View Full Version : Expeditionary Air Wings
L1A2 discharged
3rd Apr 2006, 19:39
EAW(S) as announced on the mod press pages today. Is this a fore-runner to become future wings of a combined British Defence Force ??
Soon won't be enough to generate a Corps :ugh:
Rapscallion
3rd Apr 2006, 19:54
I think (one of) the aims may be to instill a sense of belonging among 'non-formed unit' personnel on Stns.
If that's the case, not sure how much difference a new badge on your CS95 will make...
dallas
3rd Apr 2006, 20:12
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
Attributed to Gaius Petronus, a Roman General who later committed suicide. A.D.66
Everytime we get a new badge, new name or I am regarded as cynical for questioning perpetual change, this epitaph springs to mind. Well I'm going to introduce something new: Change Fatigue (TM) and I've got it bad...
Melchett01
3rd Apr 2006, 21:29
Oh I don't know, it's all a bit of an adventure really. With the new EAW badge, I only need a couple of extra badges for my CS-95 and I'll have more than I did on my Cub Scout uniform when I was 9!
Quite appropriate really when you consider how we do operations these days - I think the tip top secret Iran meeting was to discuss how many boy scouts we were going to send and what colour their Op Certain Death badge would be
Pontius Navigator
3rd Apr 2006, 21:29
This plan has been trailled in the Air Power magazine, the Strike Bulletin and others. The EAW will bear historic role related numbers. One would guess that the Lossie wing will pick up the number of the Banff Wing if that wing was a numbered unit during WWII. This is really Archimedes field although I haven't seen him recently.
The idea is that the EAW will be commanded by a gp capt who typically is the stn cdr. The Wing will comprise its sqns, its forward organisation and other organic elements maybe the medical staff and ops etc. The rear echelon, Base Support Wing and depth logistic elements will form the home base support.
Looks good on paper.
It would have worked in GWI, not sure how it would work in a smalled scale situation such as Afghanistan. Where only 4-6 aircraft are deployed I cannot see what is different from now. A sqn does not have the requiste personnel to support a forward deployment without drawing from some of the existing base personnel and also additional NFU peeps. If all its support personnel come from its organic EAW this could leave the non-deployed EAW with critical manning deficits that could only be made up from . . . NFU?
Bismark
4th Apr 2006, 08:44
Pontius,
Looks like it is back to the CVF for the EAWs. No need for all the manpower reqd for land based ops as it is already there in the ship. As far as I can understand from the blurb on the Joint Combat Aircraft era Lossie will embark its airgroup of 36 into HMS Queen Elizabeth and operate from the sea. No requirement for a huge airborne logistics train to get the a/c into theatre as it will already being contained within the task group. This should allow a good saving on the strategic airlift needed to get shore based airpower into theatre.
Surely a wing/station will not deploy with all its squadrons at once. I would have thought that an expeditionary air wing would consist of various roled aircraft much along the lines of a JHC Joint Force complete with headquarters! Does this mean an increase in establishments in order to make all UK station staff a deployable asset? Sneaky way to justify some extra LSNs rather than centralise a couple of PJHQ CAOCs, oops, we have those already! Maybe this is another tier of Comd that perhaps is not required................................
HEDP
pr00ne
4th Apr 2006, 11:40
According to the press release there are going to be a total of 9 Expeditionary Air Wings, located at 9 Main Operating Bases (MOB).
One of these will be at RAF Leeming; why on earth does one F3 squadron with a short life left require a Wing infrastructure?
Why not one at Brize Norton? Or do we not intend to deploy AAR anymore?
Navaleye
4th Apr 2006, 12:52
Apparently this is what its all about. The pretty poster does fail to mention what a happens when the single a/c gets shot down because we stuipidly scrapped its fighter cover.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/542510A4-C270-4AE3-8AC0-9E1DA49CD7D8/0/A4x300dpi.jpg
Archimedes
4th Apr 2006, 14:10
Not if it's a 'self-escorting' Typhoon with 2 ASRAAM 3 x BVR weapons (and maybe even a gun)... The sub-text of the graphic, to this cynic, seems to be 'why we have been right to cut back on aircraft numbers and haven't damaged capability in any way, shape or form by so doing'
I've not had access to the MoD pages, being on leave, but I would assume that the wing numbers will be drawn from those used in Normandy, the Far East, and the Western Desert/Italy (although no doubt some bright spark will completely forget that the RAF did anything in either of the last two named-theatres). The Banff Wing wasn't numbered, IIRC.
