Why the raf can’t deliver the punch cameron wants in syria
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
No HS, Ward is aiming at the wrong target, and has consistently done so, blurring the causes of the emasculation of the FAA with piss poor political decision making. In another thread there was mention of the deployed Air Power for GW1;
from the RAF web site.
Quote:
Within 48 hours of the Governments decision to send large-scale forces to the Gulf, a squadron of RAF Tornado F3s arrived in Saudi Arabia and two hours later they flew their first operational sorties. Within a further two days, a squadron of Jaguar fighters-bombers arrived, together with half a squadron of VC10 tanker aircraft and soon after they were joined by half a squadron of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft.
The RAF build-up continued throughout the closing months of 1990 and by mid-January 1991 our strength in the Gulf stood at some 18 Tornado F3 fighters, about 46 Tornado GR1/1A strike/attack and recce aircraft, 17 tankers, three Nimrods, 12 Chinooks, 19 Pumas, seven Hercules and one BAe125. It continued to increase during the conflict as Buccaneers and further Tornado GR1s arrived in theatre. Other RAF operational units deployed to the Gulf included two RAF Regiment Wing HQ, two Rapier Squadrons and four Light Armour/Field Squadrons.
Not possible now, the loss of critical mass is eye watering
from the RAF web site.
Quote:
Within 48 hours of the Governments decision to send large-scale forces to the Gulf, a squadron of RAF Tornado F3s arrived in Saudi Arabia and two hours later they flew their first operational sorties. Within a further two days, a squadron of Jaguar fighters-bombers arrived, together with half a squadron of VC10 tanker aircraft and soon after they were joined by half a squadron of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft.
The RAF build-up continued throughout the closing months of 1990 and by mid-January 1991 our strength in the Gulf stood at some 18 Tornado F3 fighters, about 46 Tornado GR1/1A strike/attack and recce aircraft, 17 tankers, three Nimrods, 12 Chinooks, 19 Pumas, seven Hercules and one BAe125. It continued to increase during the conflict as Buccaneers and further Tornado GR1s arrived in theatre. Other RAF operational units deployed to the Gulf included two RAF Regiment Wing HQ, two Rapier Squadrons and four Light Armour/Field Squadrons.
Not possible now, the loss of critical mass is eye watering
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an idiot.
Come on man, please don't call the guy (Lt Cdr Ward) an idiot.
Yes firm opinions expressed, but really would you expect anything else, really? Really? He was a RN fast-jet squadron CO on a carrier in a real conflict under immense pressure and when the chips were down he came through that alive and leading people on the winning side. He did that, its documented.
Surely now as an older man, a Senior, he is entitled to write and publish and produce what he wants as he can see it>?
Give him credit for free thinking, give him credit for loyalty to the FAA RN ethos if nothing else.
No intention to enter the debate beyond that, thank-you.
Yes firm opinions expressed, but really would you expect anything else, really? Really? He was a RN fast-jet squadron CO on a carrier in a real conflict under immense pressure and when the chips were down he came through that alive and leading people on the winning side. He did that, its documented.
Surely now as an older man, a Senior, he is entitled to write and publish and produce what he wants as he can see it>?
Give him credit for free thinking, give him credit for loyalty to the FAA RN ethos if nothing else.
No intention to enter the debate beyond that, thank-you.
If not an idiot then perhaps just a plain old liar?
Given what he publishes it may be kinder to question his cognitive functions than his integrity. If you repeatedly publish stuff that is untrue then your audience will judge you.
Given what he publishes it may be kinder to question his cognitive functions than his integrity. If you repeatedly publish stuff that is untrue then your audience will judge you.
Quote:
... Imagine the propaganda value to Daesh of the UK being seen once again to be disorganised, divided and impotent. You are assuming that they would be less likely to attack an enemy that has equivocated in a manner they would perceive as weakness and decadence. Many would take a different view.
... Imagine the propaganda value to Daesh of the UK being seen once again to be disorganised, divided and impotent. You are assuming that they would be less likely to attack an enemy that has equivocated in a manner they would perceive as weakness and decadence. Many would take a different view.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on man, please don't call the guy (Lt Cdr Ward) an idiot.
