Sharkey shows his teeth
Glojo,
Ward was no Bader. They were both talented fighter pilots, and both were awkward and egotistical people. And neither were as critical to victory as they may have thought! But during and in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Britain, Bader did not belittle and rubbish the contribution of the other squadrons and Wings involved in the Battle.
I'm not one for building people up and then demolishing them for no real reason, and mercifully, enough people who were on the SHar force in '82 have given chapter and verse about Nigel Ward, where a mere Journo would rightly be castigated for initiating criticism of such a disinguished bloke.
He obviously achieved a huge amount, and was a successful SHar pilot, and on that basis alone I'd acknowledge that I'm not fit to lick his boots. His dedication to his blokes must have made him a good Squadron CO, too, I'm sure. He also writes very well, if you put aside the content.
But he has said and written some appalling things about his fellow professionals, many of whom were his equals (if not his betters), and not just Moggie, as alluded to earlier in this thread.
Listening to Nigel, anyone would think that he won the Falklands War single-handed, and that the other SHar unit down there (who got more kills than Ward's squadron, and whose kills didn't include a sitting duck Hercules) were a bunch of incompetent non-achievers. This does a unit that was every bit as distinguished as Ward's a grave disservice.
Arrogance and ego are a must-have for a fighter pilot, but they do need to be leavened with just a tiny bit of humility and generosity of spirit towards one's comrades in arms and one wonders if Sharkey had that in sufficient measure to balance his larger than life ego?
Ward was no Bader. They were both talented fighter pilots, and both were awkward and egotistical people. And neither were as critical to victory as they may have thought! But during and in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Britain, Bader did not belittle and rubbish the contribution of the other squadrons and Wings involved in the Battle.
I'm not one for building people up and then demolishing them for no real reason, and mercifully, enough people who were on the SHar force in '82 have given chapter and verse about Nigel Ward, where a mere Journo would rightly be castigated for initiating criticism of such a disinguished bloke.
He obviously achieved a huge amount, and was a successful SHar pilot, and on that basis alone I'd acknowledge that I'm not fit to lick his boots. His dedication to his blokes must have made him a good Squadron CO, too, I'm sure. He also writes very well, if you put aside the content.
But he has said and written some appalling things about his fellow professionals, many of whom were his equals (if not his betters), and not just Moggie, as alluded to earlier in this thread.
Listening to Nigel, anyone would think that he won the Falklands War single-handed, and that the other SHar unit down there (who got more kills than Ward's squadron, and whose kills didn't include a sitting duck Hercules) were a bunch of incompetent non-achievers. This does a unit that was every bit as distinguished as Ward's a grave disservice.
Arrogance and ego are a must-have for a fighter pilot, but they do need to be leavened with just a tiny bit of humility and generosity of spirit towards one's comrades in arms and one wonders if Sharkey had that in sufficient measure to balance his larger than life ego?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jack,
I totally accept that in many ways Commander Ward was no Sir Douglas Bader but hopefully we can agree that both were VERY self opinionated and refused to back down when they knew they were right.
I could quite correctly say that Sir Douglas was no Commander Ward when it came to their expert knowledge expertise etc. During the era of the Falklands Campaign there was not anyone more qualified and with better skills regarding the SHAR so I guess his opinion might have needed to be heard?
I will NOT and CANNOT defend the way this man has subsequently tried to put his point across regarding the Fleet Air Arm. The man is clearly extremely passionate regarding this topic but.... When you poke a hornets nest then you can expect a reaction. The objectionable wording he used blotted out the very constructive points that were made and the frustrating thing is that among the rubbish he had put forward some very valid points but quite clearly those words of wisdom will now fall on deaf ears.
Regarding his book on the Falklands Conflict then I guess when we write about our exploits, it will be all about our exploits! He did a lot, achieved a lot and I guess wrote a lot about what he did! We buy a book about a specific pilot taking part in a specific conflict and I guess we then read about what they did?? Don't forget he flew far, far more missions than any other pilot. I am not saying that in a bragging type way.. I am exceedingly critical of the amount of missions he flew and blame his senior officers for the allowing and authorising of these flights....
I have always stood by this man and always will but I am not proud of the words that he now uses whenever he talks about the role of the carrier and the role of the RAF.