6 aircraft to 1 hardened aircraft shelters :rolleyes:
Obviously didn't have ISS in those days either..... :hmm:
Pontius Navigator
4th Apr 2006, 16:50
HEDP
My thoughts exactly <<Surely a wing/station will not deploy with all its squadrons at once.>>
Remember the TV series yonks ago about a mixed force of aircraft types? Autonomous AD/SA? In the 80s I think, maybe even the 70s.
Then we have the FJOEU with multi-role types. Surely better to form Composite EAWs then you really are going down the CVS organic air route. Might even work, except the navy thought of it first.
Que Southside or WEBF.
Archimedes
4th Apr 2006, 17:21
Remember the TV series yonks ago about a mixed force of aircraft types? Autonomous AD/SA? In the 80s I think, maybe even the 70s.
BBC series 'Squadron'. Starred Malcolm Stoddard as the CO of '373 Squadron' and ran in 1982. The squadron had a flight of GR3s, one of Phantoms and another of Hercules (but, IIRC, lost the Phantoms in a round of defence cuts)
I recall this since I wrote a TV review of some of the series for a school project on 'my favourite Television programmes this year'.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0224531/episodes#season-1
The graphic is a bit suspect too, Brimstone, has it now got a dual mode seeker? Don't answer that question here folks, but a PM might keep me upto date if appropriate..........
HEDP
Stitchbitch
4th Apr 2006, 17:58
I seem to remember the Americans have some of these ?
It's total package (see link), a bit like having E.3D, Typhoon, Gr.4, Harrier, VC-10, Chinook/Merlin and Apache/Lynx/Harrier in a composite wing.
E.3D for AEW cover, VC10 for fuel, Typhoon to kill interceptors, GR.4s' to vandalise and generally blow things up, Chinook and Merlin to provide 'CSAR' and Apache/Lynx/Harrier for CSAR top cover
...never happen:}
'Squadron' was a fun series, A sadly lost friend was one of the Herc pilots.
Chas FK you're not forgotten. :)
link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/366wg.htm
Pontius Navigator
4th Apr 2006, 18:04
Archimedes, how sad. Welcome back. Have you been away?
Curious about Sqn as really it might be what is actually needed or indeed what actual could happen in theatre on an ad hoc basis.
Archimedes
4th Apr 2006, 20:54
Not as sad as the part of the review that noted that the camouflage on one of the Jaguars that made a fleeting appearance in the programme was RAFO camo rather than RAF...
Not been away, just ill to the point of being unable to find the will even to log on to Pprune.
SirPercyWare-Armitag
4th Apr 2006, 20:59
This is just another tedious idea proposed by some half wit from staff college aiming for inclusion in the Honours List. The RAF has always been expeditionary in nature; its just that some locations have been more comfortable than others
Pontius Navigator
4th Apr 2006, 21:34
Archimedes, hope you are better now. Regarding the dig at staff college, true or false? The EAW concept was, I think, in one of Brian Burridge's last Strike Bulletin's.
Not if it's a 'self-escorting' Typhoon with 2 ASRAAM 3 x BVR weapons (and maybe even a gun)... The sub-text of the graphic, to this cynic, seems to be 'why we have been right to cut back on aircraft numbers and haven't damaged capability in any way, shape or form by so doing'
I've not had access to the MoD pages, being on leave, but I would assume that the wing numbers will be drawn from those used in Normandy, the Far East, and the Western Desert/Italy (although no doubt some bright spark will completely forget that the RAF did anything in either of the last two named-theatres). The Banff Wing wasn't numbered, IIRC.
Forgetting the old rule that a platform can only be in 1 place at a time no matter how capable!
Stitchbitch
4th Apr 2006, 21:47
This is just another tedious idea proposed by some half wit from staff college aiming for inclusion in the Honours List. The RAF has always been expeditionary in nature; its just that some locations have been more comfortable than others
Do you mean Transport or SH? :E
Archimedes
4th Apr 2006, 21:52
PN, restored to 'light duties' by order of AOC-in-C Home Command, and likely to be back to full range of taskings within 48 hrs, thanks.
