Pilot: FAA or RAF [Archive]

Tourist

21st May 2005, 07:49

Anyone can land on a runway 1 mile long that stays in the same place and doesn't bounce around.
But some of us relish a challenge.

16 Blades. Please tell me what the entire Crab force brought to Telic that the Yanks could not have done better themselves? To my mind probably Airborne refueling. And now ask yourself what they would have done without the Junglies at Al Faw (when they grounded their entire Sea Knight force on night one because they couldn't operated in the bad conditions, or what they would do about the Iraqi navy which was destroyed in GW1 by a Lynx because they didn't have suitable kit, or who they would use to do the Bagger job.
The difference between the RAF and FAA, is that we bring something to the party, even when operating with the Yanks

Bismark

21st May 2005, 08:01

amb,

Would you want to join a Service that actively argues against the one capability that would have enabled them to take part in the offensive side of Afghanistan post 9/11 ie the CV(F). Apart from the (very) LR bombers of the USAF the only offensive capability was provided by a/c from the carriers of the USN.

Flying from the sea is the most challenging flying you will experience and whether you want to be a FJ or RW pilot you can do both with the Fleet Air Arm. Little known fact but in the next decade the FAA will provide about 25% of the UK FJ pilots, flying what will probably be the best a/c in the world (JSF).

What is more the RN offer more responsibility to its officers and there is no better club in the world than the Fleet Air Arm.

Fly Navy, you know it makes sense

caspertheghost

21st May 2005, 09:25

Please don't forget that you can land on carriers in the RAF too, it's not just the RN that have to endure that!

pr00ne

21st May 2005, 09:31

Bismark,

“Little known fact?”

“FAA will provide 25% of UK FJ pilots?”

WHAT are you on man?

25%? To man 2 relatively small FJ squadrons that will not even be 100% RN manned as opposed to at least 12 pure RAF FJ units plus another two with a small RN complement embedded not including OCU/OEU 100 Sqn the Reds etc etc etc……

On top of all this the small RN fixed wing element will be located on RAF stations under the command and control of Royal Air Force Strike Command.

amb_211085

If you want to fly FJ;

Join the Royal Air Force or the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force.

AllTrimDoubt

21st May 2005, 10:50

Well, if we are embedded at least you guys might learn a thing or two about flexibility, fun and flying!

engineer(retard)

21st May 2005, 10:55

and you will have access to a bloody good club with lots of added responsibilities.:yuk:

airborne_artist

21st May 2005, 10:59

amb_211085

The reason the light blue get all defensive when asked this question is that they know that FW Naval Aviation is the only certain way to project power across the globe. (check here (http://www.answers.com/topic/aircraft-carrier))

Both arms are highly trained, professional forces, and you should get yourself a visit to both, and then you will decide that the RN has the edge
:ok:

engineer(retard)

21st May 2005, 11:04

That will be on the carriers (not yet ordered), to fly carrier born aircraft (also not yet ordered). Based on procurment and funding track records you could be an OAP before you join this club.

WE Branch Fanatic

21st May 2005, 11:24

Some of you might find this link (http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=4285.topi c) interesting as it discusses some of these issues. Perhaps it should be on the recruiting thread?

I guessed that some of these problems would arise when the decision was made to move the Sea Harrier from away from Yeovilton to Coss/Witt. The early retirement of the Sea Jet - as discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) can only make it worse. And now they are claiming that the runway at Yeovilton is too short for it to be a possible JSF base - despite the fact that we are buying the STOVL version.

PS Who decided that it was a good idea for carrier aircraft to come under Strike Command, instead of CINCFLEET? Surely this can only cause problems?

SSSETOWTF

21st May 2005, 13:05

If you can ignore all the inter-service willy-waving that a question like that is bound to provoke, I think it boils down to a couple of questions:

1. What do you dream of flying? If you're a helicopter kind of guy then look at the various types and roles that each of the services have. But don't overlook joining the AAC to fly Apache. If you want to fly big planes, with one eye on getting your airline licence, it's got to be RAF. If you want to fly jets, either Typhoons or JSF then you probably stand more chance of doing so in the RAF, but do some research.

2. What do you think about going to sea? As an RAF chap, who's done 9 months at sea, I think it's a miserable way of life, and a miserable way to restrict the way you operate your aircraft. But it does have some advantages and it does appeal to some people. If you're one of them, then the FAA is as good a place as any, and their uniforms are much sharper than the RAF's. All RN and USN aviators will wax lyrical about the joys of landing on a boat. If you end up on Harriers, or JSF, as an RAF chap, you'll land on a boat too, and won't think much of it.