Having said that I never hear RAF folks saying how this man insisted on having an RAF pilot as one of his lead instructors, or how he complained BITTERLY about how the MoD had ignored his recommendations regarding the recognition for the other pilots in his squadron!! I guess these points fall also on those same deaf ears and short sighted eyes!
Hopefully however we might all agree that Commander Ward did not suffer fools gladly. Respect to him for his loyalty to his squadron during the Falklands campaign and I defy ANYONE on this forum to show me ANY words he has wrote that criticises those that served in his squadron, be they light or dark blue. Yes during that period he made mistakes but he was quick to send bottles of malt whiskey to those that were the victims of his errors. but again never let the truth spoil a good story.
Sadly this man may have been too protective to his squadron and when we consider how many missions this man flew then perhaps we might begin to understand how this might have effected him.
RAF Squadron 1(F) flew a total of 120 missions during the campaign and respect to them for what they did... This man alone flew 60, so yes he can walk the walk and I guess he is entitled to 'talk the talk' BUT as you and others have said.... He has NOT done himself any credit by presenting his case in the way he has.
When I say he flew all those missions I am NOT saying that in a complimentary manner, my thoughts are that senior officers all have a responsibility of care and war or no war our bodies can only endure so much before our batteries need recharging. My thoughts are that once a battery goes flat, we run the risk of cells collapsing and once that happens.... The battery cannot be repaired!
Wise words from one such harrier pilot
For those of us that are not perfect and sometimes open mouth before engaging brain I find these are very wise words:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
I totally accept that in many ways Commander Ward was no Sir Douglas Bader but hopefully we can agree that both were VERY self opinionated and refused to back down when they knew they were right.
I could quite correctly say that Sir Douglas was no Commander Ward when it came to their expert knowledge expertise etc. During the era of the Falklands Campaign there was not anyone more qualified and with better skills regarding the SHAR so I guess his opinion might have needed to be heard?
I will NOT and CANNOT defend the way this man has subsequently tried to put his point across regarding the Fleet Air Arm. The man is clearly extremely passionate regarding this topic but.... When you poke a hornets nest then you can expect a reaction. The objectionable wording he used blotted out the very constructive points that were made and the frustrating thing is that among the rubbish he had put forward some very valid points but quite clearly those words of wisdom will now fall on deaf ears.
Regarding his book on the Falklands Conflict then I guess when we write about our exploits, it will be all about our exploits! He did a lot, achieved a lot and I guess wrote a lot about what he did! We buy a book about a specific pilot taking part in a specific conflict and I guess we then read about what they did?? Don't forget he flew far, far more missions than any other pilot. I am not saying that in a bragging type way.. I am exceedingly critical of the amount of missions he flew and blame his senior officers for the allowing and authorising of these flights....
I have always stood by this man and always will but I am not proud of the words that he now uses whenever he talks about the role of the carrier and the role of the RAF.
Having said that I never hear RAF folks saying how this man insisted on having an RAF pilot as one of his lead instructors, or how he complained BITTERLY about how the MoD had ignored his recommendations regarding the recognition for the other pilots in his squadron!! I guess these points fall also on those same deaf ears and short sighted eyes!
Hopefully however we might all agree that Commander Ward did not suffer fools gladly. Respect to him for his loyalty to his squadron during the Falklands campaign and I defy ANYONE on this forum to show me ANY words he has wrote that criticises those that served in his squadron, be they light or dark blue. Yes during that period he made mistakes but he was quick to send bottles of malt whiskey to those that were the victims of his errors. but again never let the truth spoil a good story.
Sadly this man may have been too protective to his squadron and when we consider how many missions this man flew then perhaps we might begin to understand how this might have effected him.
RAF Squadron 1(F) flew a total of 120 missions during the campaign and respect to them for what they did... This man alone flew 60, so yes he can walk the walk and I guess he is entitled to 'talk the talk' BUT as you and others have said.... He has NOT done himself any credit by presenting his case in the way he has.
When I say he flew all those missions I am NOT saying that in a complimentary manner, my thoughts are that senior officers all have a responsibility of care and war or no war our bodies can only endure so much before our batteries need recharging. My thoughts are that once a battery goes flat, we run the risk of cells collapsing and once that happens.... The battery cannot be repaired!
