John KIts a miracle! Break through again!
Sigh….Read the “Cruel Sea” One of the two finest british novels about World War II IMHO. Its written by a man who knew, see how long it takes them to work up in wartime, not just a minor scrape, full on national emergency. Its a very accessible book which everyone with this interest should read anyway. But what you will see is that it takes them months to work up on a tiny corvette, a type the RN was very familiar with.
I have read “The Cruel Sea”. It’s the story of how a crew of civilians are taught from scratch to become the crew of a warship. Rather different from having experienced sailors carry out jobs they are already trained to do, I’d have thought.
John KNo this is getting absurd. When you are in a hole man stop digging. You clearly have never crewed a ship or have any concept of how one is crewed. Stop guessing at things you know absolutely nothing about.
Wartime does not change the length of time it takes to learn how to operate a totally unfamiliar vessel’s systems. To deploy that LPH within the window of the conflict we would have HAD to have scores of USN advisors embarked to show our lads the how’s, why’s and when’s. That would have been unacceptable to everyone….especially in view of the ‘South Africans’ who helped mate Shrike to the Vulcan force.
Bulwarks inspection stated that she was beyond viable recovery to operational status is that not clear enough for you?.
This is a futile discussion, as in fact we agree that it was most unlikely that Britain would have operated a US LPH in 1982. However, if it had come to pass, I have not said it would have been done overnight, but under wartime imperatives it would have been months, not years. As to having USN advisers, why not, provided they were disembarked no later than Ascension Island?
As for Bulwark, she was only taken out of serice in 1980. If you are telling me that in a national emergency she could not have been used in 1982, I’d have to say I doubt it. They’d have spent months planning for the fleet to deploy to the South Atlantic under peacetime conditions, in 1982 it took three days.
John KDo you know how long it takes a crew on a new type of vessel not to get lost between their bunks and their duty station? Its not about expereince with a “type”, this is not biggles, “if you can drive a centaur class light fleet carrier you can drive any carrier.” Iwo Jima would have taken months to get to grips with, at least a year to be truly proficient. Look how long crews used to take to work up in WW2, even on familiar ships.
Bulwarks motto was “Under thy wings I do trust” The ‘t’ had been dropped from the motto in the late 70s….There is a famous in house cartoon that illustrated the point in 1982, two sailors amazed that they are considering Bulwark and in the background HMS Victory is being towed out of dry dock.
This is getting abit tedious, because the fact is that Britain would almost certainly not have operated an Iwo Jima LPH in 1982. But if we had, under wartime pressures, none of the things you seem to think are huge problems would have been insurmountable. The Task Force sailed south three days after the invasion. In wartime things happen quickly. The Iwo Jima class were simple, straightforward ships, there is no getting round it.
Likewise, I am well aware that the Rusty B was in a poor state. So what? If it was an emergency, she would have been used, even if bits were falling off. Or are you saying that hundreds of men were not working on her as the Falklands crisis unfolded for that very reason?
John KLets try a little logic argument. We join “a minister” and “the Admiral” in November 1977, who look strangely like John Bird and John Fortune….
Still not proof is it? The idea that you would send an SSN but not tell the Argies is indeed an odd one, because unless they knew it would not be a deterrent. However, sending an SSN could also be seen as a provocation, and you know how the Foreign Office hates to provoke foreigners. The “solution” is to send the SSN to maintain a watching brief, but not to tell anyone about it. I’m not saying it makes sense, but then not much that governments do does make sense. And talking of things which don’t make sense, your strange belief that the Argentines would not have taken into account the fact that Britain possessed a large deck carrier at the time surely come under that heading.
John KYes, it’s a serious charge – but one that is easily checked. Simply compare his account of Tornado losses in the 1990-91 Iraq war with the official reports. He claims that three losses were due to crew being unfamiliar with the JP233, & ejecting unnecessarily when their aircraft suddenly gained height after releasing the weapon. That is flatly contradicted by the official loss reports, which state that only one Tornado was lost while carrying JP233, & that the crew did not eject, but died in their aircraft.
He also claims that only one Tornado was lost to enemy fire. This is also contradicted by both the official loss reports, & the accounts of Tornado crews who survived being shot down.
The only point on which he does not imply that both official loss reports & Tornado crews are lying is his claim that one Tornado was lost as a result of the premature detonation of the bombs it had dropped.