And now for some willy-waving:

Tourist,

It seems that you've taken some kind of selective memory pill. Perhaps you'll recall from GW1 that RAF Tornados were specially requested by the US to go in low and close the major Iraqi airfields on the first few nights of the war (you can argue about the necessity to at great length, but it was a capability the US didn't have). Having operated with a US unit during OIF I can tell you that the UK tanker crews are known as the best and most flexible AAR force in the world. Our AWACS guys are a regarded by the US as far far better than their own. Our SF Herc and Chinook force is envied. Our Storm Shadow missiles were specially requested on several occasions by the CAOC. Our EPW bombs were acknowledged to be better than a plain old JDAM. And our own land units would much rather have an RAF CAS aircraft overhead than a USAF one, given the choice. The Junglies did a great job at Al Fawr, but to suggest no one else brings anything to the party smacks either of ignorance or absurd arrogance.

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

CrabInCab

21st May 2005, 15:08

Tourist:

And of course no one else with rotary wings was any where to be seen on the Al-Faw were they.......oh no my mistake! Tit.

:zzz:

amb 211085

If rotary is your bag it doesn't matter who you join; as you can see when the chips are down we all get amongst it.

From an Internet source:

UK helicopter crews see the al Faw operation as the high point of the war for them. In a matter of hours, RAF Chinooks and Pumas, supported by RN Westland Sea King HC4s/HC6s, put the main
combat elements of 3 Commando Brigade ashore on an enemy-held coastline. As the troops began to lay siege to Basra, helicopters were used to support operations, with AAC and RN Westland Lynx AH7s and Westland Gazelle AH1s working as tank-hunting teams. In the Rumailah oil fields, Pumas and Lynxs were used to move security patrols and vehicle checkpoints to protect the facilities from sabotage. At sea, the Sea King 7 ASaC (airborne surveillance and control) machines and Merlin HM1s provided command and control top cover, managing the helicopter traffic in the congested airspace of the northern Gulf. Multi-tasking was common, with one Sea King HC4 attacking and sinking an Iraqi patrol boat with a machine gun.

Hope that helps.

Pierre Argh

21st May 2005, 18:08

Forget all the political wrangling etc....

Didn't someone once say....

I don't know but I've been told
Navy wings are made of gold
I don't know but it's been said
Air force wings are made of lead

Or even further back...

They say in the airforce a landings OK
If the pilot gets out and can still walk away
but in the fleet air arm your prospects are dim
If the landings piss poor and the pilot can't swim!

Just about says it all as far as I'm concerned!!!!

Tourist

22nd May 2005, 00:49

Cr@pinCab.
From an internet source, is that supposed to definative is it?
As I said in my origional post, we have RAF airborne refueling.
If you think the AAC did much then you have not looked into it, and as to the SK4 sinking a patrol boat with a GPMG, dont make me laugh. 7.62 ship killing I think not. Tw@t

SSSETOWTF

22nd May 2005, 03:31

Tourist,

Selective reading ability too? I mentioned more than just AAR in my post. And I didn't even get onto the Nimrod R1, or ALARM, or the RAF's much sought after recce capability - RAPTOR, JRP and, until recently, the old Canberra's camera system. Your The difference between the RAF and FAA, is that we bring something to the party, even when operating with the Yanks statement is just plain daft I'm afraid old chap.

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

16 blades

22nd May 2005, 04:10

All the usual fish bites, I see! I've never dipped a hook in the water and pulled it out with so many fish on it before - amazing!

If flying is your passion, it has to be RAF, I'm afraid. Let's compare - all figures from public websites, and are for offensive / operational aircraft only:

RAF:

114 Tornado GR4 / 4A(soon to be replaced )
91 Tornado F3 (by approx 230 Typhoon)
60 Harrier
13 Jaguar (not for much longer)
99 Hawk
5 Canberra

53 Hercules
23 Nimrod (soon to be reduced to 14 MR4)
17 VC10
8 Tristar
5 125
2 146

34 Chinook
22 Merlin
33 Puma
13 Sea King
3 Squirrel

TOTAL: 595

FAA:

25 Sea Harrier (going, going, gone!)
44 Merlin
65 Lynx
60 Sea King (most are junglies so technically not FAA)

err......thats it.

TOTAL:229 (204 after SHAR goes, all RW)

Figures may not be bang up to date - precise numbers for FAA seem difficult to find for some reason.

