Really? Well that is truly impressive, if, correct...

The contract didn't specify a requirement for cat and trap, at that time or in future.
"for, but not with" was invented by some politician.

I don't really think that we stitched them. They were stitched by the political requirements. Neither it nor lynx is really a suitable helicopter for the Army role, but hey, what can you do?

Overall, I think we are quite well off at the moment expect for the scale issue.

Remember the Typhoon gun fiasco - not required to save money. But it would cost more to design it out. So leave the design and fit ballast. But it would cost more to design ballast. So fit a gun as ballast but not pay for a support system.

No Peter - I don't think you can blame the politicians for that one. 2010 SDSR created the option to paint a new scene from an old canvass. My own understanding of the situation was that certain non-politicians with motives to change to the C-variant assured the new politicians that it was 'do-able' and that it would bring a greater range capability. The actual mantra of FFBNW was invented lower down the food chain and fed up to the new Govt to read as SDSR policy once they'd managed to get the changes agreed. As we later found out, the costings didn't exactly stack up when ACA did the homework on making the changes. Frankly it was a wasted 2 years but the context of the B-variant being probation did a lot to force our hand to look at alternatives.

There are some very creative and well considered posts here. But, sadly, not very well informed.

I hope I haven't missed a tongue in cheek jokette again. Sorry if I have, but here's another side to that story.

The word came from the MoD that the SHAR was going to be scrapped. Even we landlubbers asked how the fleet was going to be provided with air defence cover. Much to our surprise, it transpired that we were going to provide it. In UK waters, not a problem - all my UK tours were on SACLANT assigned sqns so we had done that, assuming the ship didn't shoot us down.

When we asked (of our friends in the "Big House") what the hell was going on, it eventually transpired that the MoD's lack of action had resulted in "ministerial" decisions that were not open to discussion. There were no answers to how we were supposed to take over fleet defence when the fleet wasn't within range of land based AD.

It may suit some of you to dream of a very clever RAF conspiracy to imasculate the RN or the FAA, but you could not be farther from the truth. You may be surprised to learn how much support there was from the RAF to maintain a capability that we knew we could not possibly take over. The GR9 never even entered into the argument.

CM, from my point of view, very low down in the food chain, cancellation of SHAR was to free up funds for JSF; their Lordships made that decision and have continued to prioritise funds to LII over other needs.

Yes, Kitbag, I think you have a point there. In the days when spending on projects was taken "at risk" (meaning they didn't have the funding for a particular part of a project, but hoped that it may eventually come through) the thinking you suggest did happen. At the time, Typhoon was soaking up massive amounts of the Defence Budget. But so were a number of new programmes, JSF included. And that is where the silly old git Sharkey is aiming his ill-informed rabid rants. He might be better placed aiming at the politics behind the programmes than at the arms that operate them.

Maybe Ward has a point? Even in the scummy papers...
 

Britain's missing Tornados as No10 wants to send more jets to Syria | Daily Mail Online


The Mail on Sunday pulled no punches and is right to publish this story.
The coming strike will be conducted by Tornado, but by a relatively small number from an ever reducing force.
Familiar to every serving RAF member here I'm sure but don't moan at me, it's illuminating to civilians like myself.
Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?
An ex-AVM says the attacks can not be maintained at any level of intensity to the detriment of the enemy.
I could post this in any one of three or four running threads on here.....the air attacks just don't add up to the risk they incur, or are worth the wrath we will incur later.


* Just a point of order, way up back in the posts above someone said a carrier was delayed from sailing because of a faulty radar. I think that was Invincible in February or March of 1998 whilst on some another anti Iraq operation. I'd have to check my diary, which I don't have with me. The port was Dubai. The radar was the heavy duty looking long range radar above the bridge (forget type name).We were at sea. As I re-call retainer bolts had sheared due to sea motion? (STBC there). However we were alongside DB within a short time, a new part flown out, a crane hired and the radar self- changed by the WE Department within a pretty short period -2 days alongside, maybe a slight delay sailing at night due to the cross wind? Very impressive, the way that obstacle was overcome. Back on operations shortly thereafter. Was never a massive lover of CVS but it or they are a part of my professional past-life for better or worse. HS.