Wise words from one such harrier pilot
All the pilots on board ship were just one big family, even though I was Air Force flying Navy aircraft. 1(F) Squadron was there, of course, with the Harrier GR3s and I knew quite a few of them from my time in Germany. I found for the first two weeks I just got more and more tired, and ended up hardly being able to put one foot in front of the other. Not just the physical tiredness, but mental tiredness as well.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Glojo
You comment that 1(F) Sqn flew some 120 sorties during the period they were involved in the Falklands War (after 18 May 82), and contrast this with a claimed 60 missions flown by Lt Cdr Ward. Have you considered the very different nature of the missions flown by the Seajet and RAF GR3 pilots?
After the initial SHAR attacks of early May (in which one Seajet was shot down), the Admiral wisely took the Seajets off the dangerous Low Level role in order to preserve his A/D assets for the Air Attacks to come. (The Seajets continued to carry out some attacks on shipping, plus High Altitude bombing and some specialist Loft bombing attacks in company with RAF GR3s. In daylight these were generally much less hazardous than Low Level attacks over land involving direct target overflight.)
The RAF’s GR3 pilots flew almost exclusively Low Level Ground Attack and Recce missions, down in the weeds at Ultra Low Level, through all the 35mm and 20mm flak, plus Small Arms fire from the Argies and Brits alike, not to mention dodging Roland, Seacat and MANPADs galore.
1(F) had 50% of their GR3s shot down and 2 more seriously damaged after the first 11 days of their operations, the pilots surviving by pure luck. Nearly all of the remainder of their aircraft, (including 4 replacements ferried direct from Ascension to Hermes), were damaged to a greater or lesser extent by ground fire. Amazingly, no pilot was injured by ground fire, although combat ejections caused serious injuries to 2 pilots.
The rest, they say, is history. The combination of the magnificent AIM9L and the fine aggressive tradition of the FAA and RAF Seajet pilots made short work of the opposition. However, because of the Argies’ lack of an ability to fight back, Air Defence operations – as usual – proved to be much less hazardous than Low Level Ground Attack.
In theatre, a common call from the Seajet pilots (who shared a briefing room with the GR3 pilots) was:
“ I wouldn’t do your job for all the tea in china”
You comment that 1(F) Sqn flew some 120 sorties during the period they were involved in the Falklands War (after 18 May 82), and contrast this with a claimed 60 missions flown by Lt Cdr Ward. Have you considered the very different nature of the missions flown by the Seajet and RAF GR3 pilots?
After the initial SHAR attacks of early May (in which one Seajet was shot down), the Admiral wisely took the Seajets off the dangerous Low Level role in order to preserve his A/D assets for the Air Attacks to come. (The Seajets continued to carry out some attacks on shipping, plus High Altitude bombing and some specialist Loft bombing attacks in company with RAF GR3s. In daylight these were generally much less hazardous than Low Level attacks over land involving direct target overflight.)
The RAF’s GR3 pilots flew almost exclusively Low Level Ground Attack and Recce missions, down in the weeds at Ultra Low Level, through all the 35mm and 20mm flak, plus Small Arms fire from the Argies and Brits alike, not to mention dodging Roland, Seacat and MANPADs galore.
1(F) had 50% of their GR3s shot down and 2 more seriously damaged after the first 11 days of their operations, the pilots surviving by pure luck. Nearly all of the remainder of their aircraft, (including 4 replacements ferried direct from Ascension to Hermes), were damaged to a greater or lesser extent by ground fire. Amazingly, no pilot was injured by ground fire, although combat ejections caused serious injuries to 2 pilots.
The rest, they say, is history. The combination of the magnificent AIM9L and the fine aggressive tradition of the FAA and RAF Seajet pilots made short work of the opposition. However, because of the Argies’ lack of an ability to fight back, Air Defence operations – as usual – proved to be much less hazardous than Low Level Ground Attack.
In theatre, a common call from the Seajet pilots (who shared a briefing room with the GR3 pilots) was:
“ I wouldn’t do your job for all the tea in china”
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I normally make it a point to stay out of this thread, but the last posts need a reply.
