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.

Seems to me, as a Pongo, that the bearded aviator is a very plain speaker and totally without subtlety or guile. That is why he upsets so many people who do not share his viewpoint. Actually an awful lot of what he says makes good sense and, taken with several spoonfuls of sugar, should be considered seriously.

Indeed, Genstabler. But he'd be taken far more seriously if he would only stop his silly sniping at 'RAF Battle of Britain mental attitudes' et al.

I hope Sharky's outstanding South Atlantic achievements won't be sullied by his rather petulant blogs which mark him out as something of a Bearded Bull$hitter, very regrettably.

Trouble is Gen, try separating the facts from the lies.....too monumental a task. And so how does anyone know which bits are worth heeding and which ignoring? His love of the Harrier is easy to see, but he cares not a jot for those who love the Tornado which has had a longer operational service than the Harrier (ie ON ops) and has been incredibly successful, increasing the theatre capability when it took over from the Harrier back in 09.

I love the Tornado (cos I flew it for 20+ years) but you don't find me knowingly lying and denigrating the Harrier.

Despite his distinguished service in the FI campaign, he brings little but shame by his continual lies and vehemence.

As an outsider to all this....there is truth in the opposing views....and I can understand why the RAF folks get their feathers ruffled by some of the comments. Likewise, I can also understand the sensitivity the RN folks have about how things have gone re Fast Jets and funding for Aircraft Carriers.

We had a similar spat between the USAF and USN several years ago that almost turned into open warfare....and the remnants remain yet today but thankfully at a much lower intensity.

There have been many Battles fought since Dunkirk.....and the BoB was but one of them.....and I would suggest the Battle of the Atlantic was just as important.

I suppose I sit in Sharkey's Corner just because I get so much enjoyment out watching Crabs dance around making lots of noise. As the RN is in a minority here....I would also have to root for the under dog.

When I see the personal attacks on Sharkey.....and not a response to his criticisms or comments....I sense he is winning on the issues and facts or the discussion would be all about his position and not his character.

But then I am an American Dogface Helicopter Pilot.....so what would I know.

For sure I admire the way the Royal Navy stood in Harm's Way in the Falklands....along with the rest of the UK Troops who performed in such an admirable manner under very tough conditions. My hat is off to all of the forces involved in that campaign.

Those that sought to characterise my post as a personal attack on Sharkey were wrong - I find myself in 100% agreement with his views on the 1 seat / 2 seat point! The thrust of my post was that I was surprised to hear this view expressed by a former Harrier pilot, when pretty much every other British single-seat pilot I've ever met has (publically, anyway) viewed 2-seat fast jets and their operators with derision! So, rather than being aimed directly at Sharkey, it was aimed at those who have consistently sought to denigrate those of us who share the task of flying a combat aircraft.

Over the past 30 years the "single-seat or die" community has convinced those with the purse strings that modern computing and data fusion renders the nav/WSO unecessary for future combat tasks - hence we end up with F-22, F-35, Typhoon, etc. It's one thing with air combat (where the reduction in aircraft mass and size of a single-seater has certain advantages) but for all the roles mentioned above, it's possible lunacy! When, at some point in the future, politicians decide that enough is enough and the damned aircraft has to come into service NOW, imperfections in mission software and data fusion are very, very easy to gloss over - "hey look everyone, we have some aircraft we can put on the carrier - job done". We then get saddled with working around various shortcomings in the mission kit until they get ironed out over the first decade in service. With a second body on board, 'data fusion' issues can be worked around in real time through the simple expedient of CRM.

SASless,

Don't disagree with any of what you say and we of course take note that there were plenty of RAF crews involved in the Falklands Crisis in both GR3 and FRS 1 cockpits (and in various others but I shall focus on Ward's community). Ward's own book is very complimentary about the service rendered by RAF QFIs in introduction on the FRS1 and also of the contributions of RAF pilots (and of note his own AWI) during hostilities.

There is also considerable resonance between Ward's book and that of Pook when it comes to their disdain for how the C2 piece was handled down south.

In response to other posters:

I'm not convinced that overall the GR4 introduction to Herrick offered a dramatic uplift in capability and am pretty sure it wasn't done cheaply. But that's just my opinion and I don't expect people to agree with me.

If one were to trace the reason for Ward's anger (whilst not excusing some of his content - which I still haven't read but I'll take your words for it) we can perhaps look at the following. We are a small island nation with worldwide commitments and responsibilities. A carrier capability would therefore seem to be somewhere in the 'highly desirable' category - but not mandatory I will grant you. We haven't got one. That would annoy any naval aviator - and should annoy the public at large. (Again just my opinion)

We are getting a carrier capability and for some reason the Royal Air Force is involved. No-one else in the world runs FW carrier aviation like this so we can only assume that they are all wrong and we are right. Or we can assume that our own RAF is amazingly far and joint sighted - or simply wants the aeroplanes and is happy to tell anyone it's buying into a capability to get them. I don't know which (if any) is correct - I'm not privy to how CAS et al actually think, but it does sound peculiar when I find myself telling people that the RAF will deploy its aircraft to the new carriers and the RN will not own a single airframe of a type procured specifically for carrier strike.

I think issues such as these provide the fuel for Ward's furnace.