The idea of the EAW has been floating around for some time - at least 3.5 years to my certain knowledge. It didn't originate from the Staff College per se, although I know at least one staff college graduate was involved in putting some of the early ideas down on paper.
bird99
4th Apr 2006, 22:16
Just to set the record straight - with no bias at all. The idea is that when a Stn deploys - like to Kandahar with Harriers - once it is an established det (ie when you have an increasing number of non-Stn personnel supporting - ie after the initial det has settled in) the Det will get its own EAW number. So the NFU non-core-stn (is that a noun...no) personnel become part of the new (9-series) EAW. From what I've seen a group identity for all deployed unit personnel is a good idea - if the DOB Cdr leads from the front and identifies it as such. Otherwise it will, of course, be just a badge. But surely that's what DOB Cdrs (normally aircrew Wg Cdr/Gp Capt) are there to do (no I don't want to start a whole sub-thread on about particular DOB Cdrs). Done well it could be good. Of course, you've got to feel sorry for MAMS/TCW who will have a lot more sewing to do, but if the MT Driver/Chef/Admin Clerk feels they are part of a team - not always the case - then that can only be positive. Downside is much work to make this happen like this - perhaps the advertising of the concept is a bit remiss if this aim is misunderstood. As I said, I remain neutral but would like to see it work so some of the NFU guys feel more included (not because of the badge but because of the concept)...
ratty1
4th Apr 2006, 22:23
Otherwise it will, of course, be just a badge.
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!":cool:
Pontius Navigator
5th Apr 2006, 06:29
Bird could well be right. As base ops in one of the RAF's sunny holiday spots (plenty of sea and little sand) there was no affinity between the here today gone tomorrow fly-boys, even the ones on 3-4 week dets.
True, as real ops officers, we got on with the aircrew but the only cohesion was all in adversity together with one sqn ldr admin to keep the whole running slow.
South Bound
5th Apr 2006, 07:03
B99, I agree this is a good idea for cohesion and giving everyone a feeling of belonging. I just wonder:
1. How it will work in Kandy with 2 EAWs (the 3 squillion people needed to support 4 Harriers and the handful going with the SH) - who will the cooks and the shineys (all warfighters now!) belong to - will they have both badges?
2. Why do we insist on dragging up these hideous numbers from the past? The EAWs of the past were so long forgotten that we could have made a clean start (1,2,3 EAWs anyone?) without risk of disestablishing any wg cdr command postings. Standing by for an 'ethos and history' backlash....
Cynical old me....
Does anyone think this will change anything apart from spending a few thousand on new signs and badges?
It will still be the same people going to the sandpit several times a year (plus other sqn dets) and it will be the same people staying at home doing an OOA every 3 or 4 years and working 8-5 mon-fri and getting every weekend/grant off.
I've seen OOA from a FU and NFU viewpoint (I'm doing both this year) and it will take more than a name and badge. At some locations it's hard to tell if the NFU are supporting the 'warfighters' or vice versa!
Lima Juliet
5th Apr 2006, 21:51
That advert on the first page:
1 aircraft into 12 tanks with laser guided bombs - are we buying B52s or is it the Vulcan coming back...;)
...or maybe the enemy will be kind enough to park the tanks on top of each other in stacks of 3 and let Eorofrightner drop an LGB on each of the 4 stacks...gawd help us all:confused:
And just when is Brimstone ever going to get the ROE for use...Oh, is that a flying pig:ok:
LJ
pvr not dwr
6th Apr 2006, 07:07
Not sure about the rest of you but I'm looking forward to being part of the "101st room expeditionary RAF wing USAF " I might have to apply for an extra chest for all the medals.:eek:
I also think we will use only one a/c cos thats all we can get servicable "but we'll get another as soon as we get spares from depth/aldi"
Bob Viking
6th Apr 2006, 08:10
'1 aircraft to 12 tanks'.
Maybe they were trying to allude to 1 GR4 with 12 Brimstone.
Just an idea!
BV:ok:
BV,
If they were alluding to Brimstone my question remains, has the seeker been changed acording to the graphic? If not then as you say, another cluster of procurement for something that will be lucky to get the ROE to be used!
HEDP
Grabbers
6th Apr 2006, 10:31
So, let me get this straight. All NFU personnel will now feel part of the team because of a bit of semantics. Lets change our name again!Surely, C2, or good C2 at any rate, would already have this perennial issue sorted? Notwithstanding the above and given that their Airships are almost infinite in their wisdom, when do we get our Badgers?
sooms
17th Apr 2006, 18:04
Read the glossy STC bulletin today detailing the new eeyores etc...
One would get the impression that the Typhoon Wing at CGY is operational if you didn't know any better.
Can we look forward to them taking over Kandahar or Al Udied soon?
Also, no mention of Jaguar- does this mean that STC no longer consider the Jaguar to be part of the frontline RAF? Or were they in transit from Colt to Cgy when it was printed and should be marked as somewhere off the Wash?
The map of frontline RAF Bases in 2012 makes depressing reading to a old git like me!