1(F) lost three aircraft shot down in the conflict, plus others in accidents. The RN lost two shot down, (one by a Roland, on by ground fire) and three others in accidents associated with operating at sea. Pretty much a wash. (Read the official histories if you want to check the numbers)
The FAA (and the RAF) Sea Harrier pilots won because they were better trained and could use the AIM-9L to full effect. Agression is nothing without skill.
The Argentines were determined and well equipped airmen who had, right up to the last, a significant ability to 'fight back' - ask the guys at Bluff Cove about that.
As a Falklands veteran, I really object to to people rewriting history to push an agenda, in this case 'the RAF did the difficult and more hazardous stuff and suffered as a result'. That is a grave disservice to all those (RN and RAF) who served down there. They would have given this sort of stuff short shrift, and having had the pleasure of working for Air Marshal Squire, ( a gentleman and a great officer) I can tell you he would have been the first to pile in.
The RAF Harriers did a magnificent job to get down there at all, and once there, did a fantastic job in pounding the Argies in really challenging conditions. They were no more or no less brave than their FAA brothers in arms. That's how we saw them then, and that's how I see them now.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
1(F) lost three aircraft shot down in the conflict, plus others in accidents. The RN lost two shot down, (one by a Roland, on by ground fire) and three others in accidents associated with operating at sea. Pretty much a wash. (Read the official histories if you want to check the numbers)
The FAA (and the RAF) Sea Harrier pilots won because they were better trained and could use the AIM-9L to full effect. Agression is nothing without skill.
The Argentines were determined and well equipped airmen who had, right up to the last, a significant ability to 'fight back' - ask the guys at Bluff Cove about that.
As a Falklands veteran, I really object to to people rewriting history to push an agenda, in this case 'the RAF did the difficult and more hazardous stuff and suffered as a result'. That is a grave disservice to all those (RN and RAF) who served down there. They would have given this sort of stuff short shrift, and having had the pleasure of working for Air Marshal Squire, ( a gentleman and a great officer) I can tell you he would have been the first to pile in.
The RAF Harriers did a magnificent job to get down there at all, and once there, did a fantastic job in pounding the Argies in really challenging conditions. They were no more or no less brave than their FAA brothers in arms. That's how we saw them then, and that's how I see them now.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning ex-mudmover,
Hopefully you have read ALL my posts regarding the exploits of 1(f) squadron?? Please show me ONE word where I have criticised their EXCELLENT contribution to that conflict. Please show me ONE word where I have failed to recognise their skills regarding what they did.
Sadly some folks are FAR to sensitive when reading posts and tend to isolate a few words that they feel have done someone an injustice and that is sad. This conflict was an operation which showed the World what ALL our brave service personnel are capable of doing and each service played an important role in the liberating of the islands. I have ALWAYS refused to put forward anyone particular service achievements as this then does a disservice to those we leave out.
I was simply pointing out a few facts regarding Sharkey Ward which some folks do not recognise but at the same time I have acknowledged the very valid points that have been raised.
I am in FULL agreement with the wise words that have been said by Engines
But please remember it was horses for courses.
The radar on the SHAR was 'not at its best' at low altitude and if our 'floating airbases' were sunk then we would have had to sneak away with our tails between our legs
1(f) had rightly flown their missions at ground level tea and China are words that come to mind
NO CRITICISM is meant nor hopefully suggested
I have just remembered how I have continually talked about our military efforts to free those islands and have continually failed to acknowledge the excellent contributions made by the brave personnel of our Merchant Navy
Hopefully you have read ALL my posts regarding the exploits of 1(f) squadron?? Please show me ONE word where I have criticised their EXCELLENT contribution to that conflict. Please show me ONE word where I have failed to recognise their skills regarding what they did.
Sadly some folks are FAR to sensitive when reading posts and tend to isolate a few words that they feel have done someone an injustice and that is sad. This conflict was an operation which showed the World what ALL our brave service personnel are capable of doing and each service played an important role in the liberating of the islands. I have ALWAYS refused to put forward anyone particular service achievements as this then does a disservice to those we leave out.
I was simply pointing out a few facts regarding Sharkey Ward which some folks do not recognise but at the same time I have acknowledged the very valid points that have been raised.
I am in FULL agreement with the wise words that have been said by Engines
Originally Posted by Engines
The RAF Harriers did a magnificent job to get down there at all, and once there, did a fantastic job in pounding the Argies in really challenging conditions. They were no more or no less brave than their FAA brothers in arms. That's how we saw them then, and that's how I see them now.
