The Phoenix Think Tank
 

I was looking up some general mil aviation info today ... and happened upon this 'organisation'.

Home - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval & Maritime Think Tank

Their 'Mission Statement'

I then noted from their Site Tag Map (below) a considerable 'focus' on Airpower, FAA, Carriers and RAF ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...psc32b4be5.png

I started reading this paper (Dated April 2014). It soon became evident that this was another attempted sledgehammer job directed at the RAF.

Air Power - The Metonymy of the RAF - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval & Maritime Think Tank

There are other Members far better qualified to comment on the facts and technicals discussed ... but it does seem to be politicking in the extreme ...

What do other Members think ?

PTT About Us Tab

There is very poor grammar on their 'About Us' page. It is difficult to take anybody who confuses their words and their grammar seriously, it shows a lack of care and thought.

ie,There.....



Just checking...

Good riddance to myopic and selective thinking. I stopped reading when I read the oft trotted lie regarding the Sea Kings doing all the work on Op Houghton. Strangely, I recall over 200 Royals being delivered by 5 CH47 in the first wave (and most of the vehicles in the second - though I seemed to have lost one somewhere....) while the SKs gasped to carry 6 each....oh, and for the umpteenth time, it WAS NOT an Amphib assault; due to the lack of grunt from the SKs and the fear of anti-ship mx, we disembarked and flew the first few waves from the Kuwaiti desert. To be absolutely honest, it would have been cheaper and quicker to just being the stores to a port and have shifted the whole lot via Chinook.....

Didn't see much mention of air cover to Overlord (including Fortitude), nor the Italy campaign nor the role of airpower in keeping Malta alive long enough for the (incredibly brave) sailors to deliver enough supplies to start interdicting Rommel's supply lines-but, of course, N Africa is airbrushed too. The role of the GR3s in 82 is ignored, as is MR, the Shrike missions and the stupendous efforts of BN. You'd think there were no CH47 in Sierra Leone either. Remind me again who pulled the Brits out of Lebanon in 06? Oh yeah, RAF Chinooks.....to Lusty. Because, whisper it, flying a capable helicopter with plenty of grunt onto a decent sized deck isn't that hard. Really, we should be celebrating the way the RN stitches together TAGs with an eye on the further integration of F35.

If the authors were not so keen to do a hatchet job, and be more balanced in their argument, then perhaps more notice would be taken. This paper has some important points to get across, but risks falling into "we're great, you're rubbish" territory.

Same old, same old.....
 

Same old rubbish peddled by the Bearded Bull$hitter and his cronies.

Brave fighter pilot undoubtedly though.

Isn't The Phoenix Think Tank (an Oxymoron up there with Army Intelligence and Friendly Fire) just a mastebatory aid for The Bearded Bulls#$ter?

I have sked them how we can comment on their articles. I'll report back with answers. I also note the if you sign up to Google+ you can now leave comments on Sharkey's "blog".

WARNING

If you have any understanding of Air Power (note I say Air Power and not RAF Power), then do not read the tripe that is "Air Power - The Metonymy of the RAF".

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Nor did my fellow lecturers in Air Power!

Does anybody know what turned Sharkey Ward into such a cranky old bull****ter with a massive chip on his shoulder about the RAF? Anything I've read about the Fleet Air Arm and RAF during the late 1970s had the usual banter but none of the nastiness he waffles on about. Yes the Navy was upset about loosing it's big carriers but the RAF crews that flew with the Navy towards the end thought the same thing.

Some deep analysis there..

Terrible out of context quote, but it amused me!

Dat,
In fairness, if you read his book he seems to have issues with anyone that wasn't a SHar pilot on his carrier.....

Unfortunately it is not printed on particularly soft nor absorbent paper.

THS, love it. Made me spray wine all over the old iPad. :ok:

Rather than buy his book, you might be better just donating to the Dementia Care Fund in Granada. Such a shame that a once good man, (well a good pilot) should turn into such a bitter, deluded old duffer that can't even get his facts right. At least there is enough BS in his "papers" to completely discredit the whole thing. Looks like it's the same for his buddies at Phoenix.

CM,
Good drills - lunchtime drinking!

THS - even if were on soft paper the amount of barbs would render it unsuitable....

I wonder if the current FSL is happy that a couple of his speech transcripts have been included on their 'Articles, Papers and Publications' TAB ?

Question sent to the RN. Questions are limited to 512 characters so I had to keep cutting my question down. I was left with this...

I'm sure I'll be ignored, told I asked the wrong people or fobbed off, but it's a start.

Navy trappers
 

Courtney. my boy. while you're at it, remind the Navy that they couldn't even provide their own trappers on the F4 in the 80s.

CM - unless he is a very good actor and accomplished dissembler, I think it's fair to say that 1SL does not buy into the underlying 'the RAF must be destroyed' rationale that the Phoenix Think Tank seems to possess. It should be noted that his predecessor as 1SL was less than impressed with the PTT as well.

The speech was on the RN website, and a pdf version of it can be found on the FAA Officers' Association website here

The PTT appears to credit the speech to the Maritime Engineers Review, which - if you look at the PTT page - seems to have carried it in abridged form.

Whether any copyright of the speech has been breached by either the FAAOA or the Maritime Engineers Review is not clear since the RN webpage has gone along with any note about copyright/fair use/attribution.

AIUI, the MoD isn't fussed if speeches which are given in open fora and which, after all, are meant to engage with the public or sections thereof are reproduced, although they do like a credit. I imagine that 1SL - as a WAFU (who is neither W or FU) - would not be too upset for the speech to have been disseminated more widely either. In truth, I don't think that its appearance on the PTT site represents anything more sinister than the PTT attempting to add content.

I do imagine, from what I have seen and heard from him, that 1SL would be upset if the PTT attempted in any way, shape or form, to suggest that he bought into the ideas that some of its bloggers seem to have about what should be done with the RAF, though.

We need, I think, to note that the issue is one of vocal dinosaurs churning out much vitriol while most - but not all - of the RN (aviators or not) I have met regard them with feelings that range from bemusement to distaste, since all they're interested in is working alongside their light blue colleagues and making things work.

Sadly, there is no internet comet around to kill off the aforementioned dinosaurs...

All true and I understand. I seek points of entry. Let me play. :ok:

To say the least!

While we're on the subject of half-truths and myth and legend, perhaps gzornenplatz could remind us which NAS was flying the F4 requiring trappers on which ship in the 80s? Or more pertinently, in what year and why the decision to shut the training pipeline for naval F4 aviators was made? Which might just have had a teensy-weensy bit to do with the light blue perception that the dark blue can never adequately man its FW? (Reprised in the noughties as well....)