Her Majesty the Queen names HMS Queen Elizabeth

He lives in the Caribbean, his son Lt Cdr Chris "mental" Ward sent a copy of Harrier over the Falklands to him to sign for my Father in law, which he did and sent back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Tomahawk

Lantern Swinger
Sharky is a contributor and originator to the following website:

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org

To be honest he was RN so he has a right to put the RN side to his rants, maybe you could mod him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem is that PTT is a laughable excuse of a thinktank which descends quickly into a 'the RAF is shit, I hate crabs, in fact I hate anyone who isn't me'.

Anyone who sends a letter to the Foreign Secretary bemoaning how appalling RAF Transport Command is, bearing in mind it was scrapped roughly 50 years ago, shows their lack of credibility.

Sharkey had a good war and was incredibly brave and did things I know I could not do. But he has squandered his reputation and ability to get those at the very highest levels who were listening to him to take note, to instead descend down a road of shouting loudly with ever fewer senior or other people giving him time. Its a real shame as he could add a lot if he perhaps let some of his prejudices about the RAF go.
I've had my dissertation published on PTT so I'm grateful for that. I would disagree with PT's sentiments about the fact that it's laughable, there are many informative articles on there, from what I've found.
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
Tomahawk - each to its own, but if you look at the majority of quality UK defence sites like ARRSE or Think Defence for example, the use of PTT to support an argument has essentially been laughed out of court because too many of the early posts rely heavily on massively distorted facts, and no real use of proper objective research.

If you want to get an idea of how its viewed, I'd hang around ARRSE or TD for a while and get their take, but be prepared for some quite strong language...

(Tomahawk - I havent been for a little while so no idea what you dissertation is on - unfortunately the articles by alex clarke and Sharkey have terminally damaged the sites credibility for others).
 

Tomahawk

Lantern Swinger
Tomahawk - each to its own, but if you look at the majority of quality UK defence sites like ARRSE or Think Defence for example, the use of PTT to support an argument has essentially been laughed out of court because too many of the early posts rely heavily on massively distorted facts, and no real use of proper objective research.

If you want to get an idea of how its viewed, I'd hang around ARRSE or TD for a while and get their take, but be prepared for some quite strong language...

(Tomahawk - I havent been for a little while so no idea what you dissertation is on - unfortunately the articles by alex clarke and Sharkey have terminally damaged the sites credibility for others).
PT - Understood, I've looked at a few of the more recent articles on there and found them reasonable and well-written. I haven't dug into the depths of the site though. If what you say is true, and I will explore ARRSE and Think Defence, that is a shame then. I'm very much an advocate for a naval-centric defence policy but not at the risk of neglecting other areas of capability, whether they be RAF or Army based.

(My dissertation was on the Cold War Royal Navy before, during and after the Falklands War. I was lucky (in my opinion) to have Michael Clapp to review my dissertation before publication.)
 
I'm gutted. I have been taught from an early age to believe the RAF is shit and now, it seems I am to infer from the tenor of PT's scholarly critical analysis of PTT that it has all been baseless prejudice.
I haven't felt so utterly bereft since my class instructor at Raleigh informed me that Santa Claus is a mythical figure and that Jesus is dead.
I may never, ever sleep again.
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
TH - the big issue PTT had was that it came into existence using some fairly emotive pieces which just didnt work as credible research. The trick to being a good think tank is to say something different, but not in a way which alienates the audience. Here they failed miserably, and along the way posted stuff which was genuinely embarrassing to read, and I would argue has done more damage to the RNs cause than they comprehend.
 

Tomahawk

Lantern Swinger
TH - the big issue PTT had was that it came into existence using some fairly emotive pieces which just didnt work as credible research. The trick to being a good think tank is to say something different, but not in a way which alienates the audience. Here they failed miserably, and along the way posted stuff which was genuinely embarrassing to read, and I would argue has done more damage to the RNs cause than they comprehend.
Ah ok, it's all well and good to argue a case but you have to be, in my opinion, level-headed and balanced when putting your case across. It would be good if they could rebuild their reputation as I do think they have some good pieces.

I would be interested in getting people's thoughts on my dissertation if possible, I can upload it on here or through PTT, it would be interesting for me to have some reactions on it from people who have served in the RN.
 