The radar on the SHAR was 'not at its best' at low altitude and if our 'floating airbases' were sunk then we would have had to sneak away with our tails between our legs
1(f) had rightly flown their missions at ground level tea and China are words that come to mind
NO CRITICISM is meant nor hopefully suggested
I have just remembered how I have continually talked about our military efforts to free those islands and have continually failed to acknowledge the excellent contributions made by the brave personnel of our Merchant Navy
Engines,
You seem keen that I should “read the numbers” (of the official histories of the Falklands War). In order to compare apples with apples perhaps you would care to quote for me the numbers of RAF GR3s flying in the Low Level Ground Attack role and compare that with the numbers of Seajets in action, plus the relative numbers of sorties flown by the two types. Then perhaps you could relate that to the numbers shot down/damaged and come up with a measure of the relative level of danger of the two types of operation.
A simple measure of this at the time would have been be to ask both RAF GR3 pilots and Seajet pilots what they thought their chances were of finishing their war sorties hanging on a parachute - or worse. I know what I would have said at the time.
I look forward to seeing your figures.
For your information, I served down there during the war.
You seem keen that I should “read the numbers” (of the official histories of the Falklands War). In order to compare apples with apples perhaps you would care to quote for me the numbers of RAF GR3s flying in the Low Level Ground Attack role and compare that with the numbers of Seajets in action, plus the relative numbers of sorties flown by the two types. Then perhaps you could relate that to the numbers shot down/damaged and come up with a measure of the relative level of danger of the two types of operation.
A simple measure of this at the time would have been be to ask both RAF GR3 pilots and Seajet pilots what they thought their chances were of finishing their war sorties hanging on a parachute - or worse. I know what I would have said at the time.
I look forward to seeing your figures.
For your information, I served down there during the war.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exMud,
I'm really sorry that you feel ready for a sort of playground spat over 'which Harrier pilots did the hardest job' - I'm not.
Your proposed comparisons are invidious in the extreme - because aircraft got lost for other reasons than enemy fire. If you really want to go on and do a 'loss rate per flying hours in role 'x', then just be my guest - it's a free forum. Start counting gravestones, why don't you.
What I object to - and still do - is an attempt to selectively quote figures to prove that some people suffered more risk than others. It drives a wedge between the core fact that EVERYONE down there faced certain levels of risk at some time. My recollections of 1 Squadron were a totally professional bunch who helped us helicopter engineers out without a trace of the usual 'fixed/rotary' rubbish. Good guys who I respected then and still do now.
For what it's worth, if you want to go down this route, add in the risks faced by the Guards who charged up Tumbledown, or the Paras who took Goose Green, or the Marines who.... . Compared with those soldiers, all of us on the carriers (including the pilots) had it easy.
No more posts from me on this one, have at it as much as you like.
As always, very best regards
Engines
I'm really sorry that you feel ready for a sort of playground spat over 'which Harrier pilots did the hardest job' - I'm not.
Your proposed comparisons are invidious in the extreme - because aircraft got lost for other reasons than enemy fire. If you really want to go on and do a 'loss rate per flying hours in role 'x', then just be my guest - it's a free forum. Start counting gravestones, why don't you.
What I object to - and still do - is an attempt to selectively quote figures to prove that some people suffered more risk than others. It drives a wedge between the core fact that EVERYONE down there faced certain levels of risk at some time. My recollections of 1 Squadron were a totally professional bunch who helped us helicopter engineers out without a trace of the usual 'fixed/rotary' rubbish. Good guys who I respected then and still do now.
For what it's worth, if you want to go down this route, add in the risks faced by the Guards who charged up Tumbledown, or the Paras who took Goose Green, or the Marines who.... . Compared with those soldiers, all of us on the carriers (including the pilots) had it easy.
No more posts from me on this one, have at it as much as you like.
