Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod crews are all cowards, basically:-
"The misreporting of surface contacts was caused by the Nimrod’s reluctance to probe any of its radar contacts visually for fear of being shot down. Its much-vaunted radar, though excellent at detection, was dangerously misleading in target classification. At Ascension Island, there were no Nimrods available to sanitize the sea areas until well after the Task Force had proceeded south. When they did arrive, they carried out missions around Ascension but on only two occasions did they venture up to 600nms south of the Island. That was well short of the 3,800 nm to the Falklands Exclusion Zone. The Nimrods refused to enter areas where there was any chance of being detected and attacked by Argentine fighter aircraft. This effectively reduced their value to our surface and submarine commanders to zero and occasionally continued to work to Argentine advantage through misclassification of radar contacts."
"The misreporting of surface contacts was caused by the Nimrod’s reluctance to probe any of its radar contacts visually for fear of being shot down. Its much-vaunted radar, though excellent at detection, was dangerously misleading in target classification. At Ascension Island, there were no Nimrods available to sanitize the sea areas until well after the Task Force had proceeded south. When they did arrive, they carried out missions around Ascension but on only two occasions did they venture up to 600nms south of the Island. That was well short of the 3,800 nm to the Falklands Exclusion Zone. The Nimrods refused to enter areas where there was any chance of being detected and attacked by Argentine fighter aircraft. This effectively reduced their value to our surface and submarine commanders to zero and occasionally continued to work to Argentine advantage through misclassification of radar contacts."
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Harrier pilots deployed to Sierra leone? Sh*thouses!
"1. Q. Is this just one step on the road to ‘disbanding’ the Fleet air Arm?
A. There is no hidden agenda to “march off” the Fleet Air Arm. SDR envisaged that there would be a joint RN/RAF shareholding in both JFH and FJCA and this has been agreed by the service chiefs. Moreover, Joint RN/RAF carrier-based deployments are now very much the norm, as was seen recently in Sierra Leone.
Comment: But the RAF Harriers did not/would not fly missions over the land in Sierra Leone – they were afraid of not getting back to the ship. The RAF Harriers rarely embark and then only for a few weeks at most. This can hardly be called a “norm”.
"1. Q. Is this just one step on the road to ‘disbanding’ the Fleet air Arm?
A. There is no hidden agenda to “march off” the Fleet Air Arm. SDR envisaged that there would be a joint RN/RAF shareholding in both JFH and FJCA and this has been agreed by the service chiefs. Moreover, Joint RN/RAF carrier-based deployments are now very much the norm, as was seen recently in Sierra Leone.
Comment: But the RAF Harriers did not/would not fly missions over the land in Sierra Leone – they were afraid of not getting back to the ship. The RAF Harriers rarely embark and then only for a few weeks at most. This can hardly be called a “norm”.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just read through the last 2 pages of this thread.
What a childish load of drivel.
Move on - get a life for Christ's sake. Shut this thread down its lost the plot."
OK - I've proved my point. Nyah!
What a childish load of drivel.
Move on - get a life for Christ's sake. Shut this thread down its lost the plot."
OK - I've proved my point. Nyah!
Gaz ED. You speak drivel (I note your age of 41...). I was one of the Ops Officers on 24/7 duty at RAF Laarbruch during Op Granby. I knew minute by minute via US/UK Eyes Only Int signals & via ASMA exactly what was happening. As I recall, out of your supposed 8 Tornado losses, one was shot down by a US Patriot battery, one (The then brand new OC XV Sqn in the back seat) had a bloody bolt rolling around in the cockpit which seized the control column so that the crew could only turn starboard, which they did for over an hour, hurling the A/C around until low fuel meant ejection. They had no idea that it was a 20 pence bolt that caused a multi-million pound loss until the wreckage was investigated.
The rest of the Tornado losses were all dubious - some were put down to poor Nav planning & fragging by ordnance from the preceding A/C. Others to SAM's - which I don't believe.
I could also name & shame the several GR1 Navs (No pilot to my knowledge refused) who refused to fly on the first & second sorties due to "lack of moral fibre" & were promptly returned to Germany for "medical attention" - but I won't. I'm sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the Senior Service does it?
