Sea Jet
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
It is disappointing to see so many people not bothering to read what is posted BEFORE jumping to the keyboard in defence of the personal hobby horse.
Although I may disagree on many things with WEBF at least he bothers to have a well-considered and researched response.
Cheers
BHR
It is disappointing to see so many people not bothering to read what is posted BEFORE jumping to the keyboard in defence of the personal hobby horse.
Although I may disagree on many things with WEBF at least he bothers to have a well-considered and researched response.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill,
Its because the UK has global interests that are so obvious. Just look at the pattern of trade and investments- the UK invests more abroad than other European powers and its interests rival that of the USA. Return on foreign investments are a major contributor to the UK economy.
Britain also has (reletively) extensive patches of real estate still dotted about.
Approx 10 million UK citizens work abroad.
The UK is a member of the UN P5.
Its a member of NATO.
Its a signatory to the FPDA
Thats why the UK has a navy with a global reach.
Now, if the UK's economy predominantly faced inwards, didn't have extensive economic, cultural or historic ties across the world, didn't play a major role in international affairs then yes, we could be like Ireland or Poland and just have a few patrol vessels.
Your argument cuts all ways- in those circs we wouldn't need much of the RAF either- just a few squadrons of cheap Gripens- just like the Hungarians or Greeks.
Its because the UK has global interests that are so obvious. Just look at the pattern of trade and investments- the UK invests more abroad than other European powers and its interests rival that of the USA. Return on foreign investments are a major contributor to the UK economy.
Britain also has (reletively) extensive patches of real estate still dotted about.
Approx 10 million UK citizens work abroad.
The UK is a member of the UN P5.
Its a member of NATO.
Its a signatory to the FPDA
Thats why the UK has a navy with a global reach.
Now, if the UK's economy predominantly faced inwards, didn't have extensive economic, cultural or historic ties across the world, didn't play a major role in international affairs then yes, we could be like Ireland or Poland and just have a few patrol vessels.
Your argument cuts all ways- in those circs we wouldn't need much of the RAF either- just a few squadrons of cheap Gripens- just like the Hungarians or Greeks.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill,
Its because the UK has global interests that are so obvious. Just look at the pattern of trade and investments- the UK invests more abroad than other European powers and its interests rival that of the USA. Return on foreign investments are a major contributor to the UK economy.
Its because the UK has global interests that are so obvious. Just look at the pattern of trade and investments- the UK invests more abroad than other European powers and its interests rival that of the USA. Return on foreign investments are a major contributor to the UK economy.
Britain also has (reletively) extensive patches of real estate still dotted about.
Many of which host large US bases and are only kept for this purpose.
Approx 10 million UK citizens work abroad.
The UK is a member of the UN P5.
Historical holdover which discredits the UNSC today.
Its a member of NATO.
As is Iceland
Its a signatory to the FPDA
Thats why the UK has a navy with a global reach.
Really? When did we get that?
Now, if the UK's economy predominantly faced inwards, didn't have extensive economic, cultural or historic ties across the world, didn't play a major role in international affairs then yes, we could be like Ireland or Poland and just have a few patrol vessels.
Your argument cuts all ways- in those circs we wouldn't need much of the RAF either- just a few squadrons of cheap Gripens- just like the Hungarians or Greeks.[/quote]
True
Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?
Lazer-Hound,
"Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?"
Has it ocurred to you that if we did this in todays strategic environment then we would need armed forces only slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland?
"Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?"
Has it ocurred to you that if we did this in todays strategic environment then we would need armed forces only slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, it does seem to be taken for granted that we ought to be getting involved in various places around the world as Uncle Sam's deputy, but there should at least be a debate as to whether this is really in the UK's interests.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone,
And this would be a bad thing why?
Cheers
BHR
Lazer-Hound,
"Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?"
Has it ocurred to you that if we did this in todays strategic environment then we would need armed forces only slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland?
"Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?"