So, the RAF - Lots of different types, variety in jobs, no need to live on a f***ing ship, we will soon have ALL the fast jets forever (JCA will be 100% owned by RAF Strike Cmd, and loaned to the Navy to put on their quaint little (french built) boats). Opportunity on JCA fleet to fly off a ship, if for some unimaginable reason that appeals to you, without having to make it your life. And sex with women.

The Navy - err........helicopters........and that's it. Well, that and arrogance and an interminable superiority complex. Not to mention constant living in the past, having to live on a f**king ship and stupid, irritating, pointless 'traditions'. A smarter uniform, in fairness. Oh, and from time to time we might let them fly 'our' F-35s.

So, a clear choice. Rise Above The Rest!

16B

forwardassist

22nd May 2005, 08:01

16B
You are indeed the poster child for your service.:zzz:

Toxteth O'Grady

22nd May 2005, 08:04

Based on the above figures, the RAF has about 80 people per aircraft and the FAA about 20.

Read into that what you will.

:cool:

TOG

kippermate

22nd May 2005, 10:17

What a cracking spoof thread!

Well done amb!

:ok:

kipper

16 blades

22nd May 2005, 10:19

The FAA have an admin & support structure in the Main RN that doesn't feature in their manpower strength. Self explanatory really.

Forwardassist,

If you knew how ugly I was, you'd know I'd never end up on any posters.......!

16B

beerdrinker

22nd May 2005, 10:42

16B

"TOTAL:229 (204 after SHAR goes, all RW)"

Not quite true. You are forgetting that RAF 3 Sqdn is is re-equipping witht he Typhoon and RN 800 and 801 Sqds are reforming with ex RAF GR7/GR9's.

So not quite all RW

Climebear

22nd May 2005, 10:55

In this brave new world of RAB one should ask the question of ownership ie whose asset register are the aircraft on.

Put it this way and you realise that the Royal Navy do not own their Harriers (they 'belong' to an RAF TLB (STC) who lets the Royal Navy paint the aircraft and fly them). The RN will continue not to 'own' the GR7/9s when 800 and 801 move to the midLANDs.

The same can be said for the RN's Seak King Mk 4s, Lynx Mk7s and Gazelle AH1s (only the FAA could count the drumstick as an attack helicopter!) that are 'owned' by the Army (LAND TLB).

Similarly the Army 'owns' the Pumas, Merlins and Chinooks that have Royal Air Force markings on them!

Isn't life simple nowadays? - Remember 'Purple is just a deeper
shade of Green'.

bandit

22nd May 2005, 15:09

that such an obvious bite would get so many going. However in the unlikely event that this was anything such I think you managed to get the difference across perfectly 16B...

...only a crab would resort to scraping around for those stats like you did, deliberating over how many operational squirrels you have and getting flashed up on prune rather than going out and getting out amongst it.

Also, was there any need to stipulate that "sex with women" was a part the opportunities the junior service offered? Is this is an intentional ploy to appeal to socially awkward types who have difficulty relating to the opposite sex or is that just a co-incidence?
Does this work when they're not in ground floor rooms?

:confused:

amb_211085

22nd May 2005, 17:18

Thanks to those of you who have replied with some bearing to the intentions of the topic. To the others of you, thanks are also in order.

This was not intended as bait to get an argument going, rather to see what actual differences there are between the two roles. It would seem the RAF have too much time on their hands so they can spend it moaning whilst the RN just get on with the job.

Si Clik

22nd May 2005, 18:06

amb,

Since you feel that way, PM me and I'll get you to AIB in a gnats whisker.

:hmm:

Bismark

22nd May 2005, 18:12

amb,

Your powers of perception are just what the RN need - sign up today!

prOOne, 16B and others,

It is the attitude of the pilot that counts not who "owns the a/c" (they are all owned by the MoD) and as has been proven over the years the RN have the better attitude (not unionised, do not need to stay in hotels etc). All RN aircrew are FAA whichever TLB "owns" the a/c incl the junglies.

16B's figures are all fine except that he needs to project them forward 10-15 years. My understanding after last summer's cuts is that the RAF FJ force will be down to something like 80 jets. If the RN are flying 20 odd of them then it seems to me that they will provide about 25% of the crews. I accept that there will be hundreds of useless Typhoons in storage - what Service has wasted Defence £Bs with a contract for a/c it does not need. Re the tanker fleet - I thought it was going out to charter with sponsored reserve crews?

