Naval Scheming?
I stopped reading this submission when I got to the bottom of the first page and saw that a Lt Cdr Lester May had supported the narrative. Indeed, this document reads very much like a piece of his own work. Anyone who has read his bigoted and ant-RAF letters to The Times over the years will recognise his hand in this comical piece of staff work.
I am not sure on what evidence Storm Shadow is written off as 'dis-functional' and with no record of successfully interdicted targets. From the photographs I saw it had done quite a good job. I particularly enjoyed the image of a long range 'double-tap' against a bunker where the entry breaches were less than a foot apart, though I expect the SHAR would have got much closer and at far less expense...
Wouldn't it be nice if the two Services could be allowed to get on with a joint operational capability without all the nonsense from people still trying to fight the Falklands campaign again. Has anyone told Sharkey that the current OC 617 is dark blue?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 145 Likes
on
28 Posts
I did enjoy this bit:
So, to summarize: ‘my side of the argument looks much better if I ignore those big costs that don’t support it’.
14. This Submission does not address the cost of our new carriers and the joint F-35B program. Nor does it address the major cost of land-based airfields, establishments, logistic support and personnel structures needed to enable Expeditionary Air Wing deployments.
The United Kingdom cannot afford to research, design and put into production a 21st century fighting aeroplane. It will have to be a joint venture with other countries, almost certainly European. They don't need carriers so they are not going to help to develop carrier based aircraft just because the UK wants to.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 17th Jun 2020 at 20:01. Reason: Slipped in a zero somewhere.
The United Kingdom cannot afford to research, design and put into production a 201st century fighting aeroplane. It will have to be a joint venture with other countries, almost certainly European. They don't need carriers so they are not going to help to develop carrier based aircraft just because the UK wants to.
I can’t be arsed to address the rest of the bilge but feel compelled to address this slur (and outright lie):
Eight losses were:
13 Jan - CFIT in Oman during theatre familiarisation training
16 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack, famously carrying 1000lb bombs (Peters/Nichol)
17 Jan - flew into ground minutes after completing JP233 attack. SAM hit suspected but not publicly confirmed.
19 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack. Not publicly released which weapon carried, but it is known that four of the 8-ship were armed with JP233 and four with 1000lb bombs.
20 Jan - technical failure shortly after takeoff.
22 Jan - flew into ground near target (some sources claim shot down by MiG-29). Weapon load not publicly released*
24 Jan - premature detonation of 1000lb bomb.
14 Feb - shot down by SAM during medium level LGB attack.
To my mind, being shot down counts as “enemy action” irrespective of any other causal factors which may have put the aircraft at increased risk. So of the 8 losses, ‘only’ 6 were in combat; 3 were confirmed as due to enemy action, with 2 ‘possible’; *just one* was confirmed to have no Iraqi involvement. In only one, gusting 2 cases can vulnerability during JP233 delivery be cited as a likely part of the story. How that translates to ‘most’ or ‘unfamiliarity’ is beyond me. I can only conclude that some FAA types *still* hate everything to do with Tornado after SDSR10 and don’t care about making unfounded slurs against it and some extremely courageous aircrew to support their case. Easy to forget at 30 years’ distance that Iraqi air defences were considered highly capable before the decline which ensued after the war.
I have no doubt we’ll see a couple of commenters on here saying “well he gets you RAF lot wound up nicely, why don’t you just ignore him if it’s so much rubbish?”. Ignoring him is undoubtedly the best policy in official circles, and whatever you think of politicians they are all switched-on enough to recognise the submission for what it is. Trouble is, in the cesspit of the Internet (where a list of senior endorsements is probably enough for some to take the material as credible) it’s a matter of honour to push back against material as wilfully and offensively wrong as this.
* With respect to 22 Jan, the JP233 delivery profile (being straight and level) was much less likely to result in CFIT than the extremely hazardous “loft” (actually, toss) profile used for the 1000lb bombs. So if they were carrying JP233 - which the MOD has not seen fit to confirm - the only way it’s likely to have contributed to this loss is if it led to the aircraft being hit by ground fire before crashing. There is no claim of that by either side so I don’t see how this one can be pinned on JP233 in any case.
Eight losses were:
13 Jan - CFIT in Oman during theatre familiarisation training
16 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack, famously carrying 1000lb bombs (Peters/Nichol)
17 Jan - flew into ground minutes after completing JP233 attack. SAM hit suspected but not publicly confirmed.
19 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack. Not publicly released which weapon carried, but it is known that four of the 8-ship were armed with JP233 and four with 1000lb bombs.