So, in summary, do I find Ward an embarrassment to my cloth and kin? No, he has some good points. Could he do with throttling back and offering the 'pithy and balanced' occasionally, vice the 'somewhat inaccurate and vitriolic' the whole time? Yes.

orca - I didn't say "dramatic uplift". :=

Orca,

I think you have summed up the situation in the most succinct and accurate way I have seen for some time.

It was (is) the obsession of the senior RAF to do away with the FAA FW that has poisoned all. But what is really sad is that although this was known about at he CDS and Prime Ministerial levels absolutely nothing was done about it. At least one CDS (RAF) and one CAS should have been sacked at the time but weren't. At least he Irish Air Marshall has been put out to grass and not allowed to progress to a position of further influence.

Hopefully with helicopter men and navigators at the top of the shop we might see some more reasoned play - my fingers remain firmly crossed!

How can he RAF possibly own the capability for embarked air power when nothing in their history gives them the ability to own this risk. The MAA should be all over this and direct that the RN should be the capability holder.

For those of you who have read his book on the Falklands war, you would have noticed that he was just as harsh on his RN counterparts when he felt they were not doing the right thing.

For those who have not read the book, go for it. There is a relatively new version around in paper back.

360
 

Can someone please tell us how the RAF and RN got on together on 360 sqn? I assume they had mixed crews.
It seams an age since the RN had a FW carrier capability. I assume non of those guys will be around to operate the F35. So what does it matter what colour blue the future jockeys wear after this capability holiday. Carrier ops will be new to any cadre who will have to learn a fresh how to exploit the capability to good effect. The RAF showed they were capable of operating Harriers on the carrier during CORPARATE as Sharky acknowledges. They did not have years of training and indoctrination into the ways of Nelson. Lets have some agile flexible forces that can be deployed on land or sea as the need dictates. FFS there is not enough cash in the economy to support any overlap. JHC is quite purple. It appears to work.

Let's try the shoe on the other foot. Imagine the RAF having to suffer the near total elimination or transfer of its FJ/AEW capability (plus associated air stations) as a direct result of the RN vaingloriously promising 24-hour global air cover. Next, imagine the RAF having to witness the subsequent destruction of several of its remaining air stations with many personnel suffering death or horrific injury.

In such circumstances, wouldn't some members of the RAF, particularly jet jockeys, be excused for holding views as bitter as Sharkey's?

While guilty of going for the throat at times, Sharkey still makes some salient points. Ironically, his most effective publicity managers are those, mainly of the light blue persuasion, who continue to draw attention to him purely to insult him. I think this is the fifth such thread on here.

History is here - 360sqn
mix was 25% RN/75% RAF air and ground crew. Every 4th OC (roughly) was RN - last one Cdr Phil Shaw. When I joined as the sqn formed in Oct 66 I was the (only) first tourist, and there was a heck of a lot of experience to learn from. Also a shortage of aircraft with a scratch collection of B2s and the odd B6. We also were AFAIK the first RAF sqn to adopt the RN's Divisional officer system

For a brief period I even had a posting notice to 361 Sqn and Singapore - did not last!

People keep banging on this line but I would simply observe that, during Op ELLAMY, a particularly inaccurate set of costings and analysis from his blog was picked up by the press (directly from his blog, no-one had posted it here first; this was about the same time as the 'RAF in hotels in Italy' scoop) and led directly to a flurry of entirely nugatory HQ staff work being directed merely to rebut it to press and parliament alike - needless to say, no 'clarification' was ever published in the media. So I would say that the press were far more effective than anyone on PPrune on that occasion, and the reason why people keep anti-posting here is to demonstrate to any passing journos that there are other professional views besides Sharkey's, and that cut-and-pasting his material into the papers might not necessarily be a good idea.

He does, but try sifting those out from the bitter inaccuracies and downright lies.

And there has long been a recognised campaign by both the RN & Army combined to eliminate the RAF.

I understand Sharkey had experience flying the F-4K with 892 and the PTF at Leuchars and off the old Audacious Ark Royal before the Sea Harrier. Indeed, I think I'm right in assuming he is of a sufficient vintage to have seen operational flying on the Sea Vixen at the start of his post-training flying career.

What I find alarming, and can't help thinking it is somehow politically engineered over funding to a degree, is that the R.A.F. and R.N. have been reduced to fighting over who should have all the fixed-wing combat aircraft.

FB:)

And Elvis is alive and living in Cuba.

I have a thought that a few RN pilots are on exchange with the USN, so are up to speed with fixed wing carrier ops.

And then some. Watch the video:

Apart from the penny-pinching nonsense of 'purple jointery' :yuk:, why on earth would the RAF think it has any claim to shipborne aircraft operation?

This all started when RAF Harriers went to the South Atlantic and were embarked aboard RN aircraft carriers. One wonders whether, if that action had never taken place, RAF aircraft would have been operated from ships...

A great shame that the FAA killed off the excellent Sea Harrier F/A 2 with its Blue Vixen, Link16 and AIM-120B AMRAAM capabilities. A very potent fighter. Once it had been withdrawn, it was clear that the thoroughly inadequate GR7's days were numbered as a naval aircraft - a bomber never makes a sound interceptor.

Congratulations to the RN graduands from flight school. Very, very well done.