Knowing the often heavy-handed editing that precedes the publication of most letters, I doubt what was printed bears much resemblance to what was submitted. However, even I can see that Sharkey isn't suggesting that a carrier-based Harrier could be on task over Afghanistan within 30 minutes. He is questioning current procedural practices for their land-based equivalents which he states need 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces.

I have seen much from RAF sources about mission flexibility being restricted by the ATO published the previous day and the inability to provide blanket cover. Instead of simply castigating Sharkey and deliberately misinterpreting his words, would someone care to explain in a rational manner whether he has a valid point or not?

Wow, he certainly knew how to bring out the best in people didn't he?

Be going for parliament next . . .

I can only presume his current complaint is that the Harrier would be quicker on a GCAS scramble. I do try and pick salient points from his diatribes, but it's getting more difficult.

A point to ponder is where is he getting his information, as he is located on the spice island of Grenada - presumably serving pilots of all air forces come forward with pukka gen proferred in homage.

I'll shut up now..........

There is a time when one should just hang up your flying helmet and walk away. Sadly, many think they still have answers to the worlds problems - but the world moves on and things change. What is more surprising is a quality paper actually prints such crap!

OK, FOD, will give it a go.

the letter may well have been edited rather roughly, but the reader is presented with a stark contrast between carrier and land based air.


Sharkey's claims:

Bit of an ask for Afghanistan, since I imagine that the transit from a CVS to the TIC would take a bit longer than 30 minutes...


Others can comment from experience (within the constraints of OPSEC, of course), but my understanding from both TGR and Harrier mates (including dark blue in the latter) would lead me to conclude that either the letter has been edited to the point that it is nonsense, or that Cdr Ward wrote nonsense in the first place.

Clearly depends upon the accuracy of his previous paragraph, but are the 'same appalling procedural practices' not the ones which were in place when the Harrier force did Herrick, in which case they can't be as bad, since Cdr Ward was claiming elsewhere that Harriers from Kandahar could respond to calls for support in a manner so swift that if one blinked, you'd miss it? Or did the Harriers not operate in an ATO cycle? Or perhaps he means that with the departure of the Harriers, has the TGRF turned up and 'said 'flexibility? Pah! You're not having that'? :uhoh:

CAS procedures - I'm afraid that there are some (possibly included the bearded Mr ward - or the FT editorial team) who haven't quite grasped ATOs, GCAS and TIC response. If you don't understand you would have thought that you wouldn't go into print - but (sadly) that isn't generally the case with today's media moguls.

Just because a mission is tasked 24 hrs ahead (or a year ahead for that matter) doesn't mean that it can't react to an incident of higher priority (like a TIC situation). All CAS-capable aircrew can move easily from one task to another (and I know that AT, SH etc etc can too - but this is a CAS discussion!). So, you stick a pair on the ATO for an 0900 T/O - then you can get the jet ready, plan sleep times and generally manage your assets. You steam off to your 1st task (probably of several) and stooge around providing support to the man on the ground. Something happens 100 miles away and the C2 net tells you to move sharpish to new task - GR4 is faster than GR7/9, but in reality the arrival time at new task will be the same. Amazingly, your CAS ac has reacted to a TIC in sub-10 mins despite having a task that he was allocated 24 hours ago.

In case you haven't got enough ac for 24/7 cover across the country - you task a few pairs/ac to GCAS (Ground Alert), scrambling them as required for tasks that require it. Result = sub-10 mins response times across your country. Does depend on location of bases and other tasks, but it seems to work in A'stan and Libya.

Sadly, I couldn't get an article published in the press because I ran the CAS war in A'stan for a few months from Kabul - apparently I knew too much!!!:{

He clearly didn't read my letter published in the Sunday Telegraph on 12 June written in order to refute the garbage spouted by an AAC Lt Col, the Captain of Ocean and Cdre K (all sitting drinking their pink gins off the Libyan coast) in the same paper the previous week (5 June) who were all quoted as stating that because helos can fly lower and slower than fast jets and carry smaller weapons they are, consequently, more accurate than Tornado and Typhoon!

I cut and paste it here but have removed my sig block in case I end up getting the Sharkey treatment from the opposition!

Here it is:

Inaccuracy of Apache Attack Helicopters
It beggars belief that some Army and Royal Navy officers make extravagant statements to the press in an attempt to 'big up' their role in operations against the Gaddafi Regime ("Strike by British helicopters signals an escalation in the Libya conflict", report, June 5).

