Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Does Commander Ward post on pprune? I wonder what he thinks of some of the posts. Ordinarily, I would feel far from qualified to tackle his opinions, and take my lead, I must confess, from the more qualified on here. But even pushing that aside for a while, I do believe the promotion of the Harrier from Sharkey and WEBF and so, are very clearly aimed at claiming the R.A.F's original first and foremost role as an R.N. responsibility. That of offensive air.
FB
FB
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, that Sharkey, what a tw@t!
I mean, who is he to disagree with the RAF-centric collection of spec aircrew Flt Lts/blanket stackers/flightsim heroes and aging cold warriors that mostly make up Pprunes military forum?
He just can't comprehend that his experience pales into insignificance compared to the weight of experience of talking about war on Pprune.
What does he know after all, with his DSC AFC etc?
He seems to think that just because he has personaly shot down 3 aircraft and the whole RAF has failed to shoot down 1 since WW2, this entitles him to the courtesy of respecting his valid opinion!
Next he will start to suggest that his time as boss of a sqn at war gives him a useful insight into such matters.
It's no wonder that everyone on here slags off the decorated war hero Sharkey from behind the cloak of annonymity of the internet.
He has it coming.
As I said.
What a tw@t............
I mean, who is he to disagree with the RAF-centric collection of spec aircrew Flt Lts/blanket stackers/flightsim heroes and aging cold warriors that mostly make up Pprunes military forum?
He just can't comprehend that his experience pales into insignificance compared to the weight of experience of talking about war on Pprune.
What does he know after all, with his DSC AFC etc?
He seems to think that just because he has personaly shot down 3 aircraft and the whole RAF has failed to shoot down 1 since WW2, this entitles him to the courtesy of respecting his valid opinion!
Next he will start to suggest that his time as boss of a sqn at war gives him a useful insight into such matters.
It's no wonder that everyone on here slags off the decorated war hero Sharkey from behind the cloak of annonymity of the internet.
He has it coming.
As I said.
What a tw@t............
Calm down Tourist old Plum, as you'll note from my earlier post, I'm quite uncomfortable challenging Sharkey's opinion on anything of this nature.
But where I do feel there is room for counter comment is the possibility that Sharkey Ward's position about retaining Harriers over Tornados is more Dark Blue versus Light Blue rather than putting an objective case based on experience. I honestly don't believe he is being entirely unbiased. As has also been said earlier, the more realistic logic would surely have been for the Navy to retain its Sea Harriers, that way they would have a fleet fighter defence capability. For the answer to that, one needs to wind the tape back to the early half of the last decade and the carry on at that time with "Buff" Hoon as Defence Secretary and Broon at the Exchequer. We should still, so I imagine, be flying Nimrods or a replacement MPA, but alas there goes another long term "capability gap" an expression we never used to hear really. Again though, if the Harriers had survived and the entire GR4 Force had bitten the dust, it would have left the R.A.F. one small nudge away from the precipice of oblivion. Only 4 fixed wing combat squadrons. Never heard of the like!
FB
But where I do feel there is room for counter comment is the possibility that Sharkey Ward's position about retaining Harriers over Tornados is more Dark Blue versus Light Blue rather than putting an objective case based on experience. I honestly don't believe he is being entirely unbiased. As has also been said earlier, the more realistic logic would surely have been for the Navy to retain its Sea Harriers, that way they would have a fleet fighter defence capability. For the answer to that, one needs to wind the tape back to the early half of the last decade and the carry on at that time with "Buff" Hoon as Defence Secretary and Broon at the Exchequer. We should still, so I imagine, be flying Nimrods or a replacement MPA, but alas there goes another long term "capability gap" an expression we never used to hear really. Again though, if the Harriers had survived and the entire GR4 Force had bitten the dust, it would have left the R.A.F. one small nudge away from the precipice of oblivion. Only 4 fixed wing combat squadrons. Never heard of the like!
FB
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, just because you have served with distinction, and have been rightly decorated, does not give you the right to spout lies and bull dressed up as fact in order to push a retrograde agenda.
I don't say this lightly or flippantly, but Hitler had an Iron Cross for valour, look how that turned out. My point is made.
And I am not one of those you listed and am extremely qualified to comment.
TTH
I don't say this lightly or flippantly, but Hitler had an Iron Cross for valour, look how that turned out. My point is made.
And I am not one of those you listed and am extremely qualified to comment.
TTH
Tourist.....I can understand your sarcasm; disparaging someone with Cdr Ward's achievements and experience seems very wrong.
However comma! I have read his blog, and also his book on the Falklands. Both display a clear, deep and almost pathological hatred of the RAF. Now it may well be founded on something solid, but then one could equally have the same feelings towards any of the services based on certain facts...after all, no-one (or organisation, including the Navy) is perfect. But even his natural bias for the Navy does not excuse the glaring multiple factual errors in his blogs. And that is where the shock lies; that someone of his clear intelligence, experience and standing could be so blinded by his apparant hatred of the RAF that he allows such bias to influence his words to the point that he truly is becoming a laughing stock in the aviation community. We have serving Naval Officers where I work and they agree that he has truly lost the plot.