Has it ocurred to you that if we did this in todays strategic environment then we would need armed forces only slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland?
Cheers
BHR
I really don't know why are discussing this here on this thread, which ought to be left to retire. Perhaps the Future Carrier thread would be a better place?
I assume that you are aware of the maritime part of the war on terror, yes? Perhaps you should see this thread?
BHR I will try to answer your questions. But first consider that for my simple analysis:
a) Submarines are considered submarines regardless of propulsion. SSBNs, being nuclear deterrent platforms, are ignored.
b) Corvettes may be capable of the same missions as frigates and destroyers, but smaller, with shorter range and endurance, etc. As with submarines its the effects achieved that count.
c) Naval forces can be used in innovative ways - consider the recent deployment of HMS Bulwark: See this from Defence News.
Japan. A few years ago the JMSDF ranked third (to the US and Russian Navies) in frigates/destroyer numbers. Given Japan's dependence of seaborne imports and exports this is understandable, as is the JMSDF having submarines and mines counter measures. Currently JMSDF ships are involved in the war on terror. Their power projection abilities are currently low, due largely due to post WW2 political considerations. However, the threat from North Korea and the expansion of China may cause this to be reconsidered. Some of the ships they are planning do indeed look like small carriers - I wouldn't be surprised to see the F35B operating from a Japanese deck sometime in the next decade.
Germany. Like Japan, political sensitivities, the legacy of NATO roles and the costs of reunification make offensive forces taboo. The German Navy is not that large, but is capable and contributes to the war on terror. I know nothing of their future plans.
France. Like the UK, France is a P5 nation, ex colonial power with ties and interests around the world and has many other similarities with the UK. The French Navy is now larger than the RN. It is led by the carrier Charles De Gaulle, the only non US nuclear powered carrier with a fully capable air group. It has the full range of capabilities you expect from a modern Navy, including amphibious warfare. Future plans include getting a second carrier (possibly a sister ship to CVF) and modernising the fleet (including Aster armed vessels).
Italy. An important EU nation, Italy is the same sort of size as the UK is terms of both land area and population. The Italian Navy is smaller than that of the UK or France but is well equipped, with a carrier (with AV8B+ for both fighter and attack roles, and AEW and ASW helicopters). Amphibious capabilities have not been neglected either, and surface and submarine forces are respectable. Apart from modernisation, Italy is building a new carrier - I don't know whether this is intended to replace Garibaldi or be a second carrier.
Spain. Like Italy, Spain has a fleet that is smaller than that of the UK/France but is capable across the spectrum, including a carrier with AV8B+ and AEW aircraft and amphibious vessels. I know very little of their future plans.
The fact that the France, Italy and Spain all have carrier based air defence makes this topic relevant to this thread. Perhaps they were paying attention in 1982, and concluded that fighters are better than shipborne missiles or guns.
So you must draw your own conclusions. Of the above nations, the three that were not subject to their military forces being restricted by constitutions imposed on them by the allies after WW2 have the full spectrum of capabilities. Shame on you BHR, ignoring political considerations. Not what I would expect from a PhD calibre person.
You may find the Industry Projects page from Naval Technology to be of interest. Note this is not exhaustive, it doesn't mention the proposal for Australia to operate the F35B from a LPH/small carrier.
So I guess the UK isn't the only nation to consider naval forces to be useful.
Edited to add: Italy and Spain are JSF partner nations, and are looking to purchase the F35B. I think Australia is also a partner nation, not so sure about Japan. I think the Projects page from Naval Technology is very interesting - all those ships etc being ordered by coastal defence forces (sic). The first section (carriers/amphibious vessels) is particularly interesting. A capable Navy is certainly useful always, essential often. The world's Navies are heavily commited to dealing with the terrorist threat - something which coastal defence forces cannot do in the same way.
Why did you think Germany and Japan were good for comparisons?
I assume that you are aware of the maritime part of the war on terror, yes? Perhaps you should see this thread?
