letter (June 30): it is unfortunate that he should offer his opinion on your views of the Harrier and the Libya campaign without getting his facts straight.
While I understand his desire to see the Harrier resurrected, his claim that it has “at least as good firepower as the Tornado” is simply wrong: it did not carry the same range of weapons, nor could it carry them as far as the Tornado.
However, his assertion that “land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions” is either disingenuous or, at best, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that modern air power is employed.
Close air support missions can be tasked for launch from ground alert, they can be planned to be airborne and ready for immediate response from a predetermined holding position – as is currently the case for Libya – or they can be switched in the air from other tasks such as attacks on pre-planned ground targets.
The coalition operation in Afghanistan very successfully employs the same mix of ground and air alert for close air support missions. Moreover, whether launched from a carrier or an airfield, all air missions are programmed in advance to ensure that aircraft, crew and weapons are ready for the task.
Cmdr Ward characterises the air planning process as an “appalling procedural practice” that places lives at risk in Libya and Afghanistan; he grossly misrepresents the facts.
Dai Whittingham,
Swindon, UK
Air Commodore, Royal Air Force (rtd)
They do say that in the recent Balkans unpleasantness, without the carrier Air Group in the Adriatic, there would not have been sufficient air defence ..... for the CVS......
Way off the mark there. I served at the CAOC in Italy during Deny Flight and can assure you that maritime platforms including the French were an integral part of the effort, with Sea Harriers not only flying CAP, but contributing to a significant amount of CAS and RECCE effort. As PART of the overall package, they were valuable especially during those times of the year when bases such as Aviano were fogged in and the only assets available were those in the Adriatic. Mostly conducted without the requirement for tanking as well.
I in no way devalue the contribution of land based air (who in the Balkans provided the overwhelming majority of assets) but as would be the case now off Libya, the provision of maritime air power would significantly enhance the overall effort and improve reaction times to specific events.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, his assertion that “land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions” is either disingenuous or, at best, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that modern air power is employed.
There is a World of difference between..
"Wing Commander I am planning an attack on a militant base next month. What notification would you like of time, date etc?"
Wing Commander, "If you could give me 24hrs notice then it will then allow me to make sure you can have all the air support we deem necessary"
As opposed to:
Royal Marine section under heavy attack..... 'Helppppppp! (bootneck speak for I need air support NOW!'
I am 100% positive that no one is going to say to put that request in writing and we will get back to you after we have finished the barbie!'
In a perfect World we would all like to plan our day but in a conflict situation then common sense must dictate that this will never be the case.
I guess it is human nature to believe a newspaper article that supports our point of view but trash anything that contradicts those very strong beliefs!
I have ALWAYS worked on the principal...
Journalist walks through door, truth flies out of window!
News might not sell a newspaper, but a controversial story definitely will.
Apologies to those journalists that frequent this location but we can all only reflect on our own experiences.
The Admiral. like Sharkey, rearranges the facts to suit his argument He refers to Sun Tzu and the confusion caused by the Three Kingdoms. The three he is comparing with are obviously the Army, Navy and Air Force. Sun Tzu may well have been a brilliant theorist on warfare in the 6th century BC but he would have not known about the Three Kingdoms as that period came some 800 years later, in 200 AD.
Glojo, are you suggesting that FT tweaked the letter just to provoke a reaction?? If that is the case, you can probably expect a further reply from the bloke whose name appears at the bottom of it. I don't think the journos (at least not at the reputable titles) can work that way.
The bearded one has got it wrong - others have written on this thread about the procedures in AFG, but the point about both carrier and land-based aviation having to plan ahead is well made. When someone calls for immediate air support, it can only come from something that is already airborne or fragged to do the job from ground (or deck!!) alert. When a troops in contact (TIC) happens, it becomes the highest priority for support across the AOR, but the previous sentence still applies, so there has to be a plan that puts the assets in place. You can have a jet that is ready to taxy 2 mins after crew-in, but if you have to fuel and arm it first while getting the crew from tent/hotel/bar (delete as reqd), the 2 mins counts for nothing. The same thing happens with the MERT - someone is tasked with being ready, they don't just wait for some poor sod to get hurt before trying to put a mission together.
The bearded one has got it wrong - others have written on this thread about the procedures in AFG, but the point about both carrier and land-based aviation having to plan ahead is well made. When someone calls for immediate air support, it can only come from something that is already airborne or fragged to do the job from ground (or deck!!) alert. When a troops in contact (TIC) happens, it becomes the highest priority for support across the AOR, but the previous sentence still applies, so there has to be a plan that puts the assets in place. You can have a jet that is ready to taxy 2 mins after crew-in, but if you have to fuel and arm it first while getting the crew from tent/hotel/bar (delete as reqd), the 2 mins counts for nothing. The same thing happens with the MERT - someone is tasked with being ready, they don't just wait for some poor sod to get hurt before trying to put a mission together.