Fly Navy!

pr00ne

22nd May 2005, 19:18

Bismark,

"Down to 80 jets?"

Afraid your "understanding" is a little way off, a deployable and sustainable force of 64 AG and 16 AD FJ needs rather more than 80 jets I think you'll find.

Suggest you do a little more research before offering any more totally inept and inaccurate advice to anyone.

Climebear

22nd May 2005, 19:26

Bismark

It is the attitude of the pilot that counts not who "owns the a/c" (they are all owned by the MoD) and as has been proven over the years the RN have the better attitude (not unionised, do not need to stay in hotels etc). All RN aircrew are FAA whichever TLB "owns" the a/c incl the junglies.

You miss the point - I wasn't commenting on the qaulity of the pilots of either cloth. More at the way that no-one can be sure what an individual Service is or is not anymore. Soon an RN Harrier pilot can spend his entire productive career under RAF command and an RAF SH pilot can spend his entire career within an Army organization (the JHC is - after all - subordinate to LAND). So we are neither organized as individual Services in peacetime (Within JFH RAF pilots will serve in 800 Sqn under a cdr who - in turn - will work for a gp capt reporting to 1Gp STC. The bounderies are blurring.) nor do we fight as individual Services in war (if we are ever allowed to call it that again) with members from all 3 Services working in all 5 components (6 if a JFAmphibC is established).

I wonder if the JFH will have 2 display ac next year one from 1(F), IV(AC) or 20(R) in RAF colours (that could be flown by a RN or RM pilot) and another from 800 (or later 801) in FAA colours (that could be flown by an RAF pilot). Or perhaps they will try the BAR trick when the entered F1 and have different paint schemes on each side of the ac? All very confusing.

Re the tanker fleet - I thought it was going out to charter with sponsored reserve crews?

Another piece of innacuracy - FSTA (tanker/transport) is planned to be a mix of RAF/contractor engineers (some of whom will be sponsored reserves) the aircrew (and any other flyers) will be RAF.

Bismark

22nd May 2005, 20:16

PrOOne,

Indeed I am out of date on the current Armed Forces (my main source is Defence Media, HCDC etc) but I fail to see why 16 deployable AD needs 230 Typhoon? Of course I am assuming that the AG a/c are JSF (who would risk Typhoon?).

Climbear,

You make some good points re Jointery which is why my point about attitude is so important. If I recall correctly the RN are the most deployable (ie they can deploy for more days per year than any of the other 2 Services) and the RAF the least. When I was in the RN used to deploy to Bosnia or at sea for 6-8 months but the RAF never more than 4 months (if that).

Fly Navy

engineer(retard)

22nd May 2005, 20:35

Bismark

That must have been pre WW2 as your monicker suggests.

Regards

retard

16 blades

22nd May 2005, 21:39

The point is that the FAA will never again fly fast jets under it's own command - all 'FAA' FJ assets and Sqns will report ultimately to the ONLY professional aviation Service - the RAF - as it should be.

Will FAA helos be taken under JHF command as well? (I profess no knowledge of this) - I would laugh my tits off if they were - then you will have nothing, except your little boats. What on earth would you have to brag about then? (not that you had anything to justify your superiority complex in the first place......)

Rise Above The Rest!

16B

timex

22nd May 2005, 21:47

the ONLY professional aviation Service - the RAF - as it should be.

Sorry just spilled my drink laughing at that one..

Well done 16B tremendous, sadly I think you actually believe this stuff

Climebear

22nd May 2005, 22:01

Bismark

You make some good points re Jointery which is why my point about attitude is so important. If I recall correctly the RN are the most deployable (ie they can deploy for more days per year than any of the other 2 Services) and the RAF the least. When I was in the RN used to deploy to Bosnia or at sea for 6-8 months but the RAF never more than 4 months (if that).

Beware generalisations. I wouldn't mention that to the SH boys or an RAF Regt gunner (to name but a few). Plus the RAF harmony guidelines are just that guidelines (I know of some people that deployed from the Balkans direct to TELIC1 having just spent 6 months deployed) whereas; I understand that under TOPMAST the seperated service limits of the RN are limits. The RAF can - if they want - deploy as much as the next man. However, there is the morale component of fighting power (and retention) to add to the equation. As the RN appears to admit in Admiralty Paper 2/00 - 'The Future Navy':

harmony – we must develop a concept of separated service, ensuring that our personnel management system impartially balances the needs and aspirations of the individual, and his or her family, with the need to sustain operational capability.

