Sea Jet
Just because 800 go off to Herrick doesnt mean we can't deploy on Lusty as a Force. There is absolutely no difference between a Navy and RAF Sqn when it comes to the role they carry out.
Unfortunately there are bigger issues at Cottesmore at present than the manning of the Sqns. We coped absolutely fine before with 3 sqns, and we will do now until 801 stand up properly. Whether a sqn is RN or RAF "owned" makes not a jot of difference, it is purely political.
We still have the same number of airframes and pilots as we did a few years back. Just because there are 2 RAF sqns and one RN sqn at the moment doesn't mean the FAA are in any way the poor relations at Cottesmore.
As for the future carriers? If and when we get them there will be no problem with converting to the new aircraft. If we can operate the current jets off CVS without a problem then F35 off a bigger boat will be a piece of cake.
It's not all doom and gloom people.
Unfortunately there are bigger issues at Cottesmore at present than the manning of the Sqns. We coped absolutely fine before with 3 sqns, and we will do now until 801 stand up properly. Whether a sqn is RN or RAF "owned" makes not a jot of difference, it is purely political.
We still have the same number of airframes and pilots as we did a few years back. Just because there are 2 RAF sqns and one RN sqn at the moment doesn't mean the FAA are in any way the poor relations at Cottesmore.
As for the future carriers? If and when we get them there will be no problem with converting to the new aircraft. If we can operate the current jets off CVS without a problem then F35 off a bigger boat will be a piece of cake.
It's not all doom and gloom people.
Sunk I have to say it is good to see the FOI act being used for something sensible.
Navaleye you should read between the lines. The two SFDO aircraft being unfit for purpose does seem a little strange (as you say they flew there), to me it sounds like swapping a pair of older airframes for newer ones. Age is less important (I imagine) for the aircraft being sent to HMS Sultan. Just out of interest, how will they get to Gosport?
So thirteen aircraft are being retained in various places, in various physical states. Better than the scrapyard!! Perhaps the campaigning here and elsewhere did do some good?
But we do seem to have less RN jet jocks than ten or so years ago. This must be rectified.
I think that this thread has mostly run its course. Perhaps now we should concentrate on the Future Carrier thread for discussing pilot numbers, CVF air groups and migration to the F35?
Navaleye you should read between the lines. The two SFDO aircraft being unfit for purpose does seem a little strange (as you say they flew there), to me it sounds like swapping a pair of older airframes for newer ones. Age is less important (I imagine) for the aircraft being sent to HMS Sultan. Just out of interest, how will they get to Gosport?
So thirteen aircraft are being retained in various places, in various physical states. Better than the scrapyard!! Perhaps the campaigning here and elsewhere did do some good?
But we do seem to have less RN jet jocks than ten or so years ago. This must be rectified.
I think that this thread has mostly run its course. Perhaps now we should concentrate on the Future Carrier thread for discussing pilot numbers, CVF air groups and migration to the F35?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Sep 2006 at 22:52.
Suspicion breeds confidence
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.
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.
LAL - it's the ramping up to large CAGs, not the conversion to Dave that is likely to be the problem. If JFH is struggling for aircrew (and space from the sounds of your post), then it's not really conducive to having a fully capable 3-4 sqn CAG by 2013......Then again, I've seen the dates for FOC, so I realise there's a bit of slack. Even so, current situation is UNSAT surely?
I wouldn't say that JFH was struggling for aircrew, it's just that the RN can't man 801 in time. There are enough pilots, just not as many RN as they said there would be. The problem we may be facing in the future is due to the op tempo we are currently experiencing, and if it can be maintained.
The future CAG is still very far off (in more ways than one). Remember when the RAF bought 232 Typhoons? There is a big difference between what we ask for/need and what we actually get.
When it comes to converting to Dave, it's the current pilots that will find it the hardest, as all the controls do the opposite from the Harrier. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
The future CAG is still very far off (in more ways than one). Remember when the RAF bought 232 Typhoons? There is a big difference between what we ask for/need and what we actually get.
When it comes to converting to Dave, it's the current pilots that will find it the hardest, as all the controls do the opposite from the Harrier. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
It's back!
Expect to see a lot more FA2 appearing at auctions / scrap merchants near you. The Indians have just rejected the opportunity to take some of the early retirees - not too surprising as the Vixen would not have been supported......