20 Jan - technical failure shortly after takeoff.
22 Jan - flew into ground near target (some sources claim shot down by MiG-29). Weapon load not publicly released*
24 Jan - premature detonation of 1000lb bomb.
14 Feb - shot down by SAM during medium level LGB attack.
To my mind, being shot down counts as “enemy action” irrespective of any other causal factors which may have put the aircraft at increased risk. So of the 8 losses, ‘only’ 6 were in combat; 3 were confirmed as due to enemy action, with 2 ‘possible’; *just one* was confirmed to have no Iraqi involvement. In only one, gusting 2 cases can vulnerability during JP233 delivery be cited as a likely part of the story. How that translates to ‘most’ or ‘unfamiliarity’ is beyond me. I can only conclude that some FAA types *still* hate everything to do with Tornado after SDSR10 and don’t care about making unfounded slurs against it and some extremely courageous aircrew to support their case. Easy to forget at 30 years’ distance that Iraqi air defences were considered highly capable before the decline which ensued after the war.
I have no doubt we’ll see a couple of commenters on here saying “well he gets you RAF lot wound up nicely, why don’t you just ignore him if it’s so much rubbish?”. Ignoring him is undoubtedly the best policy in official circles, and whatever you think of politicians they are all switched-on enough to recognise the submission for what it is. Trouble is, in the cesspit of the Internet (where a list of senior endorsements is probably enough for some to take the material as credible) it’s a matter of honour to push back against material as wilfully and offensively wrong as this.
* With respect to 22 Jan, the JP233 delivery profile (being straight and level) was much less likely to result in CFIT than the extremely hazardous “loft” (actually, toss) profile used for the 1000lb bombs. So if they were carrying JP233 - which the MOD has not seen fit to confirm - the only way it’s likely to have contributed to this loss is if it led to the aircraft being hit by ground fire before crashing. There is no claim of that by either side so I don’t see how this one can be pinned on JP233 in any case.
Dave Waddington is on record that he was carrying 1,000lb bombs (19 Jan); the 22nd Jan loss of Sqn Ldrs Lennox & Weekes was flown against a radar site and I've seen (somewhere, years ago) a source describing the plan being for them to carry out a loft attack.
The MiG-29 kill is deeply questionable - the story has changed several times, I believe. First change had to be because the pilot credited with the kill had been dead for two days; second change was moving the date so that he was then credited with the 19th Jan loss, but since the crew survived and were - and are - able to describe how they were shot down (SAM), this necessitated another change to bring the loss of Sqn Ldrs Lennox & Weekes forward three days. When it was pointed out that there was a fair amount of evidence that they were most definitely still with us on the 19th, the date was shifted back to 22nd and the kill attributed to another pilot. I believe that there is now some evidence which also calls this into doubt, too (something along the lines of the pilot concerned having to eject after collecting an AIM-7 amidships and sustaining injuries which meant that he'd not have been able to fly even a paper aeroplane on 22nd Jan).
Combat Air in the UK is currently made up of a mixture of FAA and RAF on both fleets which I can report get along with each other very well. It seems this rivalry of yesteryear has disappeared almost entirely, the FAA and RAF fast jet pilots go through the same training system and currently serve side by side on operations.
I find most of this paper hilarious but it is downright offensive and crass to smear the well documented combat operation record of so many of your countrymen. They deserve better, especially given the history of the author.
Just to clear it up, Typhoons and Tornados (until almost the day it retired) have flown on operations engaging Daesh every single day for nearly the last 5 years with FAA and RAF crews. Not to mention the rest of the service history of the GR4.
What a low end piece of made up research. It also blows the credibility of any of the names mentioned at the start.
Mr Vice.
I find most of this paper hilarious but it is downright offensive and crass to smear the well documented combat operation record of so many of your countrymen. They deserve better, especially given the history of the author.
Just to clear it up, Typhoons and Tornados (until almost the day it retired) have flown on operations engaging Daesh every single day for nearly the last 5 years with FAA and RAF crews. Not to mention the rest of the service history of the GR4.
What a low end piece of made up research. It also blows the credibility of any of the names mentioned at the start.
Mr Vice.
Annex B of that paper is the best part, it’s utterly laughable. It studiously ignores Typhoon’s work in Syria and it goes on to praise the SHAR in Sierra Leone, where all they did was get in the way of proper, RW, operations.
Any unthinking idiot can see that it reads ‘sea Harrier can do absolutely everything and none of this light blue stuff is needed’. It’s beyond childish and I’d be amazed (and hope) that it’s given the stiff ignoring that it warrants
Any unthinking idiot can see that it reads ‘sea Harrier can do absolutely everything and none of this light blue stuff is needed’. It’s beyond childish and I’d be amazed (and hope) that it’s given the stiff ignoring that it warrants
If the FRS Mk 1 is included in Annex B, then so should the Vulcan. If the GR1 and F3 are included in GRANBY then so too should the Buccaneer. Including these 2 types enhances the RAF’s success rate.
Sharkey
I remain at least partially convinced that he regularly submits these papers just so he can log onto this website and laugh at all of us for taking him seriously.
Despite his illustrious history the man is either mentally challenged or a massive b@llend. I still can’t quite decide which.
Before you ask, yes, I would tell him to his face.
If these submissions consist of his honestly held beliefs then any collateral he built up during the Falklands campaign has long since evaporated and he has lost any respect he should deserve.
BV
Despite his illustrious history the man is either mentally challenged or a massive b@llend. I still can’t quite decide which.