As always, very best regards
Engines
As regards the Vulcan attacks, only 3 of the Black Buck raids were bombing missions (1,2 and 7), of which the first one actually got a bomb on Stanley airport's runway. This was the only 1000 lb bomb dropped from medium level or a Toss attack to do so from any aircraft employed in a mission to put a crater on the runway. All of the other 1000 lb bombs that hit the runway were low level dropped retarded weapons from one SHAR on the 1st May attack and from a few GR3 sorties which all just scabbed the concrete. The rest of the Black Buck mission were Anti Radar attacks against the ground based Argie surveillance and fire control radars on East Falkland, a mission that no Harrier on the carriers could do until a modified GR3 was flown to the carriers direct from ASI just before the war finished. Two of the Black Buck anti radar missions had to be aborted due to strong head winds and Tanker HDU failures stopping the Vulcan from getting down there, while the others nearly nailed the main Argie surveillance radar (the TPS-43F) when the detonation of one of the two Shrike ARM's fired at it did light damage to the antenna and the other nailed a Skyguard fire control radar (that Vulcan carried 4 missiles down there, two tuned for the 43F and the other 2 tuned for Skyguard. The 43F didn't transmit hence the Vulcan didn't fire those missiles, until it had to divert to Rio with a broken probe on the way back and of course one of them misfired). That TPS-43F was a major thorn in the side of the Task Force, as not only did it give the Argies warning of air attacks on their ground forces, it allowed them to warn their air bridge and other air operations of British CAP activity and under certain atmospheric conditions even allowed the position of British surface units to be plotted well beyond the normal radar horizon, (Anaprop and ducting down there can be really bad at times).
As regards Mr Ward, in his defence, (having been involved in AD (abet on the ground side of it) for 28 years) most of what he states in 'Sea Harrier over the Falkland' as regards the correct employment of DCA is right out of the text book (except for the risks they had to run to maximise sortie duration), unlike the 'Leigh Mallory' tactics that the CVBG flag staff forced on the Hermes squadron (yes they got more kills, but they had more aircraft, more pilots and how many men did we lose because they intercepted after the Argies had completed their attacks???). He is also totally correct in his views about how poor the aviation operational taskings were run from Hermes (Just read every Harrier pilot's account of the war published either in print or on-line by Jerry Pook, Peter Squire or Dave Morgan and they all say the same as Sharky, though in different levels of diplomatic language).
Where Sharky shoots himself in the foot, is where he states views on events where he wasn't there (and treats heresy as gospel instead of doing proper research), plus his views that show that he hasn't looked at the big picture. The classic one is his view at the end of his book about the building of MPA, Yes we built a big airfield down there, yes it can be used to reinforce the Islands in time of tension and it can also be used to allow anybody who wants get down there or back to the UK directly without messing around on a boat for weeks or going via Chile (plus of course you still need that long runway for the LAN Chile A320).
As regards Mr Ward, in his defence, (having been involved in AD (abet on the ground side of it) for 28 years) most of what he states in 'Sea Harrier over the Falkland' as regards the correct employment of DCA is right out of the text book (except for the risks they had to run to maximise sortie duration), unlike the 'Leigh Mallory' tactics that the CVBG flag staff forced on the Hermes squadron (yes they got more kills, but they had more aircraft, more pilots and how many men did we lose because they intercepted after the Argies had completed their attacks???). He is also totally correct in his views about how poor the aviation operational taskings were run from Hermes (Just read every Harrier pilot's account of the war published either in print or on-line by Jerry Pook, Peter Squire or Dave Morgan and they all say the same as Sharky, though in different levels of diplomatic language).
Where Sharky shoots himself in the foot, is where he states views on events where he wasn't there (and treats heresy as gospel instead of doing proper research), plus his views that show that he hasn't looked at the big picture. The classic one is his view at the end of his book about the building of MPA, Yes we built a big airfield down there, yes it can be used to reinforce the Islands in time of tension and it can also be used to allow anybody who wants get down there or back to the UK directly without messing around on a boat for weeks or going via Chile (plus of course you still need that long runway for the LAN Chile A320).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much politics has been injected in to the decision making in the Falklands and present day with the carrier discussion. The RAF has not been the worst enemy of the FAA it has been the Navy itself which has been the FAA's worst enemy. The Navy has mostly looked to its surface ships and submarines. The very senior officers from that side outweigh the ones from aviation and don't often understand much about aviation. That was one of Sharkey's biggest gripes.
The senior RAF officers are quietly pleased with that but it doesn't necessarily result in the best decision making for the defence of this country.
