JSF Procurement Quantities

[ORAC]

ESTIMATED JSF AIR VEHICLE PROCUREMENT QUANTITIES (http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ANNEX%20A%20Revision_April%202007.pdf)

Total UK procurement planned at 138, though we don't reach 60 till 2018 and total deliveries stretch out over 18 years....

[Not_a_boffin]

Now you know why folk were relatively relaxed about the ISD of CVF01.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

When they finally arrive will anyone in the RN remember how to operate fixed wing aircraft from a deck (in large-ish) numbers?

No skill fade between Sea Harrier and CVF/F35? No loss of expertise?

As discussed elsewhere (not least here - yes the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)) it has to be an issue. In fact it may be already, now that the remaining JFH aircraft spend little time at sea. And didn't someone say the capability gap would be only six years?

Wibble!

[Occasional Aviator]

Actually a more relevant question is whether anyone IN DEFENCE will have retained the relevant expertise. Whether it is best value for defence to maintain a small and arguably unsustainable cadre of fast jet pilots in the RN with no career beyond commander and no difference in skill or training from the RAF JSF pilots is another question altogether

[Impiger]

Now I don't know much about drving ships but will anybody in the RN have the skills to handle the big CVFs?

As for the aircraft I don't think it's an issue as they'll be flown by the RAF as there is absolutely no requirement for them to be RN piloted when their task is projecting air power ashore (which is an RAF core role). Not a wind-up WEBF just a pragmatic dose of realism; does it really matter which Service the pilots are from and which Squadron markings are on the aircraft? I believe their are savings (efficiencies) to be made by having the whole fixed wing cadre in the RAF.

[Right Stuff]

According to Av week the UK have pushed delivery back to 2019 and looking to extend that further.

[Guzlin Adnams]

Dave B or Dave C then? Or maybe both :hmm:

[insty66]

wtf is definitization?

Hope somebody stumps the cash soon I quite fancy a year or two in the USA!:}

[Double Zero]

Well, Occasional Aviator,

That sounds about right for Navy Officers - wanting to 'get on' rather than bother with mere details like the defence & interests of the U.K!

BTW I'm actually pro-Navy, in the same way as WE Branch Fanatic -

I assume all these delayed delivery dates have been agreed & choreographed with the Chinese / Russians / take your pick...:ugh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

with no career beyond commander........

If they are General List (many Pilots and Observers are), they might go on to command ships etc. Indeed some take non aviation sea jobs (such as PWO or command of a minehunter) for a few years then return to flying. I remember looking at the biography page of the CO 0f 899 NAS a few years ago, and it said that before becoming CO his previous job had been First Lt of one of the Castle class patrol vessels in the South Atlantic. Even for ones that are not General List, they are Naval Officer first, which I imagine is useful when operating in a naval environment and the bigger picture (not just aviation) has to be considered. I remember having a discussion via PM with a WAFU regarding this issue.

Aviation is a key naval activity.

Anyway, my post made specific mention of operating from a deck. By this I am talking about the Chockheads, Flight Deck Officers, ATC types and others who will have to deal with the problems of dealing with a large number of aircraft operating from a small area that happens to be moving. They don't get as much experience now as they used to just a few years ago, since having fixed wing aircraft (with different procedures and problems to helicopters) embarked is increasingly rare these days. I seem to remember listening to a chockhead talking about this over a pint or two a few months ago.

[BEagle]

A pint? A PINT??

Whaterver happened to "Ah-harr, WEBF, me lad, drag over a barrel an' sit 'ee down an' I'll tell 'ee a tale or two over a tot o' grog an a' twist o' rough shag....."

[ORAC]

Shouldn't that be "an' I'll tell 'ee a tale or two over a rough shag an a tot o' grog...." :E

[Not_a_boffin]

calm down lads, "International Talk Like a Pirate Day" is not until next Wednesday...

[Once A Brat]

To quote WEBF:

"No skill fade between Sea Harrier and CVF/F35? No loss of expertise?"

But of course that doesn't take in account that the GRs of the RAF Sqns and the Naval Wing do and will continue to deploy to, and operate from, the RN's CVS. And, yes I did read your whole post including the point about the lack of sea time, is really that much less than Shar Sqns? Some sea time is better than no sea time.

Therefore...........I push the irrelevant button :}

However, if you were talking about operating large carriers, with cats etc then you'd probably have a point.


Trenchard's Finest...Once a brat, always a brat.

[Navaleye]

Some sea time is better than no sea time.


I am wondering how many night qualified pilots we have right now.

[Once A Brat]

Quote:
Some sea time is better than no sea time.

I am wondering how many night qualified pilots we have right now.


Whilst I feel that it would be inappropriate to publish the exact number on a public forum (if I knew it!), comsec and all that, whatever figure I gave I suspect that it wouldn't be enough in the eyes of all the Shar fans. Get over it, rightly or wrongly, Shar is gone! (and NO please don't start another Sea Jet type discussion).

Notwithstanding the above, I guarantee that its more than we would have if there were not any RAF/NSW GR CVS deployments.


Trenchard's Finest...Once a brat, always a brat.

[0497]

Israeli order:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3021352&C=mideast

[althenick]

I believe their are savings (efficiencies) to be made by having the whole fixed wing cadre in the RAF.
Impinger,
Agreed that the in the short term it would reap benefits. But as can be seen from the 1918 to 1937 experiment it actually damaged both services in terms of operational ability and recruitment/retention. The Navy started WWII with Aircraft that were not up to there intended use because the RAF had decided that shore based airpower was the way ahead. Also it only takes one CAS to not fully appreciate the concept of Airpower in the Maritime environment and it would be curtains for Naval Aviation.
Personally I think the current situation is the best way forward. It doesn't matter who owns the Aircraft (Lets face it they're all own by the UK TAxpayer anyway) I would however like to see less cross pollination of personell within JFH as i'm pretty sure it's the root cause of its retention problem.

[Occasional Aviator]

WEBF,

I fully take your point about the ship needing to be kept worked up for fixed wing, and I think the problem will persist - after all, JSF will be needed for many other commitments based out of land bases for a lot of the time.

btw, the 'No career beyond Commander' was a line vigorously put to me by 3 WAFUs (one FW and two RW) during a long night in the bar not so long ago. So opinions are divided... they also felt that with the complexity of the sort of ops JSF will undertake, general list officers would not amass enough aviation experience during their infrequent tours to be cost-effective. Thoughts?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Occasional Aviator, Impiger, OAB

I believe the issue of Deck Landing Training was one of the factors in the selection of F35B as opposed to F35C. This suggestion has been made on the Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) thread.

Surely aviation is a core naval activity?