Joint Force Harrier

[Bluejay]

Just read an interesting article in "Aircraft Illustrated" (I think!!) about the disbandment of 800 Sqn NAS, at the end it mentioned that 800 would be reformed on Harrier GR7/9 and one of the RAF Harrier Squadrons at RAF Cottesmore would be disbanded (or 'losing its number plate' as the article phrased it'). Is this correct and does anyone have any idea of which squadron it will be?

Thanks in advance

Rgds

Bluejay

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See the following thread...

Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152)

[Archimedes]

To save you wading through the thread (although, if I may, I'd suggest you read it, since it is an interesting one!):

Yes, it's true.

There will be four GR 7A/GR 9 units, each (last time I saw it published) 9 aircraft each.

Under present plans (or at least those that have made it into the public domain), 3 Squadron, as the most junior of the Harrier number plates will disband, but, since it is one of the most senior RAF number plates, will almost certainly reform on the Typhoon.

1 and 4 will have a preponderance of RAF pilots, while 800 and 801 are to have a preponderance of RN pilots - but all four will have an RAF/RN mix.

[Bluejay]

Thanks Archimedes

and thanks WE Branch Fanatic

Personally I think its a shame that any of the Harrier units should loose their number plates, but if that is what has to be done then it has to be done.

I will read that thread in the near future with interest.

Unfortunatly I am not Aircrew (due to an unfortunate event earlier in life) but I am a huge fan of Harrier as my Dad used to fly it (GR1, GR1A, AV8A (with USMC) and GR3), luckily I still get to get up close as I am with the ATC and I will always try to go to camp at either Cottesmore or Wittering, sadly though I doubt I will ever get a ride in one.

Many thanks again guys

Regards

Bluejay

[Pontius Navigator]

Bluejay, are you female?

[Jackonicko]

This whole 'reorganisation' looks like 'bending over backwards' in order to accomodate RN sensibilities.

Four nine aircraft squadrons? Why, when numerous studies have shown that the optimum sized unit is 16 aircraft, and that 12 or 13 is a good compromise.

Why should half of those units have RN numberplates (and presumably RN COs, etc.) when the RN will be providing fewer than a quarter of the aircrew? This will artificially constrain the careers and career opportunities of RAF Harrier aircrew, and will give the RN a disproportionate influence and 'apparent' presence within JFH.

If the RN numberplates are so vital, then retain three properly sized squadrons (12 aircraft each) and divide the dark blue one into two flights with two RN numberplates for those flights, as they do in the French Armée de l'Air (you could even save a third RN numberplate for the full sized squadron).

[althenick]

Jacko

1/4 of the aircrew dark blue?

Where did you get your info from? the official line is that it's going to be manned 50-50 or thereabouts.

[Archimedes]

I'm not absolutely certain about this, althenick, but IIRC, while this is meant to be the state of affairs, there are simply not enough FAA FJ pilots to meet this figure.

[Jackonicko]

The RAF mans three 13 aircraft Harrier GR7 squadrons (and a big OCU and an OEU) with ease, and with lots of youngsters in the pipeline. Manning two eight aircraft SHar units was already causing the RN severe problems. Unless the manning level per 'frame is very different, expecting a 50:50 mix is a tad optimistic. 25% is regarded by many as a best case expectation of RN manning within JFH.

[DuckDodgers]

Given that the aircraft will be pooled, ie a 'wing concept', it is rather a semantical notion to talk about number of aircraft per Sqn. Fact is that there will be 2 Naval Air Squadrons operating GR7a/9a, dark blue heavy, who will be the prinicipal carrier Sqns, however, if conflict loomed then you would embark those with the necessitated qualifications, ie 'x' pilots who are CofC, 'x' who are INQ and 'x' who are FNQ off the boat for example.

And the issue of constraining careers, what nonsense, an RN Sqn could have a QFI or QWI who is light blue and vice versa, just because 1 Wg Cdr post goes the world does not end. The nitty gritty will be do the 2 Naval Air Squadrons keep there traditional structure, ie SP/QWI/Ops etc.... or adopt the light blue Flight structure??

And as for:

"will give the RN a disproportionate influence and 'apparent' presence within JFH."

