Future strength

[pr00ne]

I am still puzzled at the number of fast jet units planned for the RAF after the announcement on July 21st.

The three Jaguar squadrons are planned to go between next April and 2007. One Tornado F3 Squadron is also to disband next year.

The will leave the RAF with 7 Tornado GR4/4A Squadrons, 3 (soon to be 2) Harrier Squadrons and 3 Tornado F3 squadrons. I am only counting fully operational units here and not OCU or OEU's.

So, is the RAF to consist in 2008 of 12 operatonal Fast jet squadrons or is the Jaguar withdrawal just an accelerated drawdown and these units will reform?

The anounced 84 deployable fast jets and the number of crews required also looks odd?

Anyone have more than an educated guess?


A total of TWELVE fast jet units? REALLY?

[pr00ne]

Deliverance,

Thanks for the reminder, I suppose that should be amended to read; " 2 RAF heavy Harrier GR9 Squadrons with RAF numberplates and 2 RN heavy Harrier GR9 squadrons with RN numberplates, all based at RAF Cottesmore.

Though as the RAF will be disbanding one of their current 3 GR7 squadrons to share resources throughout the other 3 GR9 outfits, will the two 'RN heavy' numberplates ever be anything more than that in name, seeing as the RN struggled to man 2 Flight sized SHAR outfits?

[Navaleye]

The MoD mentioned a strength of "about 9" a/c for the new GR9 Squadrons. IIRC the FAA had 26 qualified pilots last year plus those in the pipline. That should just about cope with 18 operational jets. Presumably their would be some regular crossover between the squadrons.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Some of the reasons the Navy lacks fixed wing pilots (or at least appears to) are discussed on the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) thread.

On page 34 or 35 I think....

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

"about 9 a/c" ?

They are converting 72 to GR9 plus some T10s to T12, that's a big fleet to support a Sqn establishment of a mere 9 isn't it?

A total deployable force of 36 a/c?

Is it a possibility that the RN badged units will be smaller?

[Navaleye]

Ther operational numbers required are from Hansard as follows:

78. Four GR9/9a squadrons (two Royal Navy and two RAF) will be available by 2007, replacing five current Harrier squadrons. The 'required operating fleet' of Harriers, once the Sea Harriers have been withdrawn from service, will be 51 aircraft. This compares with 83 currently in the operating fleet—54 GR7s and 29 Sea Harriers.[179] Taking a third of the aircraft out of the Joint Force Harrier operating fleet represents a significant diminution of carrier-capable fixed-wing maritime aviation. We therefore explored what technical risks there were that appear to have prevented the Sea Harrier being upgraded to extend its useful life beyond 2006 for continued carrier-based operations.[180] The MoD told us that:

[DuckDodgers]

STC are planning around 9 a/c per Sqn available at one time (RN and RAF), the ambition to have 2 x Heavy Dark Blue and 2 x Heavy Light Blue is just that as PMA cannot force people (including the techies) into serving on a RN Sqn; so in reality you will have what the RAF probably wanted all along that of two organic RN Sqns, ran along present NAS organisation (CO, SP, AWI, EWI, Ops, AEO, AAEO, DAEO etc...) who will primarily be those who embark.......

Questions/Comments

[Navaleye]

Dockdogers, I suspect you are right, the FAA system has worked well for many years. If it ain't broke don't fix it? Light Blue has its own routines which suit it when land based, but are less flexible when at sea.

The other problem is that when a light blue GR9 Sqdn puts to sea where are they going to put the extra 50 maintainers when compared to an FAA Sqn of the same strength?

The Sqn strength will inevitably increase as we move to F35.

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

Surely that is just urban myth?

Won't the entire JFH be an integral part of No.1 Group in Strike Command and therefore staffed and run along identical lines irrespective of what colour the number plate.

9 a/c "available" per Squadron makes a little more sense in light of overall numbers.

Back to numbers of fast jet squadrons, if it IS to be 12, and I see nothing that suggests that that it won't, then some famous number plates are to dissapear, RN as well as RAF as there appears to be no future for 899 when it folds into 20(R). Is it No.3 for the chop?

[DuckDodgers]

YES 3 Sqn will disband and become a TYPHOON Sqn apparently!

[Navaleye]

Pr00ne,

If you are referring to the number of maintainers, then I think the FAA gets by with 3 trades compared to the RAF's 5. Space has always been the driver for this and carriers air group accommodation is calculated on a set number of maintainers per a/c. Add two more trades and the sums don't work.

I can't see light blue wanting to change its methods and likewise the FAA cannot adopt the RAF's, so two different systems is the likely result.

[Red Line Entry]

Navaleye,

The RAF is currently in the early stages of changing over to a 3-trade system. Don't know when it's forecast to be complete though.

[Navaleye]

Thanks, I stand corrected.

[capt.sparrow]

How does this reduced RAF / FAA compare in size and capabilties with other comparable air forces around the world i.e. French, German and potential adversaries?

[Open Sauce]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

or

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/mil_arm_per&int=-1

We would appear to rank 21st - just behind Colombia and Greece - a reduction of 10 000 personnel will put us just behind Peru in total numbers.

RAF to be down to 41 000 active duty?

That puts us just less than Japan, slightly more than Thailand - 35000 less than Germany and 26000 more than Nigeria - so we are somewhere in between the two, but our numbers will be closer to Nigeria's than Germany...