I must admit my ignorance at not knowing the exact RN details of their harmony guidleines but - mathematically - the Army's guidlines of 6 months deployed followed by 18 at home (if they are followed) are the same proportionally to the RAF's 4 months deployed followed by 12 months at home (again... if they are followed).

Oh and by the way - my last deployment was just over 6 months long.

As for Jointery the requirement for:

a deployable and sustainable force of 64 AG and 16 AD FJ

is a Defence requirement and is irrespective of 'ownership', colour scheme of the aircraft, or the uniform of pilot.

The message should be clear. The only winners in this inter-Service in-fighting - 'my conditions of service are tougher than yours' etc - are the Treasury who will happily divide and rule and the expense of us all.

16 Blades

Will FAA helos be taken under JHF command as well?

My understanding is that they will not (neither will the RAF\'s SAR aircraft) as the - non-jungly- FAA helos are not battlefeld helicopters but part of a ship's weapon system.

Bismark

22nd May 2005, 22:35

16B,

I thought the Harriers were part of "Joint Force Harrier" not the "RAF Harrier Force", much like JHC is "Joint Helicopter Command". I presume this means that the JHF and JHC will deploy under command of the Joint Commander surely?

My understanding from mates currently serving is that COTT/WITT can be commanded by the RN as well as RAF (best man for job).

16 blades

22nd May 2005, 23:10

JFH reports to RAF Strike Cmd - it is therefore an RAF asset. The 'senior' service no longer has any command and control over Harrier assets. I know it hurts your egos - just live with it.

Sorry just spilled my drink laughing at that one..

Well done 16B tremendous, sadly I think you actually believe this stuff

Yet more bites! I'm gonna have to get another freezer - my current one is rapidly filling up with fish.....

The RAF is a service entirely dedicated to putting aircraft in the air. The FAA is a flying club for sailors that doesn't even have an offensive capability anymore. Simple, really.

Rise Above The Rest!

16B

Climebear

23rd May 2005, 00:15

Bismark

I presume this means that the JHF and JHC will deploy under command of the Joint Commander surely?

Another jump to far.

JHC and JHF are peacetime organizations. They do not fight as entities.

Harriers can deploy under the JFACC or JMCC and (as with any other asset) can also be apportioned to the most appropriate commander as the JTFC see fit (normally on the advice of the Air Specialist - the JFACC (that need not necessarily be RAF)). Could be under the JFACC but apportioned to the JFLCC or JFAmphibCC for CAS.

As for JHC, the same really. AH are normally under the JFLCC whereas (I understand) SH (like other assets such as JNBC Regt) are now coordinated directly from JFHQ (with embedded SHF HQ elements). Could be apportioned to (for instance) JFLCC or JFLogCC as the need requires.

6Z3

23rd May 2005, 07:10

16B,

"The RAF is a service entirely dedicated to putting aircraft in the air"

If you were to take a walk through the corridors of Binnsworth you would find some difficulty in spotting staff who would identify with this statement.

Bismark

23rd May 2005, 07:16

Climbear,

Thanks for keeping me up to date. From what I can gather the RAF are unlikely ever to deploy as an independent unit under their own command. Rather they will always be under a Joint Cdr. Is this also true for the RN or do they still have the ability to deploy as a singleyton/small TG under RN cmd?

With regard to 16B, I am not really worried who owns the jets it is the people who fly (and maintain) them that is important and this is where attitude and efficiency comes in. The fact is that RN/RM aircrew want to fly from the sea the others don't. My understanding is that RAF Sqns have considerably more manpower than an equivalent RN Sqn - is this still the case?

Oggin Aviator

23rd May 2005, 07:59

Interesting thread this. 16 blades said:

The FAA is a flying club for sailors that doesn't even have an offensive capability anymore

Lynx - offensive
Merlin - offensive
SK4 - offensive
SK7 - offensive C2
SHAR for a year or so - offensive

and 16 blades its JFH not JHF. I presume your moniker alludes to you being a Herc (K) mate - an aircraft with a huge offensive capability - not ! (Unless you mean the AC130 flown by the USAF). The reason there is no RN guy in overall command of our FJ assets at the moment is because the crabs very craftily binned 3 Group and moved JFH somewhere else under crab command. Exactly the same mindset that managed to move Australia on paper in the mid sixties to get CVA01 binned ....... You never know when the next reorganisation will take place and although not slated at the moment, you may find the Harrier force or the JSF force under RN command - who can tell? I know of certain RN FJ mates that are being groomed for this type of command .......