Orlright then Bandy,me old mucker me old China plate innit ; I will try and talk like what you would prefer As I didn't use words or frases like wot you never learned at university like what I did .I assume you never actually a Pater yourself like (or a Mater eever ).PS I woz a bandsman , but only in the RNVB and thus a pezzant ; not like YEW ,eh ??
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
The PPT is of the opinion - and has been for some time - that the 'A' in QARNNS stands for 'Anne's '. Oh dear.

Best Defence site in my opinion is RUSI www. rusi.org Some of their briefings and papers are public domain. The organisation, its HQ, its researchers and its journal (members only) are impressive. Their members' events have speakers who are clued up, been there, done that. General Petraeus is a regular. Founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington no less. Contrary to what the strategic ABs think, Defence and Security academics are well dialled in. The DG interviews very well.

Mentioned before, The Naval Review. Never mind its members' only forum, its quarterly journal which is in closed circulation for 10 years ( there are stray copies out there but there shouldn't be ) allows its serving members to publish -even radical, blasphemous ideas without MoD approval. Members had a reception with Princess Anne last summer. Even ARRSE has a way to to get Royal recognition but one never knows. RR may be trailing even further behind; just my Gibb's gut.
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
Eagle3e2, you're new here so I'll be lenient. Read the standing orders for the Current Affairs forum, and don't post dribble here again. Thank you.
 
Orlright then Bandy,me old mucker me old China plate innit ; I will try and talk like what you would prefer As I didn't use words or frases like wot you never learned at university like what I did .I assume you never actually a Pater yourself like (or a Mater eever ).PS I woz a bandsman , but only in the RNVB and thus a pezzant ; not like YEW ,eh ??
Ooh! A reply.
Have I communicated with you? I can't remember, I must have been pi55ed.
I love your turn of phrase, a man after my own heart, I still can't remember you though. I have a selective memory, very selective.
Oh, wait, you're the gentleman with the pater patter, aren't you? Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

p.s. I learned my English long before I attended university, I found it a distinct advantage to have done so.
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
An interesting quote on the award winning RN website reference the new carriers:

RN Website said:
AIRCRAFT CARRIER
Currently being built at shipyards around the country, HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are the future flagships of the nation. Initially the ships will carry helicopters. The vast flight deck and hangar can accommodate any helicopter in Britain’s military inventory. From 2020, however, our punch will be delivered by the F35 Lightning II, the world’s most advanced stealth fighter-bomber.
Is this the same nonsensical boasts about swimming pools, double-decker buses & "x football pitches" that the prematurely retired carriers & aircraft could also claim? ....Or can the aircraft lift actually accommodate a standard chinook, not reduced to jiffy-bags full of bits?

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships/future-ships/aircraft-carrier

I already pity the future Officer candidates that tell Commander Air at AIB how they've aready managed to land several jumbo jets on it whilst holding the Qatar World Cup qualifiers simultaneously - producing the photos and proclaiming joyfully: "Fact".
 
We had Chinooks land on Uganda. Now that was scary. The flght deck was only just big enough to have all wheels on and the ramp down. We had to stand at the end of the ramp to stop Percy running down the ramp, straight into the flightdeck nets, and then into the Oggin. The Pilot was sat over the sea and not over the deck. Scary stuff. Oh, and the down draft would blow unprepared Matelots/Bandies down the casualty handling ramp! Which is wha happened to half the flight deck crew the first time one landed on!
 

pg55555

Lantern Swinger
.

There is an electronic version of the RN "book" celebrating the "launch" of HMS Queen Elizabeth available her ;

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...uu.com/faircountmedia/docs/hms_queenelizabeth

The page is temperamental and if it doesn't work first time it might work the second. The "book" has some interesting pictures, but also lots of advert. One picture missing is of HMS Hermes, it would seem that MOD doesn't like reminding people of some things.

---------------------------

One oddity. In the hangar diagram the F-35s are shown strewn rather awkwardly, when the ships were being designed supposedly each one was going to have a special dedicated maintenance bay with plenty of working room around each aircraft - has this gone in the cost-savings ?

.
 
Fitting aircraft into a hangar is a delicate ballet of precise positioning. Depending on the maintenance required, aircraft required for the next days flypro, and where the services are (Hyds, high pressure air, fuel etc). It would be pointless giving each aircraft a bay as when it's not used the ships company will fill it with wooden crates with who knows what in or clubs will carry out circuits in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top