BHR I will try to answer your questions. But first consider that for my simple analysis:
a) Submarines are considered submarines regardless of propulsion. SSBNs, being nuclear deterrent platforms, are ignored.
b) Corvettes may be capable of the same missions as frigates and destroyers, but smaller, with shorter range and endurance, etc. As with submarines its the effects achieved that count.
c) Naval forces can be used in innovative ways - consider the recent deployment of HMS Bulwark: See this from Defence News.
Japan. A few years ago the JMSDF ranked third (to the US and Russian Navies) in frigates/destroyer numbers. Given Japan's dependence of seaborne imports and exports this is understandable, as is the JMSDF having submarines and mines counter measures. Currently JMSDF ships are involved in the war on terror. Their power projection abilities are currently low, due largely due to post WW2 political considerations. However, the threat from North Korea and the expansion of China may cause this to be reconsidered. Some of the ships they are planning do indeed look like small carriers - I wouldn't be surprised to see the F35B operating from a Japanese deck sometime in the next decade.
Germany. Like Japan, political sensitivities, the legacy of NATO roles and the costs of reunification make offensive forces taboo. The German Navy is not that large, but is capable and contributes to the war on terror. I know nothing of their future plans.
France. Like the UK, France is a P5 nation, ex colonial power with ties and interests around the world and has many other similarities with the UK. The French Navy is now larger than the RN. It is led by the carrier Charles De Gaulle, the only non US nuclear powered carrier with a fully capable air group. It has the full range of capabilities you expect from a modern Navy, including amphibious warfare. Future plans include getting a second carrier (possibly a sister ship to CVF) and modernising the fleet (including Aster armed vessels).
Italy. An important EU nation, Italy is the same sort of size as the UK is terms of both land area and population. The Italian Navy is smaller than that of the UK or France but is well equipped, with a carrier (with AV8B+ for both fighter and attack roles, and AEW and ASW helicopters). Amphibious capabilities have not been neglected either, and surface and submarine forces are respectable. Apart from modernisation, Italy is building a new carrier - I don't know whether this is intended to replace Garibaldi or be a second carrier.
Spain. Like Italy, Spain has a fleet that is smaller than that of the UK/France but is capable across the spectrum, including a carrier with AV8B+ and AEW aircraft and amphibious vessels. I know very little of their future plans.
The fact that the France, Italy and Spain all have carrier based air defence makes this topic relevant to this thread. Perhaps they were paying attention in 1982, and concluded that fighters are better than shipborne missiles or guns.
So you must draw your own conclusions. Of the above nations, the three that were not subject to their military forces being restricted by constitutions imposed on them by the allies after WW2 have the full spectrum of capabilities. Shame on you BHR, ignoring political considerations. Not what I would expect from a PhD calibre person.
You may find the Industry Projects page from Naval Technology to be of interest. Note this is not exhaustive, it doesn't mention the proposal for Australia to operate the F35B from a LPH/small carrier.
So I guess the UK isn't the only nation to consider naval forces to be useful.
Edited to add: Italy and Spain are JSF partner nations, and are looking to purchase the F35B. I think Australia is also a partner nation, not so sure about Japan. I think the Projects page from Naval Technology is very interesting - all those ships etc being ordered by coastal defence forces (sic). The first section (carriers/amphibious vessels) is particularly interesting. A capable Navy is certainly useful always, essential often. The world's Navies are heavily commited to dealing with the terrorist threat - something which coastal defence forces cannot do in the same way.
Why did you think Germany and Japan were good for comparisons?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Sep 2006 at 12:08.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lazer-Hound
I can't help but agree with you on the dogged support of US foreign policy. There was a time when I believed that we, at least, provided some guidance and, where needed, experience honed restraint on events. Our current lot seem neither inclined nor capable of that, though.