The Admiral. like Sharkey, rearranges the facts to suit his argument He refers to Sun Tzu and the confusion caused by the Three Kingdoms. The three he is comparing with are obviously the Army, Navy and Air Force. Sun Tzu may well have been a brilliant theorist on warfare in the 6th century BC but he would have not known about the Three Kingdoms as that period came some 800 years later, in 200 AD.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
are you suggesting that FT tweaked the letter just to provoke a reaction?? If that is the case, you can probably expect a further reply from the bloke whose name appears at the bottom of it. I don't think the journos (at least not at the reputable titles) can work that way.
I do not really understand your question but we might be talking about apples and oranges.
I thought the retired Air Commodore wrote an excellent well worded response and would not criticise a single word he wrote but I stand by my post which has nothing to do with his response, it is the article he responds to that I am suggesting might not be an accurate representation of what was actually said or implied.
Are you trying to tell me that any service can offer instant support? My answer would be an honest no...
If the military want to mount a planned operation then it is simply good management to require notice for close air support for that planned mission.
Are you telling me that it would not be prudent to get this tasked as soon as is practical and definitely NO LATER than 24 hours prior to my mission. That is what I am saying and I firmly believe it is good management to say that prior notice ensures getting that cover.
I am NOT trying to have a dig at the excellent work being done by the RAF but I stand by every word regarding my opinion of journalists and if anyone wants to contact me regarding that then please feel free.
'Never let the truth spoil a good story'
The Three Kingdoms being refered to is the period after the Han dynasty where the then China was ruled by three quarrelling de facto emperors; Wei, Shu and Wu.
Nothing to do with 'We three kings of Orient are'.
Nothing to do with 'We three kings of Orient are'.
Originally Posted by Fareastdriver
The Three Kingdoms being refered to is the period after the Han dynasty where the then China was ruled by three quarrelling de facto emperors; Wei, Shu and Wu.
Nothing to do with 'We three kings of Orient are'.
Nothing to do with 'We three kings of Orient are'.
(Ignorance of these crucial facts makes the Admiral's case look sillier by the minute, doesn't it?)
Glojo, if you can't get to the original letter via the link at #15, the gist of the argument is at #27 and the actual situation is well explained at #28. The article that the Air Cdre responded to was clearly the letter that Ward had published on 30 Jun.
Yes, you can have instant response provided that your assets are airborne, which is expensive in terms of fuel, crew fatigue etc. Think back to the Battle of Britain, when the fighters were held on ground alert - they would simply have run out of steam if the required numbers were held on an airborne alert.
There is a process called cab-ranking, where you stack aircraft vertically and call them forwards for tasking as required, first man airborne goes first (weapons and location permitting), but that is very manpower and fuel-intensive and it only gets done when absolutely necessary. It is more efficient to hold the bulk of your support assets on ground alert, because you don't know exactly where they will be needed.
What Ward said in his letter to the FT was that ground-based fighters (the RAF) insist on having 24 hrs notice for a CAS task, implying that the Harrier/carrier combo doesn't need that and is therefore much better, ergo we should not have got rid of them. You will see on the other carrier threads that he is normally very selective in his choice of words and 'facts' to support his argument (eg sunk costs have to be considered for Typhoon but are irrelevant for a carrier). On this occasion he is talking nonsense - if you want to have a Harrier available at short notice, you have to have planned it ahead of time or it won't be there.
Please PM me if you would like a more detailed explanation about CAS.
ff
Yes, you can have instant response provided that your assets are airborne, which is expensive in terms of fuel, crew fatigue etc. Think back to the Battle of Britain, when the fighters were held on ground alert - they would simply have run out of steam if the required numbers were held on an airborne alert.
There is a process called cab-ranking, where you stack aircraft vertically and call them forwards for tasking as required, first man airborne goes first (weapons and location permitting), but that is very manpower and fuel-intensive and it only gets done when absolutely necessary. It is more efficient to hold the bulk of your support assets on ground alert, because you don't know exactly where they will be needed.
What Ward said in his letter to the FT was that ground-based fighters (the RAF) insist on having 24 hrs notice for a CAS task, implying that the Harrier/carrier combo doesn't need that and is therefore much better, ergo we should not have got rid of them. You will see on the other carrier threads that he is normally very selective in his choice of words and 'facts' to support his argument (eg sunk costs have to be considered for Typhoon but are irrelevant for a carrier). On this occasion he is talking nonsense - if you want to have a Harrier available at short notice, you have to have planned it ahead of time or it won't be there.
Please PM me if you would like a more detailed explanation about CAS.
ff