6th RAF Typhoon squadron announced?

[Frostchamber]

Sorry if this is old news and I missed it, but there was an interesting nugget of information in evidence given to the Defence Select Cttee on 17 December last year. The Cttee was looking at plans for Future Force 2020. Asked how many front line squadrons the RAF would have in 2020, Air Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier said, and I quote: "What we'd expect in 2020 is that we'd have increased to 6 Typhoon squadrons and that we'd have by that stage 1 F35 squadron."

I see 4 potential scenarios here - a) I missed the announcement of an increase to 6 sqns; b) The Air Marshall "misspoke", there will only be 5; c) The information slipped out, either intentionally or by mistake; or d) There's another scenario I haven't thought of.

Can anyone set me straight - does this mean the decision has been taken to retain some Tranche 1s (as has been talked about in the past) and stand up a sixth squadron?

[Bigbux]

Spares donors :{

[Rhino power]

Maybe he was including 29(R) into his total number of squadrons?

-RP

[pr00ne]

RP,

If he meant that, then we already have seven Typhoon squadrons now.

[Sandy Parts]

The cyncial among us may suspect that the aim is to increase the number of squadrons, even if the number of aircraft remains the same or even reduces. How else will there be enough Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr posts for the FJ cadre to build a career path to the position of CAS? :p

[Selatar]

Under current plans are there enough frames to support 6 sqns of 12 even?

[Not_a_boffin]

Here's the actual minuted evidence in question, relevant bit in bold...

Q287 Mrs Moon: We have agreed that a squadron has an unspecified number of
planes—between 10 and 16. We have now got only seven fast-jet combat squadrons.
Can you break that down for us?
Air Marshal Hillier: In terms of the types of aircraft?
Mrs Moon: Yes.
Air Marshal Hillier: At the moment, we have four Typhoon squadrons and three
Tornado squadrons.
Mrs Moon: So four Tornados—
Air Marshal Hillier: Four Typhoon and three Tornado.
Q288 Mrs Moon: Can you break that down into the number of aircraft?
Air Marshal Hillier: I couldn’t tell you how many aircraft are in each of those
squadrons at the moment. I would need to go away and talk to the Air Force. It
averages out at about 12 to 14, I think, but I would need to check to give you the
exact number.
Q289 Mrs Moon: So we do not know exactly how many we have now. Do we know
exactly how many we will have in Future Force 2020?
Air Marshal Hillier: In terms of the numbers of aircraft or the numbers of
squadrons?
Q290 Mrs Moon: The number of fast-jet combat squadrons and the number of planes
that will be flying.
Air Marshal Hillier: We expect that in 2020 we will have increased to five
Typhoon squadrons, and by that stage we will have one F-35 squadron. The
Tornado will be out of service.Q291 Mrs Moon: This inquiry is looking at Future Force 2020. We need to have on
the record that we do not know how many planes we have now, but we do have an
idea of how many squadrons we will have in 2020.
Air Marshal Hillier: I know the number of squadrons. It is not that we do not have
an idea of the number of aircraft. All I am saying is that I do not know right now
how many aircraft are in those individual squadrons, but I can go away and provide
you with that answer. It is straightforward.

[Kitbag]

TBH I'm surprised that information (current and future) wasn't in his briefing notes. Given the session was to discuss FF2020 maybe he wasn't expecting to asked such basics by a politician?

[jindabyne]

At best, poor staff work. At worst, crass individual preparedness.

[Roadster280]

I'm glad it's not just me that sometimes gets caught out like that. My job is a big-picture scenario. I don't always know (or particularly care) if product X includes widget Y in its features, because that is minutiae. As long as product X fulfils role Z, then feature Y can generally be added if needed, or dropped if required to meet a particular deployment scenario. I don't suppose the AM cares whether there are 73, 74 or 75 in total. And even if the answer that was staffed for him was 73 yesterday, it might be 75 today. Or 69.

DCDS probably doesn't know the exact numbers of TLAMs on board HMS Astute vs HMS Ambush either. And nor should he, necessarily.

Yes, he could have thought to himself "what are these knobbers likely to ask me?" and prepared for that. But it's a bit pointless. "So, AM, of these (say) 74 combat jets, how many have had engine changes in the last month?" or "Having these aircraft is all well and good, and I'm sure we'd all agree that more would be better, what about armament for them? How many bombs have we got in store? And how many stores are there? When were they last inspected? What's the shelf life of a bomb? What contingency plans are there to acquire more bombs in short order if necessary?". Then they could get parochial. "My constituency has the Dunlop rubber plant, and it employs 1,000 people. It relies on MOD orders for tyres for these aircraft. Why have we recently switched to Michelin?"

