The whole argument can be summed up as "the RN are (excrement) at lobbying".

He missed off four words at the start of the submission, and six at the end. "once upon a time" and "They all lived happily ever after". Paragraph 33 is a BLATANT LIE!
Quote "Combat Operations. 33. Nimrod was significantly absent from the effective direct support of the Falklands War, 1982, and from all other conflicts engaged in since that time." unquote.

If that's how you type an ellipsis you need to get that keyboard fixed before you claim to be the grammer police here. :D

Airbubba
grammar...

+ two for characters

Your right. :ok:

you're welcome!

Sounds like someone is a operating a carrier missing a few aircraft on the flight desk.

A report lacking any evidence other than the author’s opinion. Do I take it this isn’t a new thing?

The pearl clutching and smelling salts is all a bit unnecessary though.

The document starts with the phrase "Written evidence..." but in fact there is little evidence in here at all. It's full of dramatic hyperbole, emotional gushing and a distinct paucity of any balance or structure. If you had enough carriers for a few CAGs and the aircraft to deploy with them, there might be some validity in parts of this, but when your force projection relies on "One on, and one in the wash" while hoping your protective screen will keep going long enough to get out of Plymouth Sound, you might have missed the point of Strategic Maritime Policy.

The greatest technological advancement associated with modern carriers is that the Chinese no longer have to bother trying to reduce the CEP of their Anti-Ship weapons, so it's not all bad news.

Forgive my intrusion in this inter-Service bunfight, but I don't recall the author having worked in Director General Aircraft (Navy) HQ - in the 80s, at least. Had he drafted any such 'submission' our Admiral would have invited him to the 5th floor for a career brief on his brief career. After he'd been kicked up and down the 3rd floor by the Admiral's Technical Advisor.

But quietly, boss would ask his most recent recruit to identify the truths, and what to do. While waiting, he'd make the tea. When (not if) you cracked it, it was back up to the 5th floor for sherry - giving the ongoing kicking a body swerve as you passed the FW office. (All FW in one small office, which is related to one of the few truths). In total, a pleasant 15 minute diversion and back to work.

Does the RAF have a similarly devoted author of such documents? Also how does the RAF go about re-balancing the discussion?

Despite the creative use of numbers and outright lies contained in them, if these are regularly submitted is there a danger someone might actually believe it?

insty66

In general terms, there is always a government minister whose role is to 'engage' with retired senior officers. Quite often the Defence spokesman in the House of Lords. I imagine the retired Air Staff will have had a word, although that does raise the question of who is the greater liar.

Sharkey
 

Every time his name surfaces on here my thoughts are the same.

Why would a man who did such sterling work in the 80’s (I know he was a marmite character even then but nobody can deny he did a good job in the Falklands even if his opinion of his own self worth may be a little exaggerated) allow himself to turn into such a comedy character?

I don’t know how staff work looked in the 80’s but if I’d submitted something like that at any point in the last 20 years it wouldn’t make it off the Sqn let alone anywhere near the corridors of power.

If I were Navy I’d be pleading with him to STFU. He is not doing anyone any favours, least of all himself.

Anyone with half a brain can see his submission is basically a bunch of inane and completely incorrect ramblings. Surely nobody takes any of his work seriously?!

BV

Edited to add to Tucumseh, didn’t Sharkey retire as a Commander? If a government minister has to engage with every retired officer of OF4 rank and above they wouldn’t have time to sleep. The bottom line is that someone of that rank may have fulfilled an important role whilst serving but they can hardly be regarded as a policy maker.

I stopped reading this submission when I got to the bottom of the first page and saw that a Lt Cdr Lester May had supported the narrative. Indeed, this document reads very much like a piece of his own work. Anyone who has read his bigoted and ant-RAF letters to The Times over the years will recognise his hand in this comical piece of staff work.

Is it possible that at some point in the past an RAF officer’s dog pissed on Sharkey Ward’s shoes?