I will obviously get flamed by the GR1 guys - but I had the Int/facts & they had only the rumours.....
The rest of the Tornado losses were all dubious - some were put down to poor Nav planning & fragging by ordnance from the preceding A/C. Others to SAM's - which I don't believe.
I could also name & shame the several GR1 Navs (No pilot to my knowledge refused) who refused to fly on the first & second sorties due to "lack of moral fibre" & were promptly returned to Germany for "medical attention" - but I won't. I'm sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the Senior Service does it?
I will obviously get flamed by the GR1 guys - but I had the Int/facts & they had only the rumours.....
Originally Posted by Tourist
.....or am I now confused?.?!
Gaz...thanks for the inputs there m8, the hell of having to read the drivel and quote it here is greatly appreciated. Yet again, Sharkey spouts factually incorrect statements.
SAM...I was in Tabuk too and knew/know all the guys you are talking about. You have your facts strangely muddled and mostly incorrect. If you think that Int signals and ASMA, regardless of their classification, were the whole story or even wholly accurate, then you were truly a gullible Ops O. Your recollection of events is not in accordance with mine. Oh, and as Gaz says, RTFThread!
FODPlod...you agree that Mr Ward is partisan yet refuse to damn his lies and factual errors, ones that are easily verifiable. Do you believe he makes many factual errors to support his case or do you choose to ignore that side of his arguments?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fod Plod - point out where on his website he has deliberately singled out individuals by name purely to denigrate their sanity, integrity, flying skills, personality, social behaviour or intellect.
Sadly, yes, I was a "gullible" Ops Off (somebody had to do the horrible job!). My next door neighbour in Weeze was Peter, your GLO at Tabuk -so you might now know who I am. TTT was my SLOPS. Wg Cdr Ops was a small supercilious man. "W***Y" AKA "The smiling knife". The Stn Cdr was a peculiar Scot who had a penchant for delivering bacon & egg sarnies to everybody to denote Endex of a Minival/Taceval.
You on the squadrons certainly knew what happened in your immediate close sphere of operations - but you never saw the bigger picture as Ops did back at Laarbruch on a minute by minute basis. Aircrews will never see the politics between ATOC/Operations/Engineers as to types of weapons available/selected for targets etc.
I saw many strange decisions made - by some very brave men. What really stuck in my throat though was that at the end of Granby I had to orchestrate the return of the two Johns from Akrotiri to Laarbruch. One of them had cocked up yet they were treated like returning Heroes. JP quietly carried on with a normal RAF career. The night prior to their return to Laarbruch I was in transit accomodation waiting to drive back to the UK to a new posting. I had my evening meal & ended up in the bar with JN's brother who proceeded to get thoroughly p****d.
At breakfast the next morning I was alone at the next table to the JN clan. There was JN, his brother, parents & a Lawyer. Their whole conversation revolved around how JN could capitalise (financially) on his incarceration in Iraq. The results are there for everybody to see...
You on the squadrons certainly knew what happened in your immediate close sphere of operations - but you never saw the bigger picture as Ops did back at Laarbruch on a minute by minute basis. Aircrews will never see the politics between ATOC/Operations/Engineers as to types of weapons available/selected for targets etc.
I saw many strange decisions made - by some very brave men. What really stuck in my throat though was that at the end of Granby I had to orchestrate the return of the two Johns from Akrotiri to Laarbruch. One of them had cocked up yet they were treated like returning Heroes. JP quietly carried on with a normal RAF career. The night prior to their return to Laarbruch I was in transit accomodation waiting to drive back to the UK to a new posting. I had my evening meal & ended up in the bar with JN's brother who proceeded to get thoroughly p****d.
At breakfast the next morning I was alone at the next table to the JN clan. There was JN, his brother, parents & a Lawyer. Their whole conversation revolved around how JN could capitalise (financially) on his incarceration in Iraq. The results are there for everybody to see...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Epic stuff Gaz ED.
Next "someone" will be coming on and telling us the faaoa has been running a campaign using paid lobbyists to 'dis the RAF.......