"Sorry, I haven't a clue, but I'd guess that the Michelin one met the spec for less money, however, a Wg Cdr 4 or 5 ranks below me would have made the decision. I don't know who that is, and I certainly have no inclination to find out " is probably the answer, but that's not why military officers appear in front of HoC committees.

I feel for the AM!

[Rhino power]

If he meant that, then we already have seven Typhoon squadrons now.

Seven? Really?

I wasn't including 41(R) since it isn't a full strength, or dedicated Typhoon squadron. And 1435 Flt only has four jets on strength...

I was just thinking of 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 29(R)?

Although, Not a boffin's post now renders the debate academic anyway! :)

-RP

[Pheasant]

Good thing Mrs Moon didn't ask about FE@R. Had she done so and then asked about total aircraft numbers she would probably be gobsmacked at the total number of FW required to produce the FE@R number. Compare this with the number of Helos available to produce a similar FE@R number and the committeeewould be reeling.

[Jimlad1]

Why should a senior officer be expected to know the individual strengths of each squadron, which doubtless changes regularly. This is something I'd expect the 1* force commander to know, but expecting busy VSO's to spend time memorising a series of numbers, on the offchance an MP can then demand them from him seems a waste of time all round.

[Not_a_boffin]

Good thing Mrs Moon didn't ask about FE@R. Had she done so and then asked about total aircraft numbers she would probably be gobsmacked at the total number of FW required to produce the FE@R number.

Moony probably thinks that FE@R is another excuse for a PQ on armed forces sex crimes......

[cokecan]

i would expect him to know how many Typhoons or Tornado's he's got, they are after all his principle weapon system.

the number of Sqn's and how many are in each one is irrelevent to all but the spotters and would-be Sqn Cdrs, its the number of airframes, crew, sorties he can produce, how long he can sustain X operation that is of interest.

[Frostchamber]

I can assure you he did say six, it's in the video of the session here: Future Force 2020: Secretary of State questioned - News from Parliament - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news/future-force-2020-evidence-session1/)

So if in the written record he says five, it looks like my "misspoke" scenario applies and the department has moved quickly to correct the "error". Whether it was a mistake or something he wasn't meant to say yet is another matter...

[Roadster280]

i would expect him to know how many Typhoons or Tornado's he's got, they are after all his principle weapon system.

the number of Sqn's and how many are in each one is irrelevent to all but the spotters and would-be Sqn Cdrs, its the number of airframes, crew, sorties he can produce, how long he can sustain X operation that is of interest.

He's DCDS, not CAS (i.e. purple, not single service). I presume that's why he said "I'd have to ask the Air Force".

[jindabyne]

Why should a senior officer be expected to know the individual strengths of each squadron, which doubtless changes regularly. This is something I'd expect the 1* force commander to know, but expecting busy VSO's to spend time memorising a series of numbers, on the offchance an MP can then demand them from him seems a waste of time all round.



Nonsense. If called before such a Committee, said person, of whatever rank, should be 100% prepared to defend his corner - and more. This man wasn't

[Jimlad1]

Really? The world is full of random bits of information that people may or may not need to know. He was not appearing as CAS (yet!), there was absolutely no need for him to know this specific little nugget. This was down to an mp deciding to be difficult because they can and he sensibly took the option of saying 'i dont know but i'll get back to you'

Senior officers are not supermen blessed with massive memory anymore than the rest of us. I'd rather he spent his time doing his actual job, not prepping endlessly for whatever unlikely snippet of information an mp wants to ferret for i an environment where the mp's can, and do, go for the kill on utterly pointless matters.

[London Eye]

"Nonsense. If called before such a Committee, said person, of whatever rank, should be 100% prepared to defend his corner - and more. This man wasn't"

Jindabyne, How exactly do you think he could have been "100% prepared" for any question about any force level in any of the three Services (+JFC) before he went in front of the committee - by burning about a million hours of extra nugatory work for his staff - I prefer his approach to yours!

[PARALLEL TRACK]

Who cares whether he said 5, 6 or 7. He is a very good SO who will hopefully get the top job when it comes around. I worked with him twice and I never saw him ill-prepared for anything!

//trk

[Bigbux]

Nonsense. If called before such a Committee, said person, of whatever rank, should be 100% prepared to defend his corner - and more. This man wasn't

I don't see what there was to "defend"; a question was asked and the answer deliberately misinterpreted for who-knows-what-purpose.

