The FAA is bankrupt - WAFUs read this [Archive]

Si Clik

11th Feb 2002, 01:34

Whilst I admire your scare-mongering attitude, please post with some semblance of reality.

All depts in the MOD are required to come with pain and grief statements on savings measures. You have obviously picked up on the untakable measures that are often thrown around at this time of year to scare Ministers and Admirals into action.

Indeed the DLO is still in trouble and not meeting its projected budget or savings, but you have to remember that Tony and his Cronies love the military as their tool for good.

Indeed didn't Buffoon himself say this morning that more resources (read £££) are required by the MOD.

If their grounding helicopters, not sailing ships, tanks in the garage and planes on the ground it all reads GOVT own goal!! Therefore read politically unacceptable.

By the way are you prepared to give up some of your FRI so you can fly.

STAN DEASY

11th Feb 2002, 12:31

SI. .Giving back FRI to keep the Fleet Air Finger going is a nobby statement.. .Most of us who are or have served or serving in hte FAA have given their all to the organisation. Indeed many have lost colleagues in accidents, wives in divorces and become strangers to their children due to lengthy deployments. It is because of these factors that FRI was bought in. FRI is a cost neutral mechanism to keep the show on the road.

The personnel of the FAA give daily of their enthusiasm, loyalty and energy to do a professional, skilled and largely unseen job at sea. If and when the Crabs assume command you will notice a distinct an measurable drop in OC plus a huge rise in TE and other claims as they rigidly apply their rules.

Rant over I shall now duck behind the nearest bulwrk and start cleaning for a sea inspection!

WE Branch Fanatic

12th Feb 2002, 03:52

Surely the proposals Bruiserloose has talked about CANNOT happen. If the government seriously suggests them that'll be pushing the RN too far...

Having the sort of roles we have, without proper air cover etc (ie if the cutbacks were implemented) would make being in the Navy suicidal. Remember ship losses in the Falkland's due to having no AEW (and not enough Sea Harriers)?

Its bad enough what they done already through, unwarranted political interference and their obsession with "Jointery"....like moving the SHAR force to RAF bases, etc, etc

[ 15 February 2002: Message edited by: WE Branch Fanatic ]

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Feb 2002, 04:16

Looking at the MOD website today, I notice that the are asking for suggestions....

How about keep the Fleet Air Arm flying, and stop interfering with it (jointery, moving SHARs to RAF bases etc)??

As you may have guessed, I'm not a WAFU...my eyesight is nowhere near good enough. I'm just a dark blue guy who realises his survival might depend on the Fleet Air Arm one day.....

[

BEagle

15th Feb 2002, 21:54

I'm going to admit total ignorance here, but what the f*ck does WAFU mean? I understand most TLAs, but this particular FLA I haven't come across before.....

Oh - and "Fly Navy". But only in real fire-breathing fast jet aircraft hurling themselves at the deck of a real carrier!!

bad livin'

15th Feb 2002, 22:07

Beagle - non FAA types might answer that question with "We Are F***ing Useless"..may I recommend "Jackspeak" for a superb laugh and reference....!

Rgds. .BL

[ 15 February 2002: Message edited by: bad livin' ]

snafu

15th Feb 2002, 22:10

Beagle

Which do you want, the accepted (mainly by fisheads) explanation or the true (albeit less funny) explanation??

BTW, I'm not going to post this twice, even if you did ask twice!! :)

BEagle

15th Feb 2002, 22:37

Either will do! And I didn't ask twice on purpose, the PPRuNe ZX-81 seems to be having a fit of the vapours at the moment!

FJJP

16th Feb 2002, 00:18

Heard rumours that the FAA are going to sh*tcan the SHAR and get GR7/9s instead. So much for fleet defence!

ORAC

16th Feb 2002, 00:26

Now if they meant the AV8B+ with the APG-65.

<a href="http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/harrier/" target="_blank">AV8B+</a>

Ed Winchester

16th Feb 2002, 01:55

Beagle,

WAFU - Naval aviator; Fleet Air Arm personnel. Aka 'AIRY-FAIRY'. Originally an abbreviation for "Weapons And Fuel Users". May also mean "Wet And Focking Useless".