.....remember, just because threads/entries have been deleted doesn't mean they have "gone"..
.
Next "someone" will be coming on and telling us the faaoa has been running a campaign using paid lobbyists to 'dis the RAF.......
.....remember, just because threads/entries have been deleted doesn't mean they have "gone"..
.
Personal abuse/character assassination
Originally Posted by Neartheend
Originally Posted by FODPod
...perhaps you would point out where on his website he has deliberately singled out individuals by name purely to denigrate their sanity, integrity, flying skills, personality, social behaviour or intellect.
Or, as Gaz ED's litany of cut and paste posts demonstrate, do you mean his comments are directed more generally like when someone on ARRSE describes the RAF as clock-watching terylene-wearing civilians in uniform or calls the RN a bunch of gay, blubbering iPod-losers?
Either way, I suggest you get over it. Mind you, given the nature and standard of criticism Sharkey Ward receives on here, I'm sure most objective observers would rate his record against that of his detractors any day.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the nth time, I'm not dissing his record. I object to the lies he purports to be the truth.
It's one thing spouting off in a mess bar/pub to your mates, but setting up websites that claim to be truthful and will colour public opinion, when they are verging on libellous, is another kettle of fish.
Is that so hard to understand?
Oooh, Nigel has got me vexed!
Edited to add:- The slur on Jerry Pook was personal, wasn't it?
It's one thing spouting off in a mess bar/pub to your mates, but setting up websites that claim to be truthful and will colour public opinion, when they are verging on libellous, is another kettle of fish.
Is that so hard to understand?
Oooh, Nigel has got me vexed!
Edited to add:- The slur on Jerry Pook was personal, wasn't it?
Last edited by Gaz ED; 30th Jun 2011 at 12:03.
FOD - with respect, there are two records at issue here.
The first is that of his time as the chap who saw the SHAR into service use and then led his squadron during the Falklands. Although there is a clear element of 'The World According To Sharkey and how he was right about almost everything' in his accounts of this time, the wider record shows that he did a damn good job, to put it mildly (save his apparent stupid bid to compromise Blackbuck 1 by breaking radio silence). While not beyond criticism (who's record is?), this record can't and shouldn't easily be deprecated.
The problem, though, is his second record - what he's done since leaving the RN, particularly in what he's written. As time has gone on, he has produced a variety of think-pieces which contain a mixture of gross factual errors, misrepresentations and distortions. And sadly, as time has gone on, the sense that some/most of these observations are not errors but deliberate reconstruction of the evidence in a bid to smear the RAF. He's gone beyond sharp criticism and into polemic - and worse yet, it's inaccurate polemic.
The reason he gets such bile (which I'm sure he can live with) is because he appears to many - rightly or wrongly - to be entirely content to peddle inaccuracies, half-truths and - I am sorry to say - outright falsehoods in an ongoing bid to denigrate the RAF, and, by implication, those who are members of that service. And he seeks to use his writings to influence policy, and is prepared to do so by spinning in a manner redolent of Mandleson, Campbell and Blair where the truth is what you, the spinner, want it to be, no matter the swathes of evidence to the contrary. Mud sticks, and he is flinging it with the frenzy of a demented orang-utan with ADHD which has just consumed 3 litres of Sunny Delight in a bid to make as much of it as possible adhere.
That is what grates and why he causes such vehment reaction. His distinguished record of 30-odd years ago (and before) cannot give him carte blanche to continue in this disreputable fashion without taking incoming. Inevitably, some of that incoming is going to slip over into personal inective. In fact, many of his arguments, particularly on that egregious think tank site, can be taken apart line by line - but there is so much to deconstruct, playing the man rather than the ball probably seems easier. I wouldn't support that, but I can entirely understand it.
It's no good people weighing in to suggest that Ward is a paragon of precise critiques of the RAF, and whose record as a SHAR pilot should protect him from attack - he lays himself open to this by the way he carries on. But he's a big boy and can take it, and if he can't, then he should start to be more objective and accurate in what he writes, rather than maintaining this rather shabby and near-obsessive assault on the RAF - which does him no credit and which I have on fairly decent authority is doing his former service little good in the corridors of power.