Re deployment stories just for info:

My first tour was 40 months, of which I spent 30 months deployed. At the same time (mid nineties), the Crabs didnt go away as much (they were too busy trying to avoid being courts martialled for travel claim fraud in Italy) however I have seen their time away increase over the last decade. Seems to me as time goes on and the Services get smaller and smaller this time away can only increase - the last decade an example of this.

and as for getting a bite - well maybe but morons like you put out so much cr*p that those wannabes with no experience asking innocent questions will actually start to believe the drivel you come out with. Rise Above The Rest - (on all that hot air you spout).

Bismark - the RN will always have the ability to deploy as a UK naval TG under RN command. It just may not happen that much nowadays due to jointery and the nature of ops. And from memory when last a sea with a SHAR sqn and a GR7 squadron for the same number of jets there were [about] 3 times as many GR7 sqn personnel than SHAR sqn personnel.

Ready for the banter, especially from members of the service formed on All Fools Day.

Oggin

Climebear

23rd May 2005, 08:15

Bismark

Is this also true for the RN or do they still have the ability to deploy as a singleyton/small TG under RN cmd?

All services have the ability to deply individually (although our Land based colleagues find it difficult to get very far without the help of the other 2) note RAF operational detachment to Baltic.

Again - as you identified with assets - we all contribute to defence: more particularly, given this forum, to contribute to the delivery of air power. The only people who seem to gain from inter-Service bickering (a level above banter) are the Treasury.

So in pythonesque style let's unite against the common enemy (not the Peoples' Front of Judea). Maybe we should be asking -Most effective arm of National Power: Treasury or Armed Forces?

Oggin

If the C130 (of whatever mark) cannot be counted as offensive, how can you count the SK4? Surely both have the ability to deliver stealy eyed killing machines over distance to their objective.

TurbineTooHot

23rd May 2005, 09:27

Climebear,

At last some f:mad: kng sense.

The fact that we are all pulling in the same direction seems to have escaped most of you from whatever service you are all from.

We have all been done over in some form or another.

The constant bickering has lead to all sorts of govt induced cuts, and more importantly can only intensify calls for one joint defence service. Which would be a bit crap.

The sooner people stop worrying what uniform they are wearing and get on with the job they have to do, and we ALL have a role, the better.

Sits on moral highground, enjoying the view.

TTH

pr00ne

23rd May 2005, 09:30

Bismark,

This RN versus RAF squadron manpower thing is always coming around, the one thing the Navy always seem to forget is the size of the squadrons aircraft establishment. A SHAR outfit had 7 aircraft, a GR7 had up to 16, in the RAF a SHAR sized squadron would be called a Flight. I remember a mate of mine at Gut in the 80’s who was on the receiving end of a visit by some SHAR outfit, eventually the old topic of over manned Crab squadrons came up and my mate could NOT convince the daft web footed fool that the reason that his Harrier GR3 squadron of 21 aircraft had more manpower than the webbed ones Sea Harrier FRS1 squadron of 5 aircraft had something to do with the fact that they had 4 times as many jets!

Merlin HMA1 squadrons of 4 cabs? Of COURSE they will have less manpower than a proper sized RAF outfit.

Oggin Aviator

23rd May 2005, 18:08

Climebear

Agree with your synopsis but was not referring to troop delivery, I was alluding to another capability highlighted by CrabInCab on Page 2 of this thread:

with one Sea King HC4 attacking and sinking an Iraqi patrol boat with a machine gun.

Then again I suppose any aircraft can have a machine gun bolted to it if need be.

Pr00ne: The last time I had my webbed feet on a CVS there was the same number of GR7 and SHAR, yet the number of air force squadron personnel on board was substantially more than the RN squadron personnel. The GR7 squadron had not brought all its jets, obviously, however they stated that they were still operating their jets left ashore somewhere and thus one would assume they had left sufficient people ashore to do this. I think the fewer number of people is not something to score points about, its just that an embarked FAA squadron has, by nature of its experience, been whittled down to the bare minimum over the years due to the requirement to be as efficient as possible and take up as little space as possible whilst embarked.

Oggin

exleckie

23rd May 2005, 19:37

Having worked with Aircrew from all three services, I do not doubt the professionalism of any, they just have different roles. Put it this way, at least they fly which is more than I can. (should have tried harder at school)

Then again , it was my choice to maintain and keep the flyers flying.