This far down the line, the Lords' Hansard, 25 MAR 02 makes interesting reading; http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/20325-15.htm. CDS's comment before the preceding Christmas also look prophetic now; "Whatever the choices we make, and for whatever reason, we must ensure that those decisions maintain our freedom of strategic choice; but we will have to decide soon whether we make a commitment to a broader campaign (widening the war), or make a longer term commitment to Afghanistan. Recent military success must be capitalised upon, so it is not a question of whether we will trap our hand in the mangle, but of which mangle we trap it in".
It will be recalled that it was Adml Boyce who explained at length to the PM that commitments could not be fulfilled within the existing resources. The PM's simple solution was that the Admiral should convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that funds should be increased. What a leader we have in the PM.
I can't help but agree with you on the dogged support of US foreign policy. There was a time when I believed that we, at least, provided some guidance and, where needed, experience honed restraint on events. Our current lot seem neither inclined nor capable of that, though.
This far down the line, the Lords' Hansard, 25 MAR 02 makes interesting reading; http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/20325-15.htm. CDS's comment before the preceding Christmas also look prophetic now; "Whatever the choices we make, and for whatever reason, we must ensure that those decisions maintain our freedom of strategic choice; but we will have to decide soon whether we make a commitment to a broader campaign (widening the war), or make a longer term commitment to Afghanistan. Recent military success must be capitalised upon, so it is not a question of whether we will trap our hand in the mangle, but of which mangle we trap it in".
It will be recalled that it was Adml Boyce who explained at length to the PM that commitments could not be fulfilled within the existing resources. The PM's simple solution was that the Admiral should convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that funds should be increased. What a leader we have in the PM.
BHR's point makes a kind of sense, if UK politicians could resist the temptation to send UK forces all over the globe, for historical reasons or otherwise. When they do we can probably downsize to a couple of Hawk 128s, a row boat and some ceremonial swords. In the meantime we appear to need everything we can get our hands on for global power projection. And as Brown seems to want to solve Africa's problems I can see this dragging on for a while.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Did you get a post deleted from this thread?
I am sorry that I have not got back to you yet. I am not able to access a PC at the moment and am responding via my mobile.
I will hopefully be able to give a full response in the next few days.
Thanks all for your patience.
Cheers
BHR
Did you get a post deleted from this thread?
I am sorry that I have not got back to you yet. I am not able to access a PC at the moment and am responding via my mobile.
I will hopefully be able to give a full response in the next few days.
Thanks all for your patience.
Cheers
BHR
I did indeed have a post deleted. I deleted it myself as it didn't really say anything.
I look forward to your reply, but I think we will probably have to agree to disagree.
I look forward to your reply, but I think we will probably have to agree to disagree.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOI Request on current Shar status
Here it is. Must say I;m quite impressed with the quick response and the comprehensive details:
"1. Can you advise how many former Sea Harrier pilots remain within 'Joint Force Harrier'?
Currently there are 13 former Sea Harrier pilots qualified on GR7/9 and serving within JFH plus 3 on current RN Migration Course (FA2 to GR7/9 conversion course) due to join Front Line Squadrons by Nov 06. There are 4 more ex SHAR pilots scheduled for RN Migration Courses between now and Jul 07. *
2. Can you advise how many Sea Harriers remain in MOD ownership and their current condition?
The breakdown of Sea Harrier disposition and current material state, confirmed through Defence Sales Agency, the Harrier IPT and 801 Sqn SHAR drawdown officers, is as shown
COTTESMORE(COTO:
2FA2
Both are gate guardians with one currently at Greenwich (parented by COTT) and due to return to COTT very soon. A/c are inhibited (to prevent deterioration due to adverse environmental conditions), have engines fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
WITTERING:
1 T8
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
YEOVILTON:
1 FA2
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives. There is one FRS1 in the Fleet Air Arm Museum however, this is not owned by MOD.
CULDROSE:
6 FA2
2T8
Transferred to RNASCuldroseRN School of Flight Deck Ops (RNSFDO) - complete and capable of taxing. Of these, 2 FA2s appear unfit for purpose at the RNSFDO, these a/c have been bid for as ground instructional aircraft for DCAE Sultan; these a/c may be backfilled from 2 FA2s from Shawbury.