The first is that of his time as the chap who saw the SHAR into service use and then led his squadron during the Falklands. Although there is a clear element of 'The World According To Sharkey and how he was right about almost everything' in his accounts of this time, the wider record shows that he did a damn good job, to put it mildly (save his apparent stupid bid to compromise Blackbuck 1 by breaking radio silence). While not beyond criticism (who's record is?), this record can't and shouldn't easily be deprecated.
The problem, though, is his second record - what he's done since leaving the RN, particularly in what he's written. As time has gone on, he has produced a variety of think-pieces which contain a mixture of gross factual errors, misrepresentations and distortions. And sadly, as time has gone on, the sense that some/most of these observations are not errors but deliberate reconstruction of the evidence in a bid to smear the RAF. He's gone beyond sharp criticism and into polemic - and worse yet, it's inaccurate polemic.
The reason he gets such bile (which I'm sure he can live with) is because he appears to many - rightly or wrongly - to be entirely content to peddle inaccuracies, half-truths and - I am sorry to say - outright falsehoods in an ongoing bid to denigrate the RAF, and, by implication, those who are members of that service. And he seeks to use his writings to influence policy, and is prepared to do so by spinning in a manner redolent of Mandleson, Campbell and Blair where the truth is what you, the spinner, want it to be, no matter the swathes of evidence to the contrary. Mud sticks, and he is flinging it with the frenzy of a demented orang-utan with ADHD which has just consumed 3 litres of Sunny Delight in a bid to make as much of it as possible adhere.
That is what grates and why he causes such vehment reaction. His distinguished record of 30-odd years ago (and before) cannot give him carte blanche to continue in this disreputable fashion without taking incoming. Inevitably, some of that incoming is going to slip over into personal inective. In fact, many of his arguments, particularly on that egregious think tank site, can be taken apart line by line - but there is so much to deconstruct, playing the man rather than the ball probably seems easier. I wouldn't support that, but I can entirely understand it.
It's no good people weighing in to suggest that Ward is a paragon of precise critiques of the RAF, and whose record as a SHAR pilot should protect him from attack - he lays himself open to this by the way he carries on. But he's a big boy and can take it, and if he can't, then he should start to be more objective and accurate in what he writes, rather than maintaining this rather shabby and near-obsessive assault on the RAF - which does him no credit and which I have on fairly decent authority is doing his former service little good in the corridors of power.
In the interests of getting the thread back on topic, and improving the signal to noise ratio, I'll quote/repost my last post from several pages back:
Liverpool's shots were across the bow, therefore hits were not intended. Incidentally, the last Type 22 frigate (HMS Cornwall) decommisioned today, despite rumours that Cornwall and Cumberland would be kept in service during the Libyan crisis. Still the campaign goes on.....
Nevermind the spelling/font/colour - why did you dismiss all of Vice Admiral Blackham's comments as rhetoric? Do you not think that when retired RN bods speak of the process of getting CVF into service as being made much harder by a ten year gap. they might have a point (along these lines - or perhaps here)?
As for Libya: is NATO blinking first? The author of this article from Reuters seems to think so:
"The elephant in the room is the imminent departure of the French carrier, given it has been flying 30-40 percent of all NATO strike sorties," said Tim Ripley, of Jane's Defense Weekly.
"It's a looming problem, so sustaining this operation, particularly if it's going to grind past September or October, is going to be a problem."
In the absence of other allies coming forward with strike aircraft that could be flown from land bases -- which would necessitate a fleet of refueling tankers only the United States could provide -- one radical solution would be for Britain to redeploy decommissioned Harrier aircraft to its carrier HMS Illustrious, which was designated for conversion into a helicopter ship in Britain's defense review.
However, even if such a tricky political decision were taken by British Prime Minister David Cameron, it would be up to four months before the ship was ready for action, Ripley said.
A senior NATO commander conceded the extent of the worry on Tuesday. French General Stephane Abrial said the Libyan crisis had come as "a surprise" and if it were to last a long time "the resources issue will become critical."
