OA et al
An informative post but if I may question/ comment on the following
If you check the command arrangements, JFH is under full command of the RAF. 801 Sqn therefore would have been an RN-badged RAF Sqn.
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules
Why should it be under full RAF control? Does that mean the RAF Seakings should come under RN control or the Merlins for that matter. The RAF seem to bang on about safety but seem to have more accidents than the RN, I would have thought this would have been the other way round.
In answer to the question about who should fly the jets, I dont have a really strong view - but for me the question is why rather than why not. RN FJ pilots now and in the future go through exactly the same training as RAF harrier pilots (stand fast Dartmouth), and the end product in the JFH is interchangeable. Running a force of around 210 fast-jet pilots is difficult enough for the RAF, which has places to send people who aren't quite up to single-seat and a commensurate buffer in terms of a training margin and ground jobs. Oh, and a realistic career for flyers beyond SO1. Trying to run a small cadre of FJ pilots independently just seems like an inefficiency and not best value for defence - so for me the question is why bother rather than why not. Yes, you need some sea-mindedness but this will come with operating at sea, and the whole carrier strike thing is justified around Land Attack, not defending the fleet against air attack (which I think the T45 does rather well actually). If you really need to address the presentational aspect let's give some of the sqns RN numbers and get the pilots to wear gold braid rather than bar-codes when at sea. Having said that, if it comes down to a political need to keep some pilots as RN, then so be it.
Take a look at the history of the fleet air arm between day of all fools 1918 and 1937 it was "owned" buy the RAF but paid for by the RN At the start only the Observers in the squadrons were dark blue by 1920 the squadron manning was 87% RN now I dont know why that would be but I suspect it was a number of factors such as RAF Recruitment & Retention being affected by Having to go to sea for long periods of time and Trenchards view that Carrier ops were dangerous and Long Range bombers could achieve the same thing.
Despite the RN holding the purse strings they had no say in what aircraft they got. Just over the pond the USN were flying Hellcats/Wildcats and all other forms of modern A/C - The fleet Air Arm's Air Defence was provided by the sea skua which couldn't even match the Luftwaffe's premier Recce Aircraft, the condor in terms of speed and ceiling.
When the RN finally got control of the FAA back it was no where near prepared for war. Aircraft production was focused on fighter production for the RAF (quite rightly) but no one was prepared to come up with a naval fighter. The best british offering was the sea hurricane and later the Sea Mosquito all of which were compromises.
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
None as far as ? know
Now name one Naval Aircraft that successfully came ashore? I can think of one british and several american.
My own Conclusion - As long as this and future governments operate an interventionist foriegn policy we will require Fixed and rotary wing Aircraft at sea. As for Fighters, Well nearly every tin-pot nation on this earth has an airforce and most have an air combat wing.
As for who should operate these aircraft at sea. Well my own thoughts are ask those who operate the aircraft at the moment. If I had joined the RAF, it wouldn't have been to go to sea, So yes the RN should operate them, but with a common support system. I think jointery is a dynamite Idea. Common Aircraft and common support. My heart however goes out to the light blue who are embarked on various pussers war-canoes who dont want to be there, i'm also mindfull of the Wafus deployed ashore and living in trenches. I think the current situation can only have an adverse effect on morale, recruitment and retention.
Sorry if i've rambled
PS - Jacko - Ancient history eh? - What does that make the Battle of britain then? Having fighters to protect british airspace, we dont need them surely?