Exleckie

16 blades

23rd May 2005, 23:19

Oggin,

I think you'll find that the Herc fleet can deploy a brigade-strength force, including vehicles, equipment, weapons and ammo, onto virtually any piece of land, anywhere in the world, by day or night, in virtually any weather (theoretically), in the space of 5 minutes. Now THAT is offensive capability.

I was once asked by a Fighter Controller, during a bar banter session in MPA, exactly how I could evade detection and destroy his radar site. I offered the prospect of 80 hairy arsed paras, dropped the other side of the hill, out of his sight, to come and say hello and ruin his day. I think you'll find that's pretty 'offensive' (much like my banter, it seems, to the sensitive boys of the FAA) - after all, humans are the most accurate and reliable guided weapons available.

16B

Oggin Aviator

24th May 2005, 05:45

16B - I'd have to agree with your argument. Nicely put, for once. I was talking about dropping or influencing things that drop ordnance of some sort however dropping off human messengers of death achieves the same aim.

I think we can agree that every platform, be it dark or light blue (or green), has its role to play otherwise we wouldnt have it.
I also think that instead of all this willy waving we should try to objectively answer the original posters question. i.e.

RN - mainly rotary, some fixed wing. Fly from ships. Go on ops in ships, then may or may not stage ashore. Whilst onboard, live quite well, especially compared to some of those ashore. When at home, limited to a couple of major bases with a chance to see a few more places as career progresses.

RAF - all types and a greater number. Some fly from ships, most from land. Traditionally got themselves sorted into nice accommodation ashore, however this being eroded over time. When at home, opportunity to serve at more locations, but initially maybe tied to certain locations due to aircraft type then chance to see a few more places as career progresses.

Travel - does he want to spend time away from home - both.
Is he inclined to want to have stability (of sorts) whilst deployed (ie same location) - RAF (except maybe the AT fleet)
Is he inclined to want to see new places every week or so - RN

Pay - the same

Training - Cranwell vs BRNC - each to their own, on a personal note going through Dartmouth during the summer with the awesome view out the window made up for some of the BS that went on in term 1. Term 2 was a complete laugh but that was a while ago and the syllabus has changed, I believe you actually have to go to sea on IST or DTS or something now, even as a WAFU. Plus we traditionally thrashed the Crabs at both the Dartmouth and Cranwell games :D dont know current stats on this though - maybe Pielander could update us :confused:

So, all in all reasonably different. Whoever you talk to, they will say their flying is the best etc, very rewarding etc however you must realise that flying from a ship and the lifestyle that accompanies it is fundamentally different from flying from ashore and the lifestyle that accompanies that. Your choice, choose wisely!

Oggin

airborne_artist

24th May 2005, 07:18

Training - Cranwell vs BRNC - each to their own, on a personal note going through Dartmouth during the summer with the awesome view out the window made up for some of the BS that went on in term 1. Term 2 was a complete laugh but that was a while ago and the syllabus has changed, I believe you actually have to go to sea on IST or DTS or something now, even as a WAFU.

Best time to start at BRNC was (still is?) April - Light and warm(ish) for the term 1 BS, some summer leave as well as the 2/3 weeks activity (mine was sailing back from Oslo with two other Mids, two ratings and an academic tutor who loved his drink), followed by term 2 (as above, agreed) and then the Christmas ball, guaranteed to charm (and more) any sensible lass.

amb_211085

24th May 2005, 20:08

Well I would like thank Oggin and Airborne for their last contributions, especially Oggin who has tried to be objective in his post rather than subjective as a great many before it were! From what I have seen of both services they are excellent, but I must admit I am drawn to the FAA for the challenges it brings.

Fingers crossed I will be on the front line with you in about five years time!

engineer(retard)

24th May 2005, 21:30

"Plus we traditionally thrashed the Crabs at both the Dartmouth and Cranwell games dont know current stats on this though"

Have played for both sides (at different times) and was on the winning side both times.

Regards

Retard

Hueymeister

24th May 2005, 21:30

I can comment from a reasonably balanced viewpoint here....I've flown Operationally with both RN and RAF. I liked the can-do, not hide-bound by rules, get it done within the best traditions of the service attitude that the RN had. The Crabs went to the ends of the earth to write rules for any possiblility, they are very professional, if a little too tightly wound. The RN pushes responsibility right down to the coalface; it empowers its workforce and, in my experience, makes for a better working environment. Flying from a ship has proved to be the most challenging aviation I have ever commited. Life aboard Pusser's Grey doesn't suit everyone; I hated it! You must decide what you want from a career in avaition. All three services offer a great deal. If you want to go into civil aviation (big jets) afterwards then the answer is simple. Read the forums, take 90% with a pinch of salt, but realise that we are ALL professional, but that our end aims are somewhat different which breeds a certain amount of inter-service rivalry. Ciao bella.