Yes firm opinions expressed, but really would you expect anything else, really? Really? He was a RN fast-jet squadron CO on a carrier in a real conflict under immense pressure and when the chips were down he came through that alive and leading people on the winning side. He did that, its documented.
Surely now as an older man, a Senior, he is entitled to write and publish and produce what he wants as he can see it>?
Give him credit for free thinking, give him credit for loyalty to the FAA RN ethos if nothing else.
No intention to enter the debate beyond that, thank-you.
Yes firm opinions expressed, but really would you expect anything else, really? Really? He was a RN fast-jet squadron CO on a carrier in a real conflict under immense pressure and when the chips were down he came through that alive and leading people on the winning side. He did that, its documented.
Surely now as an older man, a Senior, he is entitled to write and publish and produce what he wants as he can see it>?
Give him credit for free thinking, give him credit for loyalty to the FAA RN ethos if nothing else.
No intention to enter the debate beyond that, thank-you.
stand by for incoming: a boat is a submarine..blah blah blah blah
Hangarshuffle,
Have you read the stuff he publishes? I couldn't care less that he has a pathological hatred of the RAF, that's his problem. But the rubbish he writes is bordering on paranoid, not to mention factually incorrect and dripping with bitterness and bile. If he seriously believes his own rantings I can only imagine he is either senile, deluded or an idiot.
Have you read the stuff he publishes? I couldn't care less that he has a pathological hatred of the RAF, that's his problem. But the rubbish he writes is bordering on paranoid, not to mention factually incorrect and dripping with bitterness and bile. If he seriously believes his own rantings I can only imagine he is either senile, deluded or an idiot.
I would normally give the benefit of the doubt to people, but Sharkey has become beyond parody. An angry man who doesnt write informed opinion, but angry keyboard thumping rants about how everything is wrong.
He's not a commentator in any meaningful sense, he's the embarrassing grandparent sitting in the corner rambling to themselves while everyone shuffles about quietly waiting for them to go back to the home...
He's not a commentator in any meaningful sense, he's the embarrassing grandparent sitting in the corner rambling to themselves while everyone shuffles about quietly waiting for them to go back to the home...
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF Commander Ward:
Was in possession, or even sought, the facts upon which he writes;
In his writing demonstrated a clear, analytical, military mind;
Made his case clear and objective, with conclusions that supported his main argument(s);
...and didn't still think it was 1982 all over again;
then perhaps I'd agree with you Hangarshuffle. However, none of the above is true and that has been the case for some time now.
Firmly agree with CM!
Was in possession, or even sought, the facts upon which he writes;
In his writing demonstrated a clear, analytical, military mind;
Made his case clear and objective, with conclusions that supported his main argument(s);
...and didn't still think it was 1982 all over again;
then perhaps I'd agree with you Hangarshuffle. However, none of the above is true and that has been the case for some time now.
Firmly agree with CM!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without agreeing or disagreeing with Sharkey, a few points.
If what he says is so ludicrous, rather than playing the man, play the ball.
One of you surely has the time to take each of his points, and refute them with references.
This way, whenever he says them again, there is a database that you can just produce to prove him wrong.
This whole thread is just abuse. That should not be necessary if he is so obviously mad.
If everything he says is so stupid/annoying, have you not learned that all these threads (is it 5 "I hate Sharkey threads now?!) just advertise his point of view?
Saying "he is stupid/mad" is not an argument.
Clear reasoned counter arguments with valid references is the grown up way to win a debate.
If a journo reads this, the best he can take away is "lots of RAF hate him and think he's wrong but have no evidence or specific arguments against his point of view."
If what he says is so ludicrous, rather than playing the man, play the ball.
One of you surely has the time to take each of his points, and refute them with references.
This way, whenever he says them again, there is a database that you can just produce to prove him wrong.
This whole thread is just abuse. That should not be necessary if he is so obviously mad.
If everything he says is so stupid/annoying, have you not learned that all these threads (is it 5 "I hate Sharkey threads now?!) just advertise his point of view?
Saying "he is stupid/mad" is not an argument.
Clear reasoned counter arguments with valid references is the grown up way to win a debate.