CM, sorry, got you again. Check the small print. Just suggesting how some bearded fish might claim.

No HS, Ward is aiming at the wrong target, and has consistently done so, blurring the causes of the emasculation of the FAA with piss poor political decision making. In another thread there was mention of the deployed Air Power for GW1;
from the RAF web site.


Not possible now, the loss of critical mass is eye watering

Well, it's a fun debate, but we are ranging a little bit away from the bearded idiot's latest rabid rant.

From a purely personal point of view, I seriously dislike the tribal RAF/RN/ARMY bolleaux. The only way the UK Armed Forces are going to continue to be a world beating force is by working together. Inside the MoD/Public boundary that is what is happening.

CM, :D, in this age the RN cannot operate on its own. When it had its own port facilities, stores, harbours and airfields it could rely on SLOC but no longer. Critical supply needs go by air etc etc

...and with the shape of the U.K. Armed Forces that is to come, neither can the RAF. Frack the tribalism.

:bored: nurse, the screens:hmm:

Al-Bert, scoff as you wish. Since you and I retired, the guys haven't been doing so badly.

didn't say they had CM, but hardly world beating? Successive Govts saw to that :hmm:

I don't think the guys and girls have lost their way. And, despite "successive governments" they have some pretty impressive kit that some of us here would have dreamed of.

Some here may feel otherwise. The bearded idiot clearly does.

"The Mail on Sunday pulled no punches and is right to publish this story."


that would be the Mail on Sunday that always calls for tax cuts yes?

maybe a one off tax on newspaper proprieters is called for to be spent on the Tornado force?

Quote:
"Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?"

We have to hope that either the report is exaggerated, and/or that there would be a way round the shortage. Imagine the propaganda value to Daesh of the UK being seen once again to be disorganised, divided and impotent. You are assuming that they would be less likely to attack an enemy that has equivocated in a manner they would perceive as weakness and decadence. Many would take a different view.

So what happened to the Jags, they appear to have erm, misplaced them by mid January :E

Not an idiot.
 

Come on man, please don't call the guy (Lt Cdr Ward) an idiot.
Yes firm opinions expressed, but really would you expect anything else, really? Really? He was a RN fast-jet squadron CO on a carrier in a real conflict under immense pressure and when the chips were down he came through that alive and leading people on the winning side. He did that, its documented.
Surely now as an older man, a Senior, he is entitled to write and publish and produce what he wants as he can see it>?
Give him credit for free thinking, give him credit for loyalty to the FAA RN ethos if nothing else.
No intention to enter the debate beyond that, thank-you.

If not an idiot then perhaps just a plain old liar?

Given what he publishes it may be kinder to question his cognitive functions than his integrity. If you repeatedly publish stuff that is untrue then your audience will judge you.

Certainly it's striking the degree to which we're equivocating and agonising at the moment, and the extent to which J Corbyn is shaping UK foreign policy. A triumph of the democratic process or a very different sign to key allies?

Does it give him the right to publicly attack those who were in the same boat as him (or even those who, on occasion, flew past his boat)?








stand by for incoming: a boat is a submarine..blah blah blah blah :)

Hangarshuffle,

Have you read the stuff he publishes? I couldn't care less that he has a pathological hatred of the RAF, that's his problem. But the rubbish he writes is bordering on paranoid, not to mention factually incorrect and dripping with bitterness and bile. If he seriously believes his own rantings I can only imagine he is either senile, deluded or an idiot.

I would normally give the benefit of the doubt to people, but Sharkey has become beyond parody. An angry man who doesnt write informed opinion, but angry keyboard thumping rants about how everything is wrong.

He's not a commentator in any meaningful sense, he's the embarrassing grandparent sitting in the corner rambling to themselves while everyone shuffles about quietly waiting for them to go back to the home...