The object of these sessions is not to deceive the Committee, it is to provide them with facts and informed opinion.

Ms Moon was being a pedant and scoring cheap points in her first assertion that "we don't know how many aircraft we have". The decision to ignore that stupidity was wise - it probably wasn't the only jibe thrown - and they only go in one direction at these sessions.

To calmly correct her when she felt like repeating the bollox was exactly what was required.

[Willard Whyte]

Perhaps all candidates for military 'top jobs' should be required to sit an exam on facts, figures and capabilities. "You may turn over your question papers now, ladies and gentlemen"...

Invigilators all from the SWO cadre. No gonks allowed either.

[Bob Viking]

WW.
So would CASWO have known the answer if put on the spot in a similar fashion?
BV

[Willard Whyte]

Not CASWO's job.

[Bob Viking]

WW.
I'm sure you can see my point though. He was just the most senior SNCO I could think of.
BV

[Willard Whyte]

No, I don't see your point.

All an invigilator needs to do is walk up and down the exam hall making sure that none of those sitting it talk/cheat etc. Would need a second invigilator to escort any candidate wishing to go to the loo.

[Lima Juliet]

Technically, a WO is not a SNCO. Just sayin' :cool:

[Bob Viking]

WW.
It would appear I misunderstood the tone of your post then for which I apologise unreservedly.
BV

[Frostchamber]

I was under the impression that the number in any given squadron on any given day was a bit of a movable feast in any case, but happy to stand corrected. FWIW I agree with those who say that he dealt with the MP's trolling comment pretty well, courteously and straight bat.

For those arguing that numbers of squadrons are unimportant compared with airframe numbers, in this instance a sixth sqn would imply the retention of some Tranche 1s, which has been talked about, so pushing airframe numbers beyond the 107 that there'll otherwise be after T1 OSD. Bearing in mind that in 2020 there are due to be just 6 front line FJ sqns in total, an increase of that kind could only be a good thing. And to repeat, he DID say there would be 6 Typhoon sqns in 2020. The written record has since been "corrected", either because he was wrong or because he shouldn't have said it.

[jindabyne]

OK. I accept that a VSO wouldn't normally be expected to know of such detail; especially when we had an Air Force of substance. But when said VSO, no matter how well thought of, is these days responsible for ONLY 5/6 squadrons of the type under discussion, when called before such a committee, he bloody well should!! Or is that too much to expect? For goodness sake.

[downsizer]

The number of frames varies from day to day depending on a number of factors....how many are parked, off to depth, back from depth, long term U/S...it's largely a meaningless figure.

A more meaningful metric would be how many frames is the Sqn manned to fly and maintain. And that doesn't always meet the number allocated!

[London Eye]

Quote:


OK. I accept that a VSO wouldn't normally be expected to know of such detail; especially when we had an Air Force of substance. But when said VSO, no matter how well thought of, is these days responsible for ONLY 5/6 squadrons of the type under discussion, when called before such a committee, he bloody well should!! Or is that too much to expect? For goodness sake.

But he is not responsible for them...

[jindabyne]

Hairs, splitting

[London Eye]

Jindabyne,


I really don't think I am splitting hairs. If CAS was in front of the HCDC on the subject of current combat air capability I would have some sympathy for your view. When DCDS (Military Capability) is in front of them to discuss FF2020 I would be absolutely amazed if he knew definitively how many jets were on front line squadrons today. As a previous squadron and station commander I am certain that he could have made a very good estimate, but rightly didn't do that in front of the Defence Committee. I would have been disappointed if he had asked his staff to ask the front line commands the thousands of questions that he would have needed answering if he wanted the information the MPs shouldn't have been asking in the first place. You are entitled to think otherwise but I just don't agree with you.


LE

[jindabyne]

We have a similar pedigree; also alongside DASB in MoD. We'll have to agree to disagree:ok:

[Willard Whyte]

WW.
It would appear I misunderstood the tone of your post then for which I apologise unreservedly.
BV

No need to apologise.

It just amused me to conjure the image of a bunch of VSOs sitting in silence in the gymnasium at High Wycome answering questions under exam conditions, with a couple of stiff-necked SWOs, pacing sticks at the ready, overseeing the whole process.

[dallas]

I suggest the acid test would be to sit Mrs Moon down under exam conditions to establish her level of understanding after the briefing. I hate to think how many hours have been wasted over the years by our politicians (remember: they work for you), asking pointless minutae, and in doing so missing the point completely and with it the parlous state of our military.