HM

Bigtop

24th May 2005, 21:49

Oggin/AA

BRNC has changed significantly in the last couple of years - obviously the College still retains its fine historic and imposing standing looking out over the river Dart but the training has marched on relentlessly.

Gone is term 1 and 2 for a 'phased' training structure whereby each phase lasts 7 weeks. WAFU's now do 5 phases with the 2nd phase being grading. 1st is militarisation - cutting the apron strings and doing leadership - BLD and ACE or NEX and PLX as it was in my/our day.
Phase 3 is firefighting/BSSC etc and then phase 4 off to sea for IST. Back to BRNC for final phase - DO's cse and Op Planning followed by Pass Out parade.

WRT pay - that might be equal but FRI seems fair to stay in the RN for some time, irrespective of branch - P or O. See threads with Si Clik's posts concerning recruitment issues at the mo.

Obviously the RN's Nos1 uniform is a real fanny magnet compared to the jeans and denim jacket issued by the crabs so if nothing else here has swung your decision surely that does the job.

One final note - which service has FW capability, RW capability, global deployability (IHN support) and an autonomous amphib capability with its own combat troops.........and lots of fun!!!
Ah yes the Senior Service!!!!

And box...... ready to recieve banter!

nick0021

24th May 2005, 23:46

Must say, i have never seen so much hooking and reeling in one thread before! Keep up the good work! :D

Just last week i passed my selection interview for RN. Am currently awaiting FAT date (should be confirmed this week), so hope to find out first hand what it is like at BRNC, and how the senior service do it.

will inform you of FAT results in due course......

16B - Royal Navy - Be part of something :cool:

Regards all

amb_211085

25th May 2005, 10:31

Likewise Nick0021. Well, actually I am a bit further on than that, with AIB at the end of June. Was just looking for a few more points to base some arguments on.

Good luck with your FATs!

bigsmelly

25th May 2005, 12:56

amb_211085 , nick0021

Good luck both of you. I'm starting at BRNC June 28th ( yes I know i posted another thread about it :cool: ) Keep us posted

:D

Bob Viking

25th May 2005, 13:23

Amb_211085 and nick0021.
You both sound like fascinating people.
The Navy will be lucky to have you on board.
I, for one, am glad you won't be joining the Air Force.
BV

turgon

25th May 2005, 15:57

After reading this I have decided to become a FAA pilot as a first option, and an RAF pilot as second, although I don't know whether to join the Air Cadets or the Sea Cadets (A Sea Cadet unit is almost literally down the road from where I live). Which one?

amb_211085

25th May 2005, 15:58

Lucky for you then, that I decided not to apply to the RAF! Who wants to work for a service who only think they're superior to everyone else?

Depends what you are looking for in a cadet unit, I joined the ATC as that was the only unit around except the Army Cadets and that interested me about as much as shoving my head up a horses backside!

Bob Viking

25th May 2005, 16:09

Amb.
You crack me up. I think I'm actually starting to like you.
It's good that you're getting into the spirit of inter-service banter nice and early, but don't you think it'd be wise to wait until you've at least joined the Navy before you start passing judgment.
I must just say though, think we're better, oh no no no. We know we're better.
BV;)

amb_211085

25th May 2005, 16:35

Yes, you are probably right there BV. That, however, was too good an opportunity to miss. ;)

Si Clik

25th May 2005, 18:12

Turgon,

If you can wait to fly, join the Sea Cadets and get on loads of camps.

If flyings your bag join Adm Lygo and I, join the ATC, screw them for as much Air Experience Flying as you can get, then join the RN like I did and my two holding officers.

Banter.... its just fun.

:hmm:

caspertheghost

25th May 2005, 18:19

amb_211085

I'm lucky enough to be on a Sqn which is 50:50 light/dark blue and there is absolutely none of the petty squabbling here that goes on on these forums. I think that most of the rubbish that is spouted from the keyboards of certain contributors to this forum comes from those that have never worked with the other Service or have "a friend of a friend who once flew with the Navy/RAF and they were really gash!"
It's very easy to slag off something you don't know or understand and I think this threat only serves to highlight that. Whichever you choose I'm sure you'll enjoy it, and take all the so called "advice" that's given here with a pinch of salt because quite a few of the posters here are probably not aircrew in either service.