If a journo reads this, the best he can take away is "lots of RAF hate him and think he's wrong but have no evidence or specific arguments against his point of view."
The rambling old fool produces no references and presumably you do not help from Pprune to realise that we had zero Tornados in Kuwait in GW1?
The bearded idiot is the one posting aggressive bile on the internet, not the forum membership.
The bearded idiot is the one posting aggressive bile on the internet, not the forum membership.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Tourist, I was thinking the excat same thing yesterday. There seems to be a lot of abuse with no evidence to back up said abuse. It's almost like old women swinging handbags have a paddy.
I've just re-read the linked bit that Cmdr Ward contributed too (Page 1) and could some of you chaps obviously aggrieved by what he contributed too, please tell everybody without the usual emotions precisely what he has stated that is so wrong? I have no axe to grind but I don't see anybody informing me why they think he is so wrong.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Mustafa, try reading this thread again. Just for the hard of understanding:
OK, Typhoon has yet to get an independent laser targeting capability. However NOT continuing such investment WOULD unquestionably be throwing good money AWAY.
Tornado is neither obsolete nor obsolescent. Its planned out of service date is still to come.
It is by no means proven that Tornado would be unable to evade the Russian S-400 SAM or that other aircraft, such as Typhoon, could.
He asserts that the Growler could conduct SEAD missions and we could have bought 3 for 1 Typhoon. Had we procured Growlers in previous years we would have had no requirement until such time as the Russians threat our aircraft. He may be correct but we have allies for just that reason.
He states that the S-400 has a capability to cover to 90,000 feet out to 250 nm. He is clearly a paid up member of the flat earth society.
As for the Tornado reactive tasking in AFG, that has been comprehensively debunked.
Ward’s article is biased and makes unproven assertions without sources nor the possibility of comment and disagreement.
OK, Typhoon has yet to get an independent laser targeting capability. However NOT continuing such investment WOULD unquestionably be throwing good money AWAY.
Tornado is neither obsolete nor obsolescent. Its planned out of service date is still to come.
It is by no means proven that Tornado would be unable to evade the Russian S-400 SAM or that other aircraft, such as Typhoon, could.
He asserts that the Growler could conduct SEAD missions and we could have bought 3 for 1 Typhoon. Had we procured Growlers in previous years we would have had no requirement until such time as the Russians threat our aircraft. He may be correct but we have allies for just that reason.
He states that the S-400 has a capability to cover to 90,000 feet out to 250 nm. He is clearly a paid up member of the flat earth society.
As for the Tornado reactive tasking in AFG, that has been comprehensively debunked.
Ward’s article is biased and makes unproven assertions without sources nor the possibility of comment and disagreement.
Sorry Puntious, I didn't know you were such an expert. I must be one of the hard of understanding gang, that never wore light blue or navy come to that.
A simple Wiki of S400 (not the Mercedes type) comes up with very similar figures but hey; who the hell are Wiki. Janes surprisingly come up with some very similar stuff.
Personally I'd go along with a very poor view on something which first flew in 1992 not having an independent laser targeting capability until 2019 - in service?
As for obsolete or obsolescent - well those are just figures our wonderful leaders just bandy around to suit budgets and in/out of service date are not worth the paper they are printed on - not sure that gives the guys that sign for and straps, said dates the their posteriors a very warm feeling.
As I said I have no axe to grind, certainly not with Cmdr Ward, or you come to that, but happen some substance instead of the inter service 'de-bunking' going on.
Now you have a nice day
A simple Wiki of S400 (not the Mercedes type) comes up with very similar figures but hey; who the hell are Wiki. Janes surprisingly come up with some very similar stuff.
Personally I'd go along with a very poor view on something which first flew in 1992 not having an independent laser targeting capability until 2019 - in service?
As for obsolete or obsolescent - well those are just figures our wonderful leaders just bandy around to suit budgets and in/out of service date are not worth the paper they are printed on - not sure that gives the guys that sign for and straps, said dates the their posteriors a very warm feeling.
As I said I have no axe to grind, certainly not with Cmdr Ward, or you come to that, but happen some substance instead of the inter service 'de-bunking' going on.
Now you have a nice day