QINETIQBoscombe Down:
1 T8
Soon to be sold to QinetiQ as a source of spares for the VAAC research a/c and then removed from MOD inventory.
SHAWBURY:
8 FA2 *
Stored awaiting disposal (4 earmarked for Indian Navy as piece part spares (PPS) for FRS51s) - aircraft are largely complete, but have had classified equipment removed - 5 a/c have engine fitted.
A/C TOTALS:
FA2 = 17 (reducing to 13 once 4 sold to India for PPS)
T8 = 4 (reducing to 3 once 1 sold to QinetiQ for PPS)
3. What training in air to air combat do Joint Force Harrier pilots receive?
All fast jet pilots are first introduced to air combat through a common Air Combat Manoeuvring (ACM) syllabus during advanced flying training, currently conducted at RAF Valley.
Whilst offensive ACM is taught on the Harrier Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) and beyond, JFH ACM training centres around training GR7/9 pilots to fight and survive if their fighter cover fails to protect them, or they are attacked en route to a target.
Currently there are 3 stages of ACM training the Pilots receive. The initial training at the OCU consists of 1 x T10 handling trip followed by 7 x 1 v 1 similar type sorties.
The second stage is then conducted on the Frontline to achieve Day Combat Ready and consists of 4 sorties (1v1, 2v1 as subordinate (Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT)), 2v1 as lead (DACT) & 2v2 (DACT)). The final stage is the Air Combat Leader phase which is given to senior pairs leaders and consists of a further 4 sorties
(1v1, 1v1v1, 2v2 (DACT) & Multia/c (DACT)), There is one further qualification, namely Air Combat Instructor, but is very rarely achieved due to other pressing commitments.
The OCU ACM syllabus has just been re-written, but is yet to be implemented. The new syllabus includes 3 sorties of 1v1, Harrier vs Harrier to refresh ACM techniques, highlight Harrier / Hawk differences and introduce Vectoring in Forward Flight ('Viffing'). Subsequently, the syllabus concentrates on 2 v 1 ACM initially like vs like. but ultimately introducing 2 v1 versus a radar equipped threat (such as Typhoon) Ground Controlled Intercepts.
4. What provision has been made to upgrade GR7/9 aircraft for the air to air combat role?
The primary role of the GR9 will be one of day/night ground-attack and reconnaissance. As such, it will possess a limited self-defence capability akin to that of GR7.
5. What provision has been made to equip GR7/9 aircraft with BVR radar and missiles should they be required at short notice?
There is currently no plan to integrate BVR missiles onto GR9."
"1. Can you advise how many former Sea Harrier pilots remain within 'Joint Force Harrier'?
Currently there are 13 former Sea Harrier pilots qualified on GR7/9 and serving within JFH plus 3 on current RN Migration Course (FA2 to GR7/9 conversion course) due to join Front Line Squadrons by Nov 06. There are 4 more ex SHAR pilots scheduled for RN Migration Courses between now and Jul 07. *
2. Can you advise how many Sea Harriers remain in MOD ownership and their current condition?
The breakdown of Sea Harrier disposition and current material state, confirmed through Defence Sales Agency, the Harrier IPT and 801 Sqn SHAR drawdown officers, is as shown
COTTESMORE(COTO:
2FA2
Both are gate guardians with one currently at Greenwich (parented by COTT) and due to return to COTT very soon. A/c are inhibited (to prevent deterioration due to adverse environmental conditions), have engines fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
WITTERING:
1 T8
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
YEOVILTON:
1 FA2
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives. There is one FRS1 in the Fleet Air Arm Museum however, this is not owned by MOD.
CULDROSE:
6 FA2
2T8
Transferred to RNASCuldroseRN School of Flight Deck Ops (RNSFDO) - complete and capable of taxing. Of these, 2 FA2s appear unfit for purpose at the RNSFDO, these a/c have been bid for as ground instructional aircraft for DCAE Sultan; these a/c may be backfilled from 2 FA2s from Shawbury.
