PDA

View Full Version : RN Fixed Wing future?


anotherhaveagohero
25th Oct 2008, 21:26
Can anyone ( excluding children, rambling idiots, toss-pots who get a hard about the Typhoon gun or Herc Navigators) please try and shed some sensible light on the future of RN Fixed-Wing FJ flying? ...... I'm on the verge of a big decision and I may be just about to see myself off....:ugh:

Gnd
25th Oct 2008, 21:31
As far as I know with MFTS it is safe - well as safe as anything now. There will always be a need for the fixed wing and ships is your baby. It may be less dark/light centric and a blob of colour but the seats will still need to be filled.

PS spoke to a civ jet mate the other day and it ain't pretty out there!!!!!!

HARRIERPILOTNAS
26th Oct 2008, 08:01
The RN & RAF will continue to Operate as JFH, until the JCA F-35 comes into service! But, I think it looks like we may get the Carriers before the Aircraft, don't quote me on that bit!

The RN looked into a Marinised Typhoon, French Rafale, F-18, but they found that the JCA F-35 wud sit the job best! But... We will see won't we!

Tourist
26th Oct 2008, 08:31
Since we have just bought the two largest warships in British History, and they happen to be Aircraft Carriers, I would say that Fixed wing Aviation in the RN is on the up.:ok:

Wrathmonk
26th Oct 2008, 08:55
Tourist

I think you may need to delete the words

in the RN

from your statement for it to hold true :E

Don't disagree that aviation from carriers is on the up - just not sure they are going to be of a dark blue cloth. Personal view only. No insight whatsoever into what may be on the table for the current planning round ...:ok:

exscribbler
26th Oct 2008, 10:42
It looks as if we'll be back to the 30s when the RN drove the ships and the RAF the aircraft...

Oggin Aviator
26th Oct 2008, 13:55
From my quite close experience of 1F and Happy 4 on the boat over the last few years I would have no qualms about the RAF operating JCA off CVF - the guys on these 2 squadrons embrace the challenge, enjoy the experience and generally leave wanting to come back - the bunfights only occur higher up the food chain.

Does the new CAS hate the RN as much as Torpy? If so the bunfights will continue ..........................

Pontius Navigator
26th Oct 2008, 14:07
Not supporting the arguement one way to the other but it might make some sense to have the JCA in just one colour. To have, say, two different colours on one ship will inevitably lead to confusion. As long as the light blue is fed from the wider air force they will always speak a different language.

OTOH a larger pool of pilots increases the number available whereas the RN pool will inevitably be smaller and also single role, on the assumption that there is no cross-over RW-FJ.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
26th Oct 2008, 16:11
To have, say, two different colours on one ship will inevitably lead to confusion.

Pontius Navigator, Sir; that not different colour wouldn't be green, would it? :eek:

Tourist
26th Oct 2008, 16:32
When I joined the Navy, we had two front line Harrier Sqns.
We now have, erm, two front line Harrier Sqns.

We had numerous Front line Rotary Sqns.
We now have ever so slightly more, flying vastly superior aircraft across all sqns.

We had 3 "through deck cruisers"
We now have 2 truly shagged "through deck cruisers" one effective but horrible cheapy built helicopter carrier, a couple of other big decks plus, and it is a big plus, 2 650000 ton carriers under contract that I will bet it will be impossible for even Labour to wriggle out of.

We had 3 Royal Naval Air Stations.
We now have 2 Royal Naval Air Stations, plus a place that used to be a Royal Naval Air Station, that used to have a Sqn on it that now has a Flight on it n the same building that used to hold the Sqn. And the Flight has the same people as the Sqn used to. Hmmmm.




The RAF, on the other hand seems to be in terminal decline.
How many Sqns did the RAF have even 10 yrs ago compared with now?
More importantly, how many of those sqns actually still fly on a regular basis?
E3? ........not really
Nimrod?.....Hanging in there god bless em, and soon to be replaced by something inferior (another nimrod)in all respects except endurance.
F3........who knows, or cares.
Jaguar?.......computer says no.
Canberra??.......computer says no.
Harrier? ........2 became dark blue.
Sentinel?.......very pretty on the pan.
C17?...........Hurrah!!! you got something new and decent!
Merlin Mk3?...Not a bad bit of kit, but lets face it, it's not what you would have picked.
Ok and you got the airshow jet.
C130? .......Not many left.


