Naval Scheming?
 

This appeared to me today Commons Submission

There doesn't seem to be much objectivity in it. If it's been posted before my apologies but it's definitely new to me.

Did Sharky write it for them?

According to the first line of the document, your answer is YES

Yes. Look at every Select Committee inquiry or similar where there might be a slight chance to bash the RAF and he’s in there with a variation on this submission. Indeed, if it’ll be the submission’s 10th anniversary appearance (although now minus the implication that the RAF Tornado chaps who died during Granby did so as the result of their own incompetence, which was how the first such stab at doing this read [in fairness, I don’t think he meant it to]).

Ah, the Bearded Bullsh!tter strikes again...

So Sharkey, just remind me on your b0110cks statement about the Sea-Going Jumping Bean again?

Iraq. Policing the no-fly zone.
Bosnia/Kosovo. Policing the no-fly zone

What is the difference compared to the F3 doing the same? Oh yes, no kills for the Shar too and also the F3 flew the OCA protection for the rescue package that went in to pick up the Shar pilot that got shot down over BH. He mentions 8 aircraft lost with the Tornado in Gulf War One and then fails to mention in the same list that a Shar was lost on DENY FLIGHT. Also he fails to mention that the Shar couldn’t land back on with its bomb load if it failed to drop (which it did) during the summer months. It either had to land at an airfield or ditch the bomb over the side before it landed on the through-deck cruiser.

The whole thing is utter garbage and the guy needs to go back to his care home...Nurse?...Nurse?...The Screens! :bored:

PS. There were 171 Tornado F3 and 228 Tornado GR1 - totally different to his figures too!

PPS. Also, no infrastructure costs at Yeovs for the Shar, which is another omission, the very visible Ski Jumps are a start as are the modifications to allow VTOL too. I am sure there would have been new engine facilities, hush houses, etc... There are so many holes in this paper, that it looks like a 10 year researched it!

Still, it's pretty hard to dismiss the large imbalance between investment in carrier capable and non-capable aviation.

Anyway, I think it's high time the RAF were closed down, and the assets (such as they are) absorbed into the FAA. It's been an interesting experiment but clearly it's run its course. A floating runway is a lot more useful than a runway in the wrong country, and it's kinda nuts that the RAF is allowed to deliberately buy aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy. Can't RAF pilots cope with bracing airs and sea sickness? I know they can't spot when snowmen have been built around concrete bollards.

(Tin hat on, ducking for cover behind the keyboard, fly swat at the ready :}).

Considering policy at the time was war in Europe and UK air defence it's positively worthless to buy overly large floating targets.

Ho Ho!

if I'm reading para 37 correctly it proposes having a QE and T45 permanently deployed 1300 miles from the UK to protect the country from ALCM?

Never heard the F3 called a Vehicle either.......a few other things maybe.

While not wishing to run down what the Harrier force did in Afganistan and Iraq, I don't think the GR4 force were slacking. 27mm, Brimstone, Paveway, Lightening and Raptor anyone?

msbbarratt
 

Why should anyone pay attention to your comments when you simply cannot make proper use of the English language..........

You are probably Russian, or Chinese, or even American............

"high time the RAF were closed down" - should be "was"........

" it's kinda nuts" - very American - certainly not English...........

"to deliberately buy" - split infinitive - not acceptable..........

"aircraft that don't like getting their wheels soggy" - what FAA aircraft does like getting its wheels soggy?.............

I shall build up the enthusiasm to respond to the important content of this thread after I have had a good night's sleep.

I'm not convinced that concrete runways can be moved out of harms way. Though these days I'm not sure what's more dangerous, a 1000lb bomb or a property developer. I know it's a lot harder to build a housing estate on an aircraft carrier...

No wonder the country is a mess if this is the standard of submissions that get through to the decision makers! I can't be bothered to Google the list of supporters but I trust there are no serving RN officers on it. Embarassing all round.

I like the way the author got all those officers from the Sea Cadets to support their case....

Sink one aircraft carrier no floating airfield, smash one land airfield plenty of other places to operate from.

I apologise for that utter bilge.

I'm an Oxfordshire lad, though possibly one of poor education and a terrible TV habit. Grew up in Abingdon, sniffing Jag engine fumes every time they ran one on the test stand.

"What FAA aircraft does like getting its wheels soggy?" Ones that can land on a wet deck...

Neddie Seagoon; re the defence of England."Build a full scale cardboard replica of England...
Anchor it off the coast of …. Then when the … have invaded it, we tow it out to sea - and pull the plug out."

The gist, with apologies, taken from 'The Goon Show', BBC radio, many years ago.
http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_s...ho_won_the_war"

Enter Bluebottle wearing doublet made from mum's old drawers;
Bluebottle, waits for audience applause... not a sausage; or strikes heroic pose, but trousers fall down and ruin effect. "Thinks...".
Little Jim; " He's fallen in the wah-taa! "

Para 37 is moderately intriguing (Russian bombers carrying lots of 1600 mile supersonic cruise missiles). They have omitted to mention that a long term 24/7 naval solution to that task would probably require 4* dedicated carriers, 4 T45s, and a lot of aircraft, all of which would probably cost more to run than buying a few more MRTTs and EJ200 spares. And I think they'd also struggle to find a patch of ocean to put them in that's up-threat and out of range of a NATO friendly airfield somewhere or other...

On the whole I think that naval aviation is a good thing; there are scenarios where a properly equipped floating runway is the best answer. However, naval aviation is not going to flourish if weak arguments like this are put forward.

* Just like there's 4 V boats - one on station, one in workup, one in the workshop, etc.

Ah....ye olde Sharkey Ward "Bring ye back ye Harrier" again.

He really has a chip on his shoulder doesn't he.
(Actually more like a whole sack of spuds)

Ttfn

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.