Hence the word Joint. Plus the 'dark blue' presence on the JCA Team is in parity with that of the light blue community.......

[Grimweasel]

If the rumours are true then Joint Force Harrier will be no more after the defence cuts!! We'll be selling them to India to pay for Op Telic!!!

[DuckDodgers]

Well Grim, you should not read too much into what's published in the Telegraph it is somewhat off the mark i am afraid......India do not need Harriers for much longer now they've signed the deal for the Gorshkov and the MiG-29s.

[Bluejay]

Pontius Navigator
Over 150 posts! About time I clicked here and ordered a Personal Title.
posted 15th April 2004 07:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bluejay, are you female?



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 173 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Dec 2002 | Status: Offline | IP: Logged


Negative!! :mad:

[althenick]

Jacko,

Bear in mind that -

a/ there are more SHAR pilots than on the SHAR squadrons currently but most are in the system elsewhere (fish heading and the like)

b/ FAA squadrons have always worked with less men than the RAF. I'm told by my father (Ex FAA Bucc Maintainer) that it's due to the RAF having 5 tech trades to the WAFU's 3 and different maintainence routines. Currently 801 Squadron is manned by 13 Officers, 34 Senior Rates and 78 Junior Rates. The majority of personnel are directly involved with flying or aircraft maintenance: however, the Squadron is a self-contained unit with its own administrators, cooks and stewards. (Taken from the RN website)
... I suspect that there is Gapping in here but I would hazard a guess that the Aircraft - Manning ratio is significatly smaller than the GR7 Squadrons at present.

[DuckDodgers]

Alt, you only have to look at the RED FLAG detachments last year, 1(F) Sqn bought more people and equipment than would have been needed for a permanant detachment! They even sea freighted nearly a dozen ISO containers for a 2 week det plus the usual Hercs, VC10s and, nearly forgot, a Tri* as well.

Althenick, you are right about manning ratios, best example is the Safety Equipment section on a squadron, your Naval Air Squadron has ONE SE rating, whilst at Cottesmore i counted at least 8.

[althenick]

Thanks Duckdodgers,

If that be the case then why do the RAF need MU's???? I thought with all these cuts going on that they would be the first to go.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bluejay sorry, just that I knew a 'famous' Harrier pilot with an ATCer in the RAF. nuff said.

[Bluejay]

No problem Pontius

Funnily enough my Mum was an Air Trafficer (RAF)!!

The closest I will ever come to being in the RAF is as a part time ATC Warrant Officer.

I would also like to say a huge thanks to everyone that has helped us and looked after us at various stations around the country, especially Wittering and Cottesmore (my two favourites) Kinloss, Lossie and Odiham. Can't wait for our camp at Lyneham later in the year should be a good one.

Who knows I may see some fellow prooners some time

Take care all

Bluejay

[Pontius Navigator]

althenick

Nail

Hammer

Square

watch this space

[Stitchbitch]

DuckDodgers, re: your SE manning levels, there were five of us on 3 (F) squadron, Two airmen, Two Nco's and a Snco. I belive the level had to do with leave, the possibility of deploying to two locations and the fact we also carried out something called 'after flights' on the pilots AEA, which is something that the navy boys don't do.

Pontius Navigator, your 'famous' pilot is a top person !

The best thing I remeber about working with the Navy? The boat course- firefighting during the day and zooms and joannas at night: :O and meeting up with an old F.3 mate who's gone to the dark(blue) side on Shars.

ben

[Navaleye]

This question came up on another board. I'm pretty certain the answer is "no", but p'raps one of you could oblige.

Would fitting JTIDS to the GR9 give it the capability to fire AMRAAM when working in conjunction with a Sea King ASaC 7?

[KM-H]

No, the launch aircraft needs to prime and support the missile.

You "could" just carry the 120 and loose it off in Boresight. Known to some as "pitbull" mode.

Also, just to carry and release requires a fair amount of integration work, so cost v capability (assume no own radar) would rule it out.

[Pontius Navigator]

stitchbitch, but not from the far north of Norway I guess <g>.

[Wholigan]

Hey Bluejay, you'll see at least one ppruner when you are at Lyneham for (assume Summer) camp. You will be flying at Colerne.