I know which I would bet my money on flying off the carriers.

Incidentally PN, many of the Harrier boys have always come from rotary.

taxydual
26th Oct 2008, 16:34
Maybe think Purple?

Would the amalgamation of the three (shrinking) Armed Services , into a single Service (with a single service budget) be such a bad thing?

Only a thought, not a wish.

Discuss?

wetdreamdriver
26th Oct 2008, 17:35
Taxydual

And perhaps we could call ourselves the UK Marine Corps!

WDD:rolleyes:

taxydual
26th Oct 2008, 18:25
UK Armed Forces. The Canadians did it.

Hey, It's a thought, not a wish.

Perhaps this 'thought' would be better on a new thread.

exscribbler
26th Oct 2008, 20:41
Taxydual: Shame on you for not listening to Our Leader! The correct quotation is, "It is not policy, merely an aspiration."

And the very next week... :ugh:

Pelikanpete
27th Oct 2008, 18:43
I have to say the ridiculous rivalry and lack of common goal between the services is damaging to effectiveness and wasteful. It also makes the Armed Forces vulnerable to government divide and conquer tactics. The glory days
of the UK Military are over.

It's sad to loose the history and tradition but a single service made up of different units based upon role only is the answer and is almost certainly where the purple concept has to go.

Tourist
27th Oct 2008, 23:53
Pelikanpete

You are quite right.

Just look at the commercial world. Whenever we want efficiency and effectiveness we always find that a monopoly is best.

Oh...... wait a minute........:rolleyes:

lasernigel
28th Oct 2008, 10:35
Just look at the commercial world. Whenever we want efficiency and effectiveness we always find that a monopoly is best.


Maybe this lot will put it out to PFI,just like they're trying with SAR!!!!:(:*

Union Jack
28th Oct 2008, 13:03
And perhaps we could call ourselves the UK Marine Corps!

Sadly, we don't compare with the USMC in terms of numbers of aircraft, and have not done so for very many years.

Turning to the CAF, Canadian naval "lieutenants" in the CAF's joint days always used to have fun calling themselves "captain", especially when arranging transport and accommodation to visit ships or establishments resulted in them being treated as four-stripers - briefly!

Jack

PS Tourist - Ooh! You are a tease .....

althenick
28th Oct 2008, 13:20
It looks as if we'll be back to the 30s when the RN drove the ships and the RAF the aircraft...

Scribes

In the 30's (In fact from about 1921 onwards)

(1) The Navy Owned the budget but the RAF procurred the A/c
(2) The Air squadrons were mainly Manned by RN aircrew because Trenchard (a) couldn't convince his boys to go to sea (b) Believed that Carrier aviation was dangerous and (c) believed that long range bombing had more effect than Carrier strike.

From my quite close experience of 1F and Happy 4 on the boat over the last few years I would have no qualms about the RAF operating JCA off CVF - the guys on these 2 squadrons embrace the challenge, enjoy the experience and generally leave wanting to come back - the bunfights only occur higher up the food chain.

O_A

You'll know better than me but take a look here -
Jointery - Going to Sea (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15992)

As near as dammit 2/3's of them would vote with their feet if it became a permenent feature of their careers. not good for retention and costly in training I think.

HARRIERPILOTNAS
28th Oct 2008, 22:02
The E-2 Hawkeye looks like it could be in the Frame to Replace the ASaC Sea King Platform! Perfect with Regards to the New Carriers! Ur Views!

Tourist
28th Oct 2008, 22:47
That concludes it then.

You're a Walt.

roony
29th Oct 2008, 10:31
That concludes it then.

You're a Walt.

Don't spoil it Tourist! I'm looking forwards to the next instalment of bilge.

My favourite so far was.....

I have decided to do a PPL (H), Can't put enough time into at the Moment, coz of the Intense Jet Flying!

Priceless!

HARRIERPILOTNAS
29th Oct 2008, 10:41
Ur Funny Lads, Keep it Coming.... :mad:

D O Guerrero
29th Oct 2008, 13:56
I may be completely wrong but wasn't the Canadian purple experiment an unmitigated disaster?

Occasional Aviator
29th Oct 2008, 15:14
The Canadian experience is widely misunderstood. It's interesting, not from the point of view of why it didn't work at first, but what they went back to.