Even the Guardian gets it: Defence review: a foresight saga
Consider Libya. The evacuation of UK citizens relied on a frigate that was due to be scrapped. The government was forced to extend the life of two Nimrods despite repeated assurances that such surveillance capability was unnecessary. Operations have involved Tornado jets, whose numbers are set to be reduced. France has a carrier off the coast of Libya, ours is on sale online. Contradicting the defence secretary, the head of the navy has said that deploying a carrier in Libya would have made the operation more reactive and cheaper.
The defence review did not plan for two missions exceeding six months. As service chiefs have warned, if Libya lasts beyond September, capabilities may have to be redeployed from standing commitments. All this as we prepare for another, perhaps sharper, round of cuts.
And...
A full assessment of the impact of the Arab spring on UK security, the resultant threats we face, our response at home and abroad and the capabilities required should form a new chapter to the defence review. This is not about looking backwards, but about turning hindsight into foresight.
If the crisis in Libya had happened before the SDSR, would the outcomes have been the same? Is the refusal to look at SDSR again compatible with the desire to make MOD more responsive? Ever heard of the OODA cycle?
On a more positive note, HMS Liverpool has once again used her 4.5 inch gun sucessfully.
As for Libya: is NATO blinking first? The author of this article from Reuters seems to think so:
"The elephant in the room is the imminent departure of the French carrier, given it has been flying 30-40 percent of all NATO strike sorties," said Tim Ripley, of Jane's Defense Weekly.
"It's a looming problem, so sustaining this operation, particularly if it's going to grind past September or October, is going to be a problem."
In the absence of other allies coming forward with strike aircraft that could be flown from land bases -- which would necessitate a fleet of refueling tankers only the United States could provide -- one radical solution would be for Britain to redeploy decommissioned Harrier aircraft to its carrier HMS Illustrious, which was designated for conversion into a helicopter ship in Britain's defense review.
However, even if such a tricky political decision were taken by British Prime Minister David Cameron, it would be up to four months before the ship was ready for action, Ripley said.
A senior NATO commander conceded the extent of the worry on Tuesday. French General Stephane Abrial said the Libyan crisis had come as "a surprise" and if it were to last a long time "the resources issue will become critical."
Even the Guardian gets it: Defence review: a foresight saga
Consider Libya. The evacuation of UK citizens relied on a frigate that was due to be scrapped. The government was forced to extend the life of two Nimrods despite repeated assurances that such surveillance capability was unnecessary. Operations have involved Tornado jets, whose numbers are set to be reduced. France has a carrier off the coast of Libya, ours is on sale online. Contradicting the defence secretary, the head of the navy has said that deploying a carrier in Libya would have made the operation more reactive and cheaper.
The defence review did not plan for two missions exceeding six months. As service chiefs have warned, if Libya lasts beyond September, capabilities may have to be redeployed from standing commitments. All this as we prepare for another, perhaps sharper, round of cuts.
And...
A full assessment of the impact of the Arab spring on UK security, the resultant threats we face, our response at home and abroad and the capabilities required should form a new chapter to the defence review. This is not about looking backwards, but about turning hindsight into foresight.
If the crisis in Libya had happened before the SDSR, would the outcomes have been the same? Is the refusal to look at SDSR again compatible with the desire to make MOD more responsive? Ever heard of the OODA cycle?
On a more positive note, HMS Liverpool has once again used her 4.5 inch gun sucessfully.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Aug 2011 at 10:11.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that the heli carrier has been on station for a dogwatch, anyone got any info on sortie rates, effect it has brought to the party etc. Has it made a decisive difference....??
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly, some people weren't listening to Liam Fox's speech the other day when he absolutely slam dunked the Harrier for not having the capability that Tornado does and that was the very reason Harrier was retired from service. Liam Fox categorically stated that the Harrier was, at the time of the SDSR, incapable of holding the HERRICK commitment as well as a no notice Op, which is Libya. Moreover, he said that if we still had a carrier and Harrier, the UK would still have deployed GR4 and Typhoon to GdC.
Liam Fox's words, not mine.
Regards.
Liam Fox's words, not mine.
Regards.