[Bluejay]

Wholigan

Cool, I think the one that I am due to go to will run between the 31 July and 07 August, I am planning on being there for a few days before that to assist the previous camp with various things (whole camp runs 24-31Jul). Looking forward to it

[A2QFI]

I thought one bent over forwards to acommodate the RN, not backwards! Perhaps times have changed?

[woptb]

I believe a sailors hornpipe can look quite menacing when viewed from an inverted attitude !.

[Jackonicko]

Whatever euphemism you use (Love Truncheon, Sex tube, Horn pipe.....) I think that matelots should keep their appendages firmly stowed in their bell bottomed trousers. The sight of one is potentially menacing to any heterosexual male, inverted or otherwise.

[Navaleye]

A question came up on another board which I would like to throw open here.

"Does the Harrier GR9A offer any credible air defence capability for the fleet following the demise of the Shar?" - Discuss.

In my opinion, the answer is "no". When used without the support of an AEW platform the GR9 would not be able to intercept any target except by luck. In daylight and With the support of a SK7 it come close to the capability of a FRS.1 of 10 years ago. So, in theory the FRS1 tactics of 80s are still valid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with SK7 support, the GR9 would be unusable as a fighter at night or in bad weather. So, if our potential enemy chose to come by day then the GR9 has some potential, if he was inconsiderate enough to come by night then he has nothing but Sea Dart and Sea Wolf to stop him completing his mission.

I'm sure the FAA's AWIs are scratching their heads wondering how they are going make a silk purse out of sow's ear, but I'm sure they will come up with something creative.

[utterly baggerly]

Ahhh well done! Aren't the Navy gay-tee hee. I do admit that this type of banter is pretty much SOP between the services and rightly so, but surely the line should be drawn at some journalist having a go. They are the enemy after all! - Bad show! Get back to your typewriter!

Just another point of interest, Jackonicko and other useful contributors/fantasists/fanatics may find the Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) more appropriate, I quote:
"If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter..."

Cheers

[Jackonicko]

Until you have the balls to put some info in your profile, I'd suggest that you should perhaps show a little restraint in knocking others. I make it plain what I am - a UAS-trained PPL and aviation journo - and I'm one of many on this board who aren't current military aircrew. There are blunties, retired blokes, journos, wannabes, and interested observers. And the odd fantasist, too, I suspect.

Since you're new, with your one post, I'll cut you some slack, but would invite you to look at the good humour, tolerance and hospitality with which genuine military aviators tend to greet us interlopers. You might even care to emulate it.

With your lack of understanding of banter I suspect that your own credentials may be little stronger than my own.....

[utterly baggerly]

I'll tell you who I fly for when you tell me who you write for....or haven't you got the balls?

[Feck]

Of course the GR9/A doesn't offer a credible air defence solution. IT'S A BOMBER. Stick winders on it and given a good service from Freddy it can shoot down stuff by day in VMC. At night this is still possible but not likely.

I'm sure the esteemed AWIs _are_ scratching their arses, but at least they've still got a jet to fly.

[action_lynx]

Quote:

[...invite you to look at the good humour, tolerance and hospitality with which genuine military aviators tend to greet us interlopers. You might even care to emulate it.]

Jackonicko: Yes, the good humour, tolerance and hospitality does exist towards 'interlopers' as you call yourself... But after all your comments on good banter, the old Navy 'Rum bum and baccy' chat from a journo is a bit tiresome. :rolleyes:

[Jackonicko]

Action Lynx:
"All my comments on good banter....?" One comment, IIRC.

"the old Navy 'Rum bum and baccy' chat from a journo is a bit tiresome."

I made an exceedingly weak, and pretty unfunny but jokey reply to the comment: "I believe a sailors hornpipe can look quite menacing when viewed from an inverted attitude!" But it was clearly a joke, albeit a poor one.

Do keep a sense of proportion, old chap, take a chill pill or grow another layer of skin.

Utterly:
"I'll tell you who I fly for when you tell me who you write for....or haven't you got the balls?"
On Friday it was the Beeb, Time and a well-known 'spotter mag'. But don't worry about responding, cos I wouldn't want to place you in an awkward situation. I wouldn't want anyone on 849 thinking this journo was one of the enemy.....
;)