DEPTH AND FORWARD
Engines - spot on.
This is the real question that journalists should ask followed by scrutiny of the figures before exposure. The headline would be far more sensational if, for example, it could be pointed out to Joe Public that with a fleet of 58 airframes, only 6 could be launched within 48 hours for operations. Senior leaders could then be put on the spot to explain why.
The accurate number (in my view, anyway) is this - how many aircraft can be declared (at the same time) as 'Force Elements @ Readiness at R1 or R2'? The problem is that this would be a smaller (much smaller) number than the politicians (or the public) would expect. And there aren't always especially good reasons for those numbers.
Senior leaders could then be put on the spot to explain why.
I expect Joe Public to have unrealistic views on the issues of maintaining high performance equipment, but I'm surprised at the questions being raised on this forum.
I wonder how many Formula 1 cars are ready to be pulled out onto a racetrack at immediate notice?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Downsizer,
Sincere apologies if you took my post as an example of 'continual RAF bashing'. Having run fixed and rotary wing fleets in both RAF and the RN, I can assure you that the fleets within fleets problem was far more prevalent in the RAF than in the RN. Lots of reasons, some good, some bad. Perhaps it's got better. Great if it has.
I can absolutely assure you that RAF aircraft underwent some honking great packages at Forward. In fact, from 2000 onwards (about) it was declared policy to move fixed wing assets and activities from Depth to Forward. I was part of a major study that looked at doing that very thing for Harriers. That led to more aircraft at Air Stations, but a lower percentage 'available for ops', in my definition.
The issue I wanted to highlight was the 'fleets within fleets' one. I don't really bother about the colour of the cloth, more the results. What I know is that for a number of reasons, the fixed wing fleets I worked with at Strike were very badly affected by poor configuration management - that led to decisions being taken on mods and updates that led to the fleets being unnecessarily fragmented and limited in what they could do. You're absolutely correct that financial restrictions played a big part. But some of the pain was self inflicted.
Perhaps it's all better now. Perhaps it's not.
Once again, sincere apologies and...
Best regards as ever to all those trying to shuffle the packs....
Engines
Sincere apologies if you took my post as an example of 'continual RAF bashing'. Having run fixed and rotary wing fleets in both RAF and the RN, I can assure you that the fleets within fleets problem was far more prevalent in the RAF than in the RN. Lots of reasons, some good, some bad. Perhaps it's got better. Great if it has.
I can absolutely assure you that RAF aircraft underwent some honking great packages at Forward. In fact, from 2000 onwards (about) it was declared policy to move fixed wing assets and activities from Depth to Forward. I was part of a major study that looked at doing that very thing for Harriers. That led to more aircraft at Air Stations, but a lower percentage 'available for ops', in my definition.
The issue I wanted to highlight was the 'fleets within fleets' one. I don't really bother about the colour of the cloth, more the results. What I know is that for a number of reasons, the fixed wing fleets I worked with at Strike were very badly affected by poor configuration management - that led to decisions being taken on mods and updates that led to the fleets being unnecessarily fragmented and limited in what they could do. You're absolutely correct that financial restrictions played a big part. But some of the pain was self inflicted.
Perhaps it's all better now. Perhaps it's not.
Once again, sincere apologies and...
Best regards as ever to all those trying to shuffle the packs....
Engines