You’ve said that he fought for his country, & because of that he should be respected. I say that someone who libels RAF airmen who fought (& in some cases died) for their country has lost all right to respect. Why should he receive the courtesy he refuses to others?
I’m not going to try and argue with you, because I simply don’t have enough knowledge of this subject. I would be surprised if Ward was merely shooting his mouth off, in print, on this, but then again, maybe he is, I don’t know. I do know that he is one of our most experienced naval aviators, and moreover someone who is trying to make the case for naval aviation. Calling him a “tit” is just not on, in my opinion.
John KI’ve read some of the articles he’s written on the Phoenix so-called think tank (more like unthink tank) site. He ponitificates at length about land-based aviation, & in the process proves that whatever he was in 1982, he’s now a fool. He misquotes himself, by referring to his own articles & contradicting them. For his claims about the causes of Tornado losses in the 1991 Iraq campaign to be true, RAF accident investigators, ground crew, mission planners & aircrew, including those who were shot down & survived, would have to be complicit in the lies. Some of them would have to have been in on the conspiracy while prisoners of war in Iraq. Given that, how can we place any credence in anything he says? Have you read any of it?
I take it you are referring to the JP233? I really couldn’t say who is right on this, but whether it’s Ward or the RAF, it is pretty clear that this was a very expensive and utterly failed weapon. If the RAF had ever had to use it against Warsaw Pact airfields, casualty rates would have been akin to those suffered by the Fairey Battles in 1940, ie 100%.
John KAll of this puts pay to the lie that Ark Royal acted as a deterrent to Argentinian aggression. It just didn’t. A nuclear submarine called Dreadnought did.
You have still provided no evidence that the Argentines knew that an SSN had been despatched. However, I don’t think it’s vital, because, as you say, Britain made it quite clear that any aggression would be countered, something which shamefully did not happen in 1982. But the thing you are ignoring is that the Argentines would have known that any counter to their aggression would have included HMS Ark Royal, together with Hermes and Bulwark as CVS/LPHs. That’s deterrence, having the will and the means to resist aggression. You cannot seriously be arguing that because Ark Royal was in the Med the Argentines would have not been deterred by the mere fact of her existence?
John KIt wouldn’t have been the Harriers operating from it that were the issue. Driving a different ship is not like jumping from a Ford fiesta into a focus. It would take months, probably more than a year for a crew the size required for an iwo jima to be competent enough to enter a conflict. The harrier aircrew would take a couple of days to up and running, the sailors manning the grey suff under the flight deck would be your problem.
And anyway what makes you think the Iwo Jima class were simple ships?
Because they were simple ships. They were very straightforward designs. In 1982 the Royal Navy had loads of sailors who knew how to operate an LPH, flight deck operations would have been no problem, nor would the steam plant. But anyway, it’s a moot point, I’m quite sure that Bulwark would have been used as a replacement carrier if needed, and Illustrious was completed ahead of schedule as well, so Britain would have had another two carriers if necessary.
John KClearly, you have decided he has made false claims, which is quite a serious charge to make. I haven’t read the piece you mention, so I don’t have any opinion, and Ward isn’t on this forum to comment. But I stand by my comments, namely that with regard to naval aviation his experience makes him an expert witness, and further that nothing he says has had any effect on the government whatsoever. There are far larger forces at work here than a retired naval aviator could hope to influence. We are looking at an ongoing plan to integrate our armed forces into a Euro-wide entity. It is all being done in plain sight.
John KI’ve read some of the articles he’s written on the Phoenix so-called think tank (more like unthink tank) site. He ponitificates at length about land-based aviation, & in the process proves that whatever he was in 1982, he’s now a fool. He misquotes himself, by referring to his own articles & contradicting them. For his claims about the causes of Tornado losses in the 1991 Iraq campaign to be true, RAF accident investigators, ground crew, mission planners & aircrew, including those who were shot down & survived, would have to be complicit in the lies. Some of them would have to have been in on the conspiracy while prisoners of war in Iraq. Given that, how can we place any credence in anything he says? Have you read any of it?
I am strongly in favour of FAA fixed-wing aviation, & have found myself in frequent disagreements with those who advocate its abolition. I find Ward an embarrassment now, & wish he’d shut up. The RAF doesn’t need to argue against carriers. It can just point to his articles & say “That’s the case being put forward by the pro-carrier crowd. Now that we’ve established that they’re a bunch of cranky weirdos, would you like to see our plans?”.