QINETIQBoscombe Down:
1 T8
Soon to be sold to QinetiQ as a source of spares for the VAAC research a/c and then removed from MOD inventory.
SHAWBURY:
8 FA2 *
Stored awaiting disposal (4 earmarked for Indian Navy as piece part spares (PPS) for FRS51s) - aircraft are largely complete, but have had classified equipment removed - 5 a/c have engine fitted.
A/C TOTALS:
FA2 = 17 (reducing to 13 once 4 sold to India for PPS)
T8 = 4 (reducing to 3 once 1 sold to QinetiQ for PPS)
3. What training in air to air combat do Joint Force Harrier pilots receive?
All fast jet pilots are first introduced to air combat through a common Air Combat Manoeuvring (ACM) syllabus during advanced flying training, currently conducted at RAF Valley.
Whilst offensive ACM is taught on the Harrier Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) and beyond, JFH ACM training centres around training GR7/9 pilots to fight and survive if their fighter cover fails to protect them, or they are attacked en route to a target.
Currently there are 3 stages of ACM training the Pilots receive. The initial training at the OCU consists of 1 x T10 handling trip followed by 7 x 1 v 1 similar type sorties.
The second stage is then conducted on the Frontline to achieve Day Combat Ready and consists of 4 sorties (1v1, 2v1 as subordinate (Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT)), 2v1 as lead (DACT) & 2v2 (DACT)). The final stage is the Air Combat Leader phase which is given to senior pairs leaders and consists of a further 4 sorties
(1v1, 1v1v1, 2v2 (DACT) & Multia/c (DACT)), There is one further qualification, namely Air Combat Instructor, but is very rarely achieved due to other pressing commitments.
The OCU ACM syllabus has just been re-written, but is yet to be implemented. The new syllabus includes 3 sorties of 1v1, Harrier vs Harrier to refresh ACM techniques, highlight Harrier / Hawk differences and introduce Vectoring in Forward Flight ('Viffing'). Subsequently, the syllabus concentrates on 2 v 1 ACM initially like vs like. but ultimately introducing 2 v1 versus a radar equipped threat (such as Typhoon) Ground Controlled Intercepts.
4. What provision has been made to upgrade GR7/9 aircraft for the air to air combat role?
The primary role of the GR9 will be one of day/night ground-attack and reconnaissance. As such, it will possess a limited self-defence capability akin to that of GR7.
5. What provision has been made to equip GR7/9 aircraft with BVR radar and missiles should they be required at short notice?
There is currently no plan to integrate BVR missiles onto GR9."
Suspicion breeds confidence
Good post Sunk. I do find it a little strange that two Shars that were capable of flying into Culdrose in April are now apparently unfit to taxi. The majority of 801s Shars were less than 10 years old. Barely "run in" when they were withdrawn.
That confirms the aircrew situation then. Only three (presumably ex 801) converting this year, plus only 4 next year. Sh1t the bed - we're really going to manage to ramp up to a CVF size CAG aren't we!
SaN - BZ on the Foi front mate.
SaN - BZ on the Foi front mate.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Boffin,
That makes a total of 20 pilots by July next year to man two squadrons with a nominal total of 9 a/c each. A pathetic state of affairs.
That makes a total of 20 pilots by July next year to man two squadrons with a nominal total of 9 a/c each. A pathetic state of affairs.
I know and as posted on the carrier thread, WTF is anyone in authority (RAFAA this means you) doing about it? FFS standard manning (let alone emergency) requires 1.5 per a/c. I know the RAF pilots will be filling out the squadrons and you can see why they're getting p1ssed off -come back off a Herrick detachment and oh dear, you'll be back out there again soon. OK, 800 is off on Herrick soon, but that leaves Lusty without an available CAG. This is just plain madness and christ alone knows what the retention rate is going to be (FAA & RAF).