Has anyone ever seen Sharkey Ward and Jeremy Corbyn in the same room?

There is only one way to solve this............:O

I'm with Courtney Mil here the man just has just been ranting for years -

he needs help IMHO - it's noy good to be so ANGRY

IF Commander Ward:

Was in possession, or even sought, the facts upon which he writes;

In his writing demonstrated a clear, analytical, military mind;

Made his case clear and objective, with conclusions that supported his main argument(s);

...and didn't still think it was 1982 all over again;

then perhaps I'd agree with you Hangarshuffle. However, none of the above is true and that has been the case for some time now.

Firmly agree with CM!

Yes, Jenkins. He was once a good operator. Sadly now reduced to building private websites with the sole purpose of attacking the RAF.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with Sharkey, a few points.


If what he says is so ludicrous, rather than playing the man, play the ball.

One of you surely has the time to take each of his points, and refute them with references.

This way, whenever he says them again, there is a database that you can just produce to prove him wrong.

This whole thread is just abuse. That should not be necessary if he is so obviously mad.

If everything he says is so stupid/annoying, have you not learned that all these threads (is it 5 "I hate Sharkey threads now?!) just advertise his point of view?


Saying "he is stupid/mad" is not an argument.

Clear reasoned counter arguments with valid references is the grown up way to win a debate.
If a journo reads this, the best he can take away is "lots of RAF hate him and think he's wrong but have no evidence or specific arguments against his point of view."

Gets my vote Tourist.

The rambling old fool produces no references and presumably you do not help from Pprune to realise that we had zero Tornados in Kuwait in GW1?

The bearded idiot is the one posting aggressive bile on the internet, not the forum membership.

Well said Tourist, I was thinking the excat same thing yesterday. There seems to be a lot of abuse with no evidence to back up said abuse. It's almost like old women swinging handbags have a paddy.

I've just re-read the linked bit that Cmdr Ward contributed too (Page 1) and could some of you chaps obviously aggrieved by what he contributed too, please tell everybody without the usual emotions precisely what he has stated that is so wrong? I have no axe to grind but I don't see anybody informing me why they think he is so wrong.

Mustafa, try reading this thread again. Just for the hard of understanding:

OK, Typhoon has yet to get an independent laser targeting capability. However NOT continuing such investment WOULD unquestionably be throwing good money AWAY.

Tornado is neither obsolete nor obsolescent. Its planned out of service date is still to come.

It is by no means proven that Tornado would be unable to evade the Russian S-400 SAM or that other aircraft, such as Typhoon, could.

He asserts that the Growler could conduct SEAD missions and we could have bought 3 for 1 Typhoon. Had we procured Growlers in previous years we would have had no requirement until such time as the Russians threat our aircraft. He may be correct but we have allies for just that reason.

He states that the S-400 has a capability to cover to 90,000 feet out to 250 nm. He is clearly a paid up member of the flat earth society.

As for the Tornado reactive tasking in AFG, that has been comprehensively debunked.

Ward’s article is biased and makes unproven assertions without sources nor the possibility of comment and disagreement.

Sorry Puntious, I didn't know you were such an expert. I must be one of the hard of understanding gang, that never wore light blue or navy come to that.

A simple Wiki of S400 (not the Mercedes type) comes up with very similar figures but hey; who the hell are Wiki. Janes surprisingly come up with some very similar stuff.

Personally I'd go along with a very poor view on something which first flew in 1992 not having an independent laser targeting capability until 2019 - in service?

As for obsolete or obsolescent - well those are just figures our wonderful leaders just bandy around to suit budgets and in/out of service date are not worth the paper they are printed on - not sure that gives the guys that sign for and straps, said dates the their posteriors a very warm feeling.

As I said I have no axe to grind, certainly not with Cmdr Ward, or you come to that, but happen some substance instead of the inter service 'de-bunking' going on.

Now you have a nice day:)