I said if he’s talking about naval aviation his views deserve consideration. But as I’ve said before, if you think his views sway the government in any way, I’d have to differ with you. The fact that the CVFs are being changed to CATOBAR has nothing to do with Sharky Ward, and everything to do with the desire to blend our Navy with that of France, which wasn’t something I remember being discussed at the election, by the way.
John KJonesy:
I think it does make a difference. There would have been no way on earth the Royal Navy could have operated, say, USS Coral Sea without months of effort, though at least in 1982 there would still have been a cadre of sailors with experience of operating a conventional carrier. In wartime, I think a much simpler ship such as an Iwo Jima would have been well within the Royal Navy’s ability to operate. We know that the type could support Harrier operations, because the Americans proved it. As it was, HMS Bulwark was being brought out of reserve as the Falklands war progressed, and if it had gone on much longer, could have been brought back into service. That would have made more sense than trying to get used to a new ship, I grant you that.
John KThey knew, otherwise there would be no point using it as a deterrent. Various back door diplomatic channels would have given the message. Argentinian intelligence would have been “allowed” to confirm the rumours, or at least been unable to say they were wrong. Thats how these things work.
Yes carriers are a factor in the concept of armed deterrence, as are every single weapon system in the nations armoury, but the knowledge of her exsistence was not what stopped the Junta. If she had been ordered south I would agree with you, but she wasn’t (she was in the Med actually), Dreadnought, Alacrity, Pheobe, Resource and Olwen were and that was the force that deterred. If you say a ship that wasn’t involved or present is what deterred Argentina then you may as well argue that it was also a victory for 1 (BR) Corps stationed in Germany at the time, or the fighter wing at RAF Leuchars. Deterrence has it limits.
Lets face it the knowledge of 14 super carriers did not deter Iraqs invasion of Kuwait but when they were present in region they helped prevent the invasion continuing into Saudi.
Bloody hell, you must be cheery down the pub. You know none of these things and they are unlikely for all sorts of reasons, including public opinion, actual physical need and of course the needs of british industry to keep building stuff.
I am not seeing any proof that the Argentines knew of the SSN’s deployment. That might be what you think happened, it’s not the same as what actually did happen. And if you think that the fact that Britain had a large deck carrier actually at sea at the time had no effect on Argentine calculations, then you must think they were very stupid people indeed. I can’t help thinking that the knowledge that the RAF had a base in Scotland would not have been a major factor in deterring Argentine aggression.
As to the things you say are “unlikely”, they are what has been announced, so I can’t see your point. There will only be 7 Astutes, the surface fleet will decline to 19, there will be no fixed wing naval aviation until 2020 at least. No, I’m not happy about it, but at least I don’t suffer from some sort of delusion that the Royal Navy is better off now than it was before these cuts.
John K
Sharky Ward is not always rational or objective in his views. And it looks like the apple did not fall far from the tree.
If Sharky Ward is talking about bee keeping, then his views are of no more worth than yours or mine. If he is talking about naval aviation then I would tend to listen to him. He is what a court would describe as an expert witness.
As for Ward Jr, if Green Dave wants to parade himself in front of officers and invite questions, then it was a fair question to ask. The Tosser’s answer was a vapid mixture of half-truths, equivocations and patronising gash. In other words. a true politician’s answer.
John KThe carrier offer, if genuine, was more form than function. Absolutely wonderful gesture from a man who was well feted as a friend of the UK after the war. In reality though the time that would have been taken to work up an RN crew on unfamiliar systems, on a vessel as complex as a US carrier, totally precluded that as a practical option for the campaign.
I believe the “carrier” discussed was an Iwo Jima class LPH, not a CV. It would have been well within the ability of the Royal Navy to operate it as an ad hoc Harrier carrier, indeed, the Americans proved it could be done when they were exploring the Sea Control Ship idea.
John KI think you’ll find that the Argentines didn’t know an SSN had been sent down south in 1977. These things aren’t advertised are they? Of course, the junta would have been aware that in 1977 we still had a large deck carrier. That’s one of the things about carriers, they deter aggression.
As to the rest, the SSN numbers will decline, the surface fleet numbers will decline, there will be no fixed wing naval aviation, the RFA’s MARS project seems dead, but never mind, the French will always lend us “Charles de Gaulle” if needs be, so all’s well with the world. I have to admire your optimism, however deluded it may turn out to be.
Sign In