For a start, they are still called the Canadian Armed Forces and have a single HQ - there aren't separate navy, army and air force HQs. However, they are orgainised along environmental lines and - get this - the air force flies all the aircraft, the navy sails all the ships and the army drives all the tanks.

Thus you have Canadian frigates, crewed by navy crews, with an army boarding party and a helicopter flown and maintained by their air force. they say it works for them......

Oggin Aviator
29th Oct 2008, 21:01
O_A.

You'll know better than me but take a look here -
Jointery - Going to Sea

As near as dammit 2/3's of them would vote with their feet if it became a permenent feature of their careers. not good for retention and costly in training I think.

Agree entirely, 10 or 15 years ago - If I had joined the RAF I would be a bit put out if I was stuck on a boat - however times have changed - a crab can find himslef on a boat just as easily as a wafu can find himself deployed in a hot sandy place (or cold muddy place like FI). Our respective recruiters should really make this point clear when people walk through the careers office door.

Once A Brat
30th Oct 2008, 16:08
Tourist, post 10 - "Harrier? ........2 became dark blue"

Gotta be a bit of a pedant here, the RAF actually only lost 1 Harrier Sqn (3(F) Sqn) to form the Naval Strike Wing, consisting of 800 and 801 NAS. 1(F), IV(AC) and 20(R) Sqns still exist. (An RAF Harrier Sqn has twice as many aircraft as a RN one, hence why the RN deploy as NSW rather as separate sqns.) Please don't get me started on where the manpower came from either.............Also, you seem to have forgotten the fate of 899 NAS :}

HOWEVER, as for the rest of your post I concede that we light blue have lost a number of aircraft types, for instance when I joined, we had Harrier, Phantom, Lightning, Tornado, Jaguar, Canberra, Buccaneer, Hunter, Shackleton, E3, HS125, BAe146, Andover, C130, TriStar, VC10 as well as several flavours of rotary wing and probably numerous other aircraft types that I can't recall........

And before, you start it wasn't really that long ago.

Tourist
30th Oct 2008, 16:50
Ok, I'll give you that, but you get my point?

Reports of the imminent death of the fixed wing element of the FAA are somewhat premature.

minigundiplomat
3rd Nov 2008, 15:43
The RAF, on the other hand seems to be in terminal decline.
How many Sqns did the RAF have even 10 yrs ago compared with now?
More importantly, how many of those sqns actually still fly on a regular basis?
E3? ........not really
Nimrod?.....Hanging in there god bless em, and soon to be replaced by something inferior (another nimrod)in all respects except endurance.
F3........who knows, or cares.
Jaguar?.......computer says no.
Canberra??.......computer says no.
Harrier? ........2 became dark blue.
Sentinel?.......very pretty on the pan.
C17?...........Hurrah!!! you got something new and decent!
Merlin Mk3?...Not a bad bit of kit, but lets face it, it's not what you would have picked.
Ok and you got the airshow jet.
C130? .......Not many left.

Few tactical omissions there mate, probably to suit your argument...

Chinook.....not stopped since mid 90's
Tornado GR4...about to deploy to the Stan
Tristar....going like the clappers just trying to keep up
VC10....knackered but still stagging on

Conversely, the present carriers are FA use in the Stan (our commitment for the next 15 years), and cant see the new ones being much more use other than the normal round of cocktail parties and exercises in the Caribbean and Far East.

I know where Id make savings to ensure troops get back from theatre on time. Typhoon would be first, but your new war canoes would be a close second.

Tourist
3rd Nov 2008, 16:45
"our commitment for the next 15 years"

You talk as if 15 yrs is a long time.
The lead time on things like carriers is longer than that, and we must look to the future.
Carriers are useful for a long time. Some of our last real carriers are still in service with other nations after 50.

As to your other points:-

"Chinook.....not stopped since mid 90's
Tornado GR4...about to deploy to the Stan
Tristar....going like the clappers just trying to keep up
VC10....knackered but still stagging on

more than happy to add them to the list, with your accurate desriptions of their state. It all bolsters my argument that the RAF is in a bad way, and the FAA is a better bet.

I'm Off!
3rd Nov 2008, 17:07
Whilst I agree with Tourist that the RAF is in a bad way, the FAA is in no way a better bet. When FLynx is cancelled, the carriers are delayed, JSF is delayed/scaled down/cancelled etc it won't look too rosy. Add to that the fact that there is no money to replace SK4, or SK7, and how does that make the FAA a better bet?