Fact: helicopters, generally, fly slower and lower than fast jets. Fiction: helicopter weapons are smaller and more precise. Rockets and cannon, as deployed on Apache, suffer from greater ballistic dispersion and are, therefore, more likely to cause collateral damage than the highly accurate Storm Shadow missile and Paveway guided bombs currently deployed on Tornado GR4 or Typhoon aircraft operating from Gioia del Colle in southern Italy.

Hellfire, launched from Apache, is exactly the same missile as Brimstone, launched from the deployed fast jets. But unlike the American-built Hellfire, Brimstone has a British-made, more versatile seeker on its Hellfire missile body, thereby providing not only greater accuracy against a raft of different targets, but also making it more flexible. I was involved in the procurement of all of these weapons during a four-year stint at the MOD.


Back to Sharkey, he also falls into the 'beggars belief' category and talks uneducated and out of date cr@p from the comfort of his deck chair in the Caribbean! The Harrier cannot, never could and never would carry the missiles that are available to the Tornado GR4 (Storm Shadow, for example). Indeed, it was removed from that very programme by the Harrier Mafia themselves whilst I was doing that four-year stint (see above) in MOD! Moreover, many Harrier weapons were never cleared for storage in the magazine of the 3 through-deck cruisers that the Navy had at the time. AND, he has clearly never read a doctrine JSP in his life! WHY, tell me why, would anybody want to do CAS of any description when there are no blurred boundaries between our own troops and those of the enemy - our troops are not ashore (at least, so we are led to believe)!

Bloody Navy and Bloody Army - just because they came first does not make them masters of the sky - indeed, it qualifies them for the complete opposite!

Foldie (getting more f:mad:g p:mad:d off with these morons than ever these days!)

And relax:)

but surely the 24 hour rule was there to make sure there were enough sober aircrew for the mission?

I attempted to read his book recently. I gave up half way through as it was just a rant about the RAF trying to ruin his war. He struck me as an insufferable pr1ck and this latest rant doesn't help his cause.

One would have thought that after many years as a civilian, and a deckchair in the Caribbean he would have learnt to 'let go' of whatever it is the RAF did to annoy him.

Now you're having a laugh. You know perfectly well he's referring to the Libyan scenario. As for the claim about weapons, I know Harrier wasn't cleared for Brimstone but am led to believe this was in the pipeline before it was withdrawn from service. I also know Harrier is unsuited as a platform for Storm Shadow but this could still have been launched by land-based a/c when necessary; I've always regarded land and sea-based air as complementary, not mutually exclusive. However, carrier-based Rafales have launched SCALP EG, the French equivalent of Storm Shadow.Sharkey's first point is self-evident. Isn't his second point prescribed by the ATO i.a.w a set target list if you don't have sufficient quick reaction a/c available close to the JOA?I'm not qualified to comment. Perhaps Sharkey has got the wrong end of the stick here but as a general point, isn't any inability to react quickly liable to risk lives?

On this occasion, I am more impressed with Rector16's clarification which I have just read and for which I thank him.

FOD - one could (and should) infer that he is talking about the Libyan scenario (but to whom are we providing CAS), but the tone of the letter is ambiguous, hence my throwaway comment.

I suspect the editing, but for the reasons I've adduced elsewhere, I am not entirely confident that a spot of smoke & mirrors might not have crept in.

As for the point being self-evident, again, agreed: but he fails to note in his wider contentions (not just this letter) that the same applies for carrier based air providing CAS in Afghanistan.

As for the inability to respond swiftly, Rector16 has illustrated why the Wardian narrative of Harriers holding deck alert leaping off to the rescue while the land-based air plods towards the scene of the bother is wrong; the basic notion that having air on hand promptly is a good thing is undeniable, but the letter suggests that the issue of response times is a matter of black and white, when that isn't quite the case.

Just to clarify how CAS generally works for those that aren't aware, based on Afghan (Sharkey you need to read this as you clearly aren't aware how anything works these days - it isn't the Malvinas).

You never know when you will need CAS, unless there is a pre planned op but you can make some good guesses based on historical data (dawn attacks, night raids, avoiding midday heat etc) so you can have more CAS airborne at the right time. In Afghan there is quite a lot of FJ CAS plus Reaper (which actually carries more weapons than GR4 but can't do SOP/SOF or strafe), or even a Pred if you are desperate (only one weapon). These aircraft can be doing other stuff (ISTAR/NTISR for example) or just be turning dead trees to noise (XCAS) waiting for something to happen. These will give rapid response times, certainly in central Helmand which is an ATC nightmare with all the traffic. On that point the biggest factor in getting a weapon on target is often not getting an aircraft eyes on and a 9-line sent but actually clearing the airspace (a plus point for helos).

However there will inevitably be times when there is nothing available airborne so there will be GCAS (ground alert CAS) these will have an alert time, lets call it 10 minutes for sake of argument, but that is a "no longer than". The limiting time here is waiting for kit to align and spool up and the wind up time of the engines(s). Given that Harrier only has one engine then it may gain 30 secs on GR4 but then again the WSO can be doing the kit at the same time as the pilot is doing the engines so I would suggest there is no discernible difference between the 2. Once airborne the limiting factor is obviously distance to run and transit speed. Harrier wouldn't be at too much of a disadvantage given the short distances usually involved in Afghan. Likewise Apaches are rubbish for this if the CAS is 100nm away but great if your AOR is minute (TFH for example).

In Afghan if there is an urgent need for CAS, ie a TiC, then you don't request it through the ATO cycle!!!!! There are other means that will provide what is needed as quickly as possible. I don't know the actual stats (and wouldn't say if I did!) but for Helmand/Kandahar area I would be surprised if it is more than 10 mins in most cases, 30 mins in all cases.

Hope that has helped to clarify.

Backwards PLT, DH! - as JTAC and BASO-I feel that Sharkey is talking bo££ox.
TIC response times are generally always quicker than PLTs figures. Normally the only times a jt fires response was beyond 10 mins would be multiple concurrent TIC events or difficulty clearing civ airspace for GMLRS. Have worked Harrier in the Maz and it was awesome. GR-4 in MOSHTARAK also superb.

Back to Libiya I truly wish we still had carrier CAS capability, but the GR-4 is the better tool for the job in concert with FGR.

Dear Mr Ward
 

Dear Mr Ward

Thank you so much for your regular letters to the press pointing out the failings of the Junior Service – they are most informative. Indeed, information they contain is second only to the inaccuracy of that information:ugh:. We can only imagine that you fail to realise the progress that has been made since you took part in that nastiness in the South Atlantic where, unless we are sadly mistaken, you were out-scored, nay, perhaps even outshone, by a member of that Junior Service (sorry Moggie, couldn’t help myself:=) that you now quite unashamedly choose to denigrate on every conceivable occasion. Perhaps this is made all-the-more difficult to stomach by the fact that the said member of the Junior Service was not even a Sea Harrier thoroughbred like yourself, but simply a half-retrained ground attack chap:{! Anyway, moving on old sport; times have changed and if you really want to find the reasons for the fall from grace of the FAA I suggest you look closer to home – in the Admiralty perhaps? Toodle pip old man, and don’t stay out in that Caribbean sun too long – it fries the brain don’t cha know – oh, sorry too late!

CB

Nice Response CB!!
 

Ignore the Ward!!

It will irritate him more than acknowledging him and refuting his rubbish!!

The HERMES brigade down south way back when ignored his rantings and ravings. Best everyone now does the same!!

Responding to him might just make him think anyone cares about what he says!

And, as you say, CB, Moggie did a lot for the RN and the SHAR, even though he then was a mere Crab, without the amazing naval background that makes SW what he thinks he is!!

So, better to ignore him - that will p**s him off more than attempting to show how little he knows about modern warfare!!

and the glass he used to keep them in.

I read in the Mail on Sunday today that the CDG has not been able to launch due to severe weather conditions. However, the R.A.F. havee been able to pick up their slack in a, conventional kind of way!:E

FB:)

As Seldomfitforpurpose has implied in the 'Decision to axe the Harriers is Bonkers' thread, the story is tosh (link) as is any suggestion that the RAF could "take up the slack" by flying an extra 35 to 40 sorties per day from Gioia del Colle. Aircraft from Charles de Gaulle have been flying 30-40% of the NATO strike missions over Libya.

Much as I think that most of what the Mail writes is "Tosh" , you can't just dismiss it because you don't like it, you need facts. Adding a link to future wave heights in the med doesn't prove that CDG hasn't been effected by rough seas in the past few months.

'Current' wave heights, actually. :)

What about the bit about the RAF taking up the slack?