"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 was always astonished that the JFH migrated to a 50:50 RAF:RN force, when the RAF Harrier force had had three big (12-16 aircraft) squadrons while the RN had consisted of two eight aircraft units. With the number of RAF Harrier pilots also including a fairly significant number of blokes on exchange, or in instructor posts, or with the Reds, and with an apparent retention problem among dark blues required to transfer to Cottesmore (who can blame them?) it always seemed that a combined force would sensibly have been 2/3 (or even 3/4) light blue, and that to try to make it 50:50 would be a mistake, and might require much larger numbers of RN students to be converted to the Harrier.
But all of that is based on impressions, and I'm interested how accurate those impressions were.
When the RN last had two frontline squadrons of SHARS, how many combat ready dark blue pilots did they bring to the table (eg excluding RAF exchange blokes, but including RN instructors on 899 who had previously been combat ready on the SHar)?
And how many pilots did the RAF Harrier force have (including any light blues on exchange with 800/801/899, and including 20R's instructors)?
Since then, how many RN and how many RAF pilots have been outputted from 20 (Reserve)?
I was always astonished that the JFH migrated to a 50:50 RAF:RN force, when the RAF Harrier force had had three big (12-16 aircraft) squadrons while the RN had consisted of two eight aircraft units. With the number of RAF Harrier pilots also including a fairly significant number of blokes on exchange, or in instructor posts, or with the Reds, and with an apparent retention problem among dark blues required to transfer to Cottesmore (who can blame them?) it always seemed that a combined force would sensibly have been 2/3 (or even 3/4) light blue, and that to try to make it 50:50 would be a mistake, and might require much larger numbers of RN students to be converted to the Harrier.
But all of that is based on impressions, and I'm interested how accurate those impressions were.
When the RN last had two frontline squadrons of SHARS, how many combat ready dark blue pilots did they bring to the table (eg excluding RAF exchange blokes, but including RN instructors on 899 who had previously been combat ready on the SHar)?
And how many pilots did the RAF Harrier force have (including any light blues on exchange with 800/801/899, and including 20R's instructors)?
Since then, how many RN and how many RAF pilots have been outputted from 20 (Reserve)?
Balanced, perhaps, but useful?
Too few SHARs to sustain any sort of CAP, and too few GR7s to be worthwhile.
And crucially, including an asset that could not be economically sustained in the longer term.
And in an era where the air threat is negligible, and where we can rely on land based and allied assets for air cover.....
At least giving the dark blues GR7s gives them a job that needs doing.
Nice pic for nostalgia, though.
Too few SHARs to sustain any sort of CAP, and too few GR7s to be worthwhile.
And crucially, including an asset that could not be economically sustained in the longer term.
And in an era where the air threat is negligible, and where we can rely on land based and allied assets for air cover.....
At least giving the dark blues GR7s gives them a job that needs doing.
Nice pic for nostalgia, though.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: dorset
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To disect above - first comment probably true for the time being as long as we stay pretty much where we are at the moment in op terms and take on no-one else (but not sure the appetite for intervention has fully gone away yet from parts of SW1A). As to the second bit, allied help 'yes' but 'land based' is a lot more problematic when people are concerned about what provision of bases does in terms of attracting the 'small but highly organised and definitely ill intentioned' into their back yard - the General's recent remarks about 'presence inciting the problem' doesn't just refer to the 'brown jobs'. Everyone conveniently forgets 2002 when the pointy end of the aviation world played no part in our ops as no-one would give us a base to play from, albeit the blunt types did a cracking job. The US did all their 'small and fast' from sea for the same reason - aided, lest we forget, by the French who did the same (funny how best mates one year turned into detestation the next - fickle lot!). Hence the utility of a mobile DOB that means we can do what we like. where we like if our chums are 'unwilling' to assist at the outset.
Last edited by hardy jack; 22nd Oct 2006 at 09:42.
Suspicion breeds confidence
My point is this: Since in the 6 or so years since JFH was formed the RN has now reached the point where it is about to have 2 CVS available, but not a single fixed wing asset between them. Why? Because we no longer have any Naval Air Sqns. We have 800 which is now a NAS in name only, tasked by Strike Command which has let naval aviation wither on the wine. There are 150,000+ warning signs on this thread alone going back 3 years.
If the government is serious about establishing 6 Dave Sqns, then the NAS must be placed exclusively under naval control.
If the government is serious about establishing 6 Dave Sqns, then the NAS must be placed exclusively under naval control.