The argument for the Harrier has been fatally wounded by ramblings based on heresay and, dare I say it, outright lies (and I personally know them to be untruths) of many publishing in the public arena when a reasoned argument based upon fact may have stood a chance.
I truly wish we could still have GR9 & SHAR in operational service. Sadly we don't, and even if the Govt is going to revisit some of SDSR, what do you really think they'll do? Restore a couple of sqns of a another airframe, or simply not cancel 2 existing sqns. The easy, most logical and financially sound answer is the latter.
JMHO of course.
However comma! I have read his blog, and also his book on the Falklands. Both display a clear, deep and almost pathological hatred of the RAF. Now it may well be founded on something solid, but then one could equally have the same feelings towards any of the services based on certain facts...after all, no-one (or organisation, including the Navy) is perfect. But even his natural bias for the Navy does not excuse the glaring multiple factual errors in his blogs. And that is where the shock lies; that someone of his clear intelligence, experience and standing could be so blinded by his apparant hatred of the RAF that he allows such bias to influence his words to the point that he truly is becoming a laughing stock in the aviation community. We have serving Naval Officers where I work and they agree that he has truly lost the plot.
The argument for the Harrier has been fatally wounded by ramblings based on heresay and, dare I say it, outright lies (and I personally know them to be untruths) of many publishing in the public arena when a reasoned argument based upon fact may have stood a chance.
I truly wish we could still have GR9 & SHAR in operational service. Sadly we don't, and even if the Govt is going to revisit some of SDSR, what do you really think they'll do? Restore a couple of sqns of a another airframe, or simply not cancel 2 existing sqns. The easy, most logical and financially sound answer is the latter.
JMHO of course.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument for the Harrier has been fatally wounded by ramblings based on heresay and, dare I say it, outright lies (and I personally know them to be untruths) of many publishing in the public arena
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinion, basically any figure he quotes, which he certainly won't be privy to, that relates to cost, serviceability, operational specifics, particularly in relation to the GR4.
I'm fairly certain the likes of JAJ, Wrathmonk etc are far better placed than Cdr Ward (Rtd) to know the truth.
I'm fairly certain the likes of JAJ, Wrathmonk etc are far better placed than Cdr Ward (Rtd) to know the truth.
Justanopinion,
On one of Sharkey's recent blogs he stated authoritatively that the daily availability of the GR4 fleet was 5%, that a Tornado can only carry one Storm Shadow (which anyway is a useless missile that always misses), and that the 3000nm Storm Shadow raid on night 1 of ELLAMY was aimed at a load of tanks that moved while the missiles were en route. That's just an example of bollocks that he quotes as "fact", and as I predicted a couple of weeks ago, some of his "facts" make it into the press!
Go and have a read of his blog; it would be funny if its content didn't appear in the press via the usual suspects (West, Woodward) and recently even Lord Digby Jones!
The key delusion he holds is that running a carrier group costs nothing because you've already purchased all the hardware. It's quite an amusing read.
On one of Sharkey's recent blogs he stated authoritatively that the daily availability of the GR4 fleet was 5%, that a Tornado can only carry one Storm Shadow (which anyway is a useless missile that always misses), and that the 3000nm Storm Shadow raid on night 1 of ELLAMY was aimed at a load of tanks that moved while the missiles were en route. That's just an example of bollocks that he quotes as "fact", and as I predicted a couple of weeks ago, some of his "facts" make it into the press!
Go and have a read of his blog; it would be funny if its content didn't appear in the press via the usual suspects (West, Woodward) and recently even Lord Digby Jones!
The key delusion he holds is that running a carrier group costs nothing because you've already purchased all the hardware. It's quite an amusing read.
Easy Street
Thanks for that, I'm very busy atm, both at work and home so motivation for this is not at an all-time high.
If I can find the time, I shall trawl through his blogs (the sacrifices I make
) and quote some more.
Thanks for that, I'm very busy atm, both at work and home so motivation for this is not at an all-time high.
If I can find the time, I shall trawl through his blogs (the sacrifices I make
) and quote some more.
Tourist,
I will leave it to others more eloquent than me to comment on your uncritical opinions of a certain Naval Pilot. However, you repeat the old canard that the RAF “has not shot down any aircraft since WW2”. If you study the records of the Falklands war you will see that the Sea Harrier contingent contained a small number of RAF pilots (About one fifth of the total- because the RN could not provide enough pilots). Some of these RAF pilots had been seconded at short notice for the war, and were therefore flying a relatively unfamiliar aircraft, although all were experienced on RAF Harriers.
In action, RN pilots shot down 14 aircraft and damaged 2 others. RAF pilots shot down 5 aircraft, plus a helicopter which crashed while evading attack.
The first 2 air-to-air kills of the Falklands War were by RAF pilots.