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Feb 2002, 04:11

FJJP

I've heard that rumour too.....surely they can't do that....that'll make serving in surface warships very dangerous....

Anyway, the Sea Harrier is due a bit of an upgrade this year, JTIDS and improved nav/attack systems, plus the software is being rewritten for the SHAR mission computer...to go with its Blue Visen radar and AMRAAM missiles.

See www.era.co.uk OR www.aeroint.com for details

Only a complete F****** would consider leaving the Navy with no air defence aircraft....

BEagle

16th Feb 2002, 10:53

Thanks for the WAFU decryption, folks!

Harrier II+ looks just the job - which is probably why the FAA won't get it. Are the Purple People really considering turning your war canoes into bomber trucks? Organic fleet air defence was found to be dreadfully lacking during the Malvinas campaign - second only to the total lack of AEW......

JTIDS really is 'the most significant development in Air Defence since radar' as a well-respected Air Officer and fighter mate once described it. AeI got our UOR JTIDS from paper to in service in VC10 and TriStar within a matter of weeks around the time of Kosovo - and it worked on its first switch on. We were getting a SRAP showing North Sea fighters whilst we were taxiing at the Secret Oxfordshire Airbase - and the new kit will be even better. But sadly it's only being fitted to a few tankers rather than to the AAR fleet due to funding constraints......

FJJP

16th Feb 2002, 11:50

Of course, the ultimate solution to the problem would be to revamp the GR7/FA2 into 1 multi-purpose varient including an AI radar in the nose... Oh! I remember! That was proposed once before, but their Lordships and Airships were so intent in cutting each other's throats and maintaining the inter-Service rivalry that the project was scrapped.

Oh! What could have been!

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Feb 2002, 14:06

Why not just upgrade both the SHAR FA2 and the Harrier GR7, but keep them at their original bases (ie Sea Harriers at Yeovilton)....

Jointery can be taken too far....

Anyway a friend assures me that the SHAR FA2 is just as capable as any fighter version of the Harrier II would be.....

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Feb 2002, 19:00

Forgive my ramblings.....but

The Sea Harrier FA2 can't be described as a member of the Harrier II club,because it was developed from the original Sea Harrier and no the US developments, but its not exactly Harrier I either.

Harrier 1.5 Perhaps?

When the SHAR FRS1 became became the FA2 and the aircraft were either rebuilt or built new, all sorts of changes were made...namely Blue Vixen radar for lock down shootdown capability and AMRAAM use, the provision of AMRAAM for taking out bogeys at greater range (needs Blue Vixen to work), replacing the old cockpit with a new "state of the art" one full of electronic displays, HOTAS, and replacing most of the cabling with fibre optics.

This (the delivery) happened between '95-'98. All on budget and on time. So BAe got it right. Since then there have been a few modifications/upgrade. In the next year or so it is meant to get the upgrades I mentioned. This could be called Continuous Improvement. JTIDS will give it the ability to interchange to tactical data easily with not only other aircraft but also ships (and its two way so radar data from a SHAR could be passed to frigates/destroyers).

Anyway, Fleet Air Defence is VITAL from my point of view. And that means the Sea Harrier....not just keeping it but also stop doing things that effect morale/manpower, by which I mean keep them at Yeovilton. The RAF Harriers are divided between Wittering and Cottesmore, so whats so bad about the Joint Force Harrier being divided between Wittering, Cottesmore And Yeovilton?

As for the AV8B, don't the USMC use that primarily as a Close Air Support aircraft....to my knowledge it doesn't have a powerful air to air radar.

Anyway thats my contribution...from someone who's likely to be in the firing line if there is ANY reduction in SHAR capability..

On a different note, AEI opened new offices in Yeovil last week. They were opened by HRH the Duke of York. BBC Soth West showed him saying "In my day, I did my navigation using ....." To which I thought "No, the way you did navigation was to turn to your Observer and say "Where the **** are we?""

ORAC

16th Feb 2002, 21:08

The AV8B is a sister aircraft to the GