Sharkey Watch LIVE
 

Oh dear the Bearded One is having another pop ... this time at AM Hillier and our Tornado operations :ugh:

See www://sharkeysworld2.bl0gspot.co.uk/

Just change the "0" in bl0gspot to an "o"

Coff.

PS. I'm sure the Chancellor enjoyed his other letter ...

Yup, bet old Jeffery loved that.

I like his

:D

I do wish Captain Pugwash would shut the ***k up. Face facts - the harrier is gone.

And as a member of Steve Hillier's Sqn when he was awarded the DFC - the bloke knows how to fly, and how to lead. Its little surprise to me that he is now an Air Marshal.

I wasn't applauding because of his comments, but because of how sad it makes him appear to be by writing them.




..

I was astounded to read Sharkey's comments in his 27 May reply to a letter from MoD, in which he rounded on the F-35B for (among other reasons) being single-seat, saying that a 2-seat Super Hornet or Growler would be better from an EW / ISTAR / UAV control / etc point of view. I would never, ever have expected to hear such words from a Harrier pilot, even allowing for the fact that he would rather see F/A-18s on board than F-35!

Could Mr Smith or Mr Jones from Hereford be paid to go round and put This Person out of his misery?:ok:

FWIW, and having just finished reading "Sea Harrier over the Falklands", if the opportunity ever arose, I'd be honoured to buy the gentleman a beer.

Hat, coat, door...

I know its all to easy to have a pop at Sharkey, but if you read the full transcript the answers from the 'top of shop' in Carrier Strike are very wooly, in particular the answers to the variant change questions.

We could of course refrain from taking out a contract on the chap and simply ignore him. After all he only spouts rubbish (according to our very own experts) and the majority of us have only heard said spouting because people feel the need to post links to it here.

(Usually with some form of incoherent statement to the effect of: 'This guy whose opinion I am distributing shouldn't even have an opinion, let alone a distributed one.')

Given that I haven't read a single syllable from his site/blog I have no idea how he makes the 'Harrier was great, F-35B is rubbish, Harrier shouldn't have gone but could we have F-18E?' argument hold water, but that does seem a little incoherent to me.

It doesn't seem to be incoherent to argue that a land based practitioner of air power might not have carrier expertise, but again I have only so few heart beats and have to select what I waste them on carefully. Finding out what this brave and decorated chap (maritime persuasion) said about another brave and decorated chap (land based persuasion) is something I can't be bothered with, but I am pretty sure he didn't say he wasn't brave or couldn't fly an aeroplane.

Nail on the head Orca, I'm only aware of his blog because people start threads on it here. So please let's leave the silly old bugger in peace in his dotage.

I only ever met the guy while he was helping out at the local farm during harvest / sheep shearing, but my understanding was he was a Phantom Pilot first, and a Harrier pilot later - his preference for a two-seater could be based on that comparison. With the Sea Harrier he made the best of what was an inadequate platform. I suspect he would have preferred to have still been flying the Phantoms off the Ark

Milo,

The Sea Harrier had its limitations, sure, but its operational record was pretty much second to none. I thinks its a touch harsh to call it 'inadequate'.

It had its day, and did a bloody good job of it for my two penny's worth, although i take the jist of what you're saying.

As always ORCA your points are well made. Again having read the full transcript of the SC's report Sharky does raise some interesting points, he just undermines his arguments by making the whole thing very personal.

What if the Argies hadn't been as far away and the Mirages
had been able to be used more and other aircraft had been
able to stay over the target longer.

Would that have swung it more in the Argies favour ?

So are you saying that the Argentines would entirely support Cdr Ward's assertions that sea based air power is the business? After all a carrier could (did) get their fast movers further down range than their little publicised, but somewhat futile, attempts to move the islands west or their whole country east.;)

Or are you suggesting there was a closer country that they might have operated from?

Must admit I don't have a chart handy but I can't remember one!

Without doubt Commander Ward RN served with distinction during the Falklands conflict and was decorated accordingly. However his continual "swiping" at the RAF is unforgivable.

Example ...

Until he desists in making personal and derogatory remarks about the RAF, and it's Leadership, he deserves to be exposed.

Coff.

AutoBit

Maybe that "inadequate" seems harsh given - as you say - the Sea Harriers record, but is it really that wrong if you compare the capabilities of the SH with other carrier borne aircraft of the time? The Navy were given a lesser aircraft and made an excellent job of it. But things would have been better all round if they had retained their Phantoms and Buccaners.
My point was simply that Ward was in the position to directly compare the capapbilities of the naval two-seat jets with the Harrier, and his experience leads him to prefer the two-seater. I doubt if there are many of you who have the personal experience to make that comparison - or to make a valid argument against him on that subject

CS - or just ignored - problem is that he probably would not just go away. Shame really.

W00 ... agree :( ... but he does make ones blood boil ...

While Cdr Ward's pronouncements often seem personal and (are) opinionated a lot of what he says does appear based on sound common sense and practicality.

The personal swiping begins to look a bit too personal when he is slammed for speaking in favour of a two seater simply because it is felt he "ought" to be favouring a single - perhaps the man is actually voicing a sound military viewpoint? As you might expect from a professional and highly experienced man like him.

From what I've learned over the years from other RN flyers his sniping at the RAF is not altogether unprovoked, given the extraordinary political infighting (not to say outright chicanery, if the tales I'm hearing are true) that the RAF has conducted against the RN in a relentless battle to secure monopoly of control over fast jets and their pilots. He is far from alone in harbouring such thoughts

As a man who cares passionately about the RN it is unsurprising that he (along with some of our close allies) feel strongly that the removal of the Navy's fast air and carriers is irresponsible insanity as lessons from history clearly demonstrate, and the notion that the RAF are capable of or the least bit interested in supporting naval ops is equally questionable. I also think that his remarks on the Tornado aren't entirely without substance either.

With our political masters showing such lack of understanding of the importance of military matters I think it is important we have outspoken people like Cdr Ward out there to stir things up a bit, even if it does sound like monotonous bleating at times.

Easy Street:..2-seat Super Hornet or Growler would be better from an EW / ISTAR / UAV control / etc point of view

For these roles a second seat makes sense surely?

It's sad that Cmdr Ward's sallies sullies an impressive war record but haven't we a history of treating such people... like ACMs Dowding and Park.

Cometh the hour cometh the man and afterwards bin 'im.