I will leave it to others more eloquent than me to comment on your uncritical opinions of a certain Naval Pilot. However, you repeat the old canard that the RAF “has not shot down any aircraft since WW2”. If you study the records of the Falklands war you will see that the Sea Harrier contingent contained a small number of RAF pilots (About one fifth of the total- because the RN could not provide enough pilots). Some of these RAF pilots had been seconded at short notice for the war, and were therefore flying a relatively unfamiliar aircraft, although all were experienced on RAF Harriers.
In action, RN pilots shot down 14 aircraft and damaged 2 others. RAF pilots shot down 5 aircraft, plus a helicopter which crashed while evading attack.
The first 2 air-to-air kills of the Falklands War were by RAF pilots.
The highest number of air-to-air victories was also achieved by an RAF pilot.
If it was possible to resurrect the F/A 2, Ward might have a valid point. But it isn't; as a result he doesn't. Non-radar single-role bombers such as the GR9 are of little use enforcing a no-fly zone after dark or if it's IMC!
Now, if Incapability Brown's jobs-for-Jocks aircraftless carriers were to have decent number of F-18E/F/G embarked....
If it was possible to resurrect the F/A 2, Ward might have a valid point. But it isn't; as a result he doesn't. Non-radar single-role bombers such as the GR9 are of little use enforcing a no-fly zone after dark or if it's IMC!
Now, if Incapability Brown's jobs-for-Jocks aircraftless carriers were to have decent number of F-18E/F/G embarked....
Tourist, surely his personality is fundamental to his points?
And it has been pointed out, several times, that he makes numerous factual errors, some of which have been highlighted on here.
I have no knowledge of his personality so would not directly comment on it other than how it affects his point of view as has been previously mentioned.
Have you actually read his blogs, or even spoken to him personally regarding his 'facts'?
And it has been pointed out, several times, that he makes numerous factual errors, some of which have been highlighted on here.
I have no knowledge of his personality so would not directly comment on it other than how it affects his point of view as has been previously mentioned.
Have you actually read his blogs, or even spoken to him personally regarding his 'facts'?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle said:
"The highest number of air-to-air victories was also achieved by an RAF pilot."
Yes, but the argument isn't about what colour uniform the pilot wears, so much as between Land based air forces using HNS and Sea Based (carrier borne) Forces independent of HNS. The Pilots in the South Atlantic were only able to score any victories at all because of the latter concept. Had the former philosophy been in force (as so many here seem to think is the right path) there would have been no war and the Island would be the Malvinas, not the Falklands.
And the RAF would still be sitting on a postwar duck. (nil points)
Pilots flying Naval Aircraft from Aircraft Carriers are playing for the Navy's team in this context. Flt Lt Dave Morgan transferred to the Navy afterwards as well. Had they stayed in the land based RAF proper they would have scored nothing. Just like their colleagues flying the Phantom FGR2s, Lightnings, Tornado F3s... I'll go so far to predict the Typhoon will die a virgin in the air to air game.
"The highest number of air-to-air victories was also achieved by an RAF pilot."
Yes, but the argument isn't about what colour uniform the pilot wears, so much as between Land based air forces using HNS and Sea Based (carrier borne) Forces independent of HNS. The Pilots in the South Atlantic were only able to score any victories at all because of the latter concept. Had the former philosophy been in force (as so many here seem to think is the right path) there would have been no war and the Island would be the Malvinas, not the Falklands.
And the RAF would still be sitting on a postwar duck. (nil points)
Pilots flying Naval Aircraft from Aircraft Carriers are playing for the Navy's team in this context. Flt Lt Dave Morgan transferred to the Navy afterwards as well. Had they stayed in the land based RAF proper they would have scored nothing. Just like their colleagues flying the Phantom FGR2s, Lightnings, Tornado F3s... I'll go so far to predict the Typhoon will die a virgin in the air to air game.
OWR,
There is a school of thought that if the weapon isn't used or challenged, then it has proved to be most successful. It has successfully deterred the hostile aggression it was designed to counter. This in fact, is the reason why there has been so little air to air activity of any kind since the Falklands. Because while we've gone up against countries with air forces, i.e Iraq, Serbia and Libya, none has had the confidence to rise to the challenge of what has often been admittedly, American air power, such as F15s etc. This is not to dismiss our own F3s in times past. Nobody was keen to take them on directly either, not even to try and shake the allied air defences in both Gulf Wars.
Another point, I don't know what your opinion on Nuclear Weapons is but....!
FB
There is a school of thought that if the weapon isn't used or challenged, then it has proved to be most successful. It has successfully deterred the hostile aggression it was designed to counter. This in fact, is the reason why there has been so little air to air activity of any kind since the Falklands. Because while we've gone up against countries with air forces, i.e Iraq, Serbia and Libya, none has had the confidence to rise to the challenge of what has often been admittedly, American air power, such as F15s etc. This is not to dismiss our own F3s in times past. Nobody was keen to take them on directly either, not even to try and shake the allied air defences in both Gulf Wars.
Another point, I don't know what your opinion on Nuclear Weapons is but....!
FB