Before you ask, yes, I would tell him to his face.
If these submissions consist of his honestly held beliefs then any collateral he built up during the Falklands campaign has long since evaporated and he has lost any respect he should deserve.
BV
I remain at least partially convinced that he regularly submits these papers just so he can log onto this website and laugh at all of us for taking him seriously.
Despite his illustrious history the man is either mentally challenged or a massive b@llend. I still can’t quite decide which.
Before you ask, yes, I would tell him to his face.
If these submissions consist of his honestly held beliefs then any collateral he built up during the Falklands campaign has long since evaporated and he has lost any respect he should deserve.
BV
Despite his illustrious history the man is either mentally challenged or a massive b@llend. I still can’t quite decide which.
Before you ask, yes, I would tell him to his face.
If these submissions consist of his honestly held beliefs then any collateral he built up during the Falklands campaign has long since evaporated and he has lost any respect he should deserve.
BV
If ever anyone is struggling for an example of a false dichotomy, you have provided a great one.
Sharkey Ward does seem to be mentally challenged, on this and plentiful other recent evidence and is demonstrably at the massive end of the Bellend scale.
J
(A false dichotomy is a type of informal correlative-based fallacy, in which a statement falsely claims an "either/or" situation, when both examples are correct.)
I stopped reading this submission when I got to the bottom of the first page and saw that a Lt Cdr Lester May had supported the narrative. Indeed, this document reads very much like a piece of his own work. Anyone who has read his bigoted and ant-RAF letters to The Times over the years will recognise his hand in this comical piece of staff work.
Sadly he is even worse in the flesh and I'd suggest does more damage to the Naval Service cause than can be easily calculated.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if i had my retrospective way, the UK would have previously standardised on one CATOBAR capable type across the services , with a "future one" in the works to replace it. - and the new carriers would have cats n' traps.
I.e. F-18 moving to F35-C - Canada seems to get on quite well with the F-18 without having a carrier..
I.e. F-18 moving to F35-C - Canada seems to get on quite well with the F-18 without having a carrier..
Bigsmelly
Using Canada and the F18 to illustrate your point in a positive light is an interesting approach.
I know what you’re getting at but I don’t think even a Canadian would stand up right now and spout much positivity about the ongoing F18 saga.
BV
I know what you’re getting at but I don’t think even a Canadian would stand up right now and spout much positivity about the ongoing F18 saga.
BV
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well perhaps a better example would be the F4 or the Bucc - both originally carrier aircraft that performed sterling work for the RAF
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm,.. I think i should clarify here.
In my imagined world, both the RN and RAF only operate a single fast jet type , which is CATOBAR and "multirole".. And then there is a successor program for the next generation. ...
Of course that rather rules out European participation unless it's Rafale M or navalised EF.
It's the argument that operating a single type would save a bunch of money.
The point is, historically the CATOBAR carrier weight penalty hasn't stopped these types being very effective at non-maritime roles.
We decided to have carriers, so we might as well have a common aircraft that can operate from it.
(edited, I wasn't clear)
In my imagined world, both the RN and RAF only operate a single fast jet type , which is CATOBAR and "multirole".. And then there is a successor program for the next generation. ...
Of course that rather rules out European participation unless it's Rafale M or navalised EF.
It's the argument that operating a single type would save a bunch of money.
The point is, historically the CATOBAR carrier weight penalty hasn't stopped these types being very effective at non-maritime roles.
We decided to have carriers, so we might as well have a common aircraft that can operate from it.
(edited, I wasn't clear)
Last edited by bigsmelly; 18th Jun 2020 at 13:28.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 77
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear!
This has got the "junior service" all in a dither hasn't it? Get over it boys, you can still stack on Fridays for the weekends!
"They don't like it up 'em Sir!"
"They don't like it up 'em Sir!"
Last edited by wiltshireman; 18th Jun 2020 at 15:43. Reason: Additional sentence
If only his 'story' covered the last 60 years, he could have included all the money that was wasted developing TSR2 before an RN supporter lobbied against further development.
There is no mention of Jaguar. (unless I fell asleep scrolling past that bit)
The 'statistics' that Typhoon has had no combat effectiveness completely ignore both Libya and Op SHADER, both of which have proved Typhoon is a combat ready platform that can deliver munitions on target.
There is no mention of the political meddling that cost millions when it was decided that the carries wouldn't have cats and traps, then they would, then they wouldn't, or how much it cost to develop and buy the F35C or how late and over budget it was.
There is no mention of Jaguar. (unless I fell asleep scrolling past that bit)
The 'statistics' that Typhoon has had no combat effectiveness completely ignore both Libya and Op SHADER, both of which have proved Typhoon is a combat ready platform that can deliver munitions on target.
There is no mention of the political meddling that cost millions when it was decided that the carries wouldn't have cats and traps, then they would, then they wouldn't, or how much it cost to develop and buy the F35C or how late and over budget it was.
There is no such thing as inter-service banter when you go after the fallen - it is a despicable act of cowardice.