It was Father’s ambition to train the family lab to bark at Naval officers, and then station him at the door to the mess at Northwood. At least I now have some grasp of the old man’s antipathy.

Perhaps we might change the thread title from "Naval Scheming" which demonstrates a certain paranoia among some, to "Another Random Sharkey Rant". There are no serving dark blue in that list - and as ATG notes, no support from those currently serving.

Sharkey Ward is like that embarrassing relative who turns up at family occasions and just as think it will all be alright he starts shouting off about c***s and n*****s.

I note that he combines assets such as Nimrod and Sentinel into his big list to be compared with the Harrier. Presumably his precious SHAR can do all of those tasks as well. I would like to think that one day a former Granby Tornado crewman will quietly take him aside and explain a few facts of life.

Nor fact. Nor sanity.

Is poor old Sharkey well?

I can’t be arsed to address the rest of the bilge but feel compelled to address this slur (and outright lie):

Eight losses were:
13 Jan - CFIT in Oman during theatre familiarisation training
16 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack, famously carrying 1000lb bombs (Peters/Nichol)
17 Jan - flew into ground minutes after completing JP233 attack. SAM hit suspected but not publicly confirmed.
19 Jan - shot down during low level airfield attack. Not publicly released which weapon carried, but it is known that four of the 8-ship were armed with JP233 and four with 1000lb bombs.
20 Jan - technical failure shortly after takeoff.
22 Jan - flew into ground near target (some sources claim shot down by MiG-29). Weapon load not publicly released*
24 Jan - premature detonation of 1000lb bomb.
14 Feb - shot down by SAM during medium level LGB attack.

To my mind, being shot down counts as “enemy action” irrespective of any other causal factors which may have put the aircraft at increased risk. So of the 8 losses, ‘only’ 6 were in combat; 3 were confirmed as due to enemy action, with 2 ‘possible’; *just one* was confirmed to have no Iraqi involvement. In only one, gusting 2 cases can vulnerability during JP233 delivery be cited as a likely part of the story. How that translates to ‘most’ or ‘unfamiliarity’ is beyond me. I can only conclude that some FAA types *still* hate everything to do with Tornado after SDSR10 and don’t care about making unfounded slurs against it and some extremely courageous aircrew to support their case. Easy to forget at 30 years’ distance that Iraqi air defences were considered highly capable before the decline which ensued after the war.

I have no doubt we’ll see a couple of commenters on here saying “well he gets you RAF lot wound up nicely, why don’t you just ignore him if it’s so much rubbish?”. Ignoring him is undoubtedly the best policy in official circles, and whatever you think of politicians they are all switched-on enough to recognise the submission for what it is. Trouble is, in the cesspit of the Internet (where a list of senior endorsements is probably enough for some to take the material as credible) it’s a matter of honour to push back against material as wilfully and offensively wrong as this.

* With respect to 22 Jan, the JP233 delivery profile (being straight and level) was much less likely to result in CFIT than the extremely hazardous “loft” (actually, toss) profile used for the 1000lb bombs. So if they were carrying JP233 - which the MOD has not seen fit to confirm - the only way it’s likely to have contributed to this loss is if it led to the aircraft being hit by ground fire before crashing. There is no claim of that by either side so I don’t see how this one can be pinned on JP233 in any case.

I thought it was an April Fool when I read it . It is appalling - most of it is knocking land based programmes, there is no discussion of exactly what missions these carrier aircraft will achieve, he doesn't mention the carriers (cost, time frame, manning issues) only . The sort of argument that "jimmy has been given a new ball so I have to have one as well" - bereft of logic and argument

Sad really.

I wasted a bit of this morning reading this infantile scribble, and regret it. Even with my non-aircrew background it strikes me as emotional and in places tragically inaccurate.

I believe the phrase is "Situating the Appreciation", starting with the desired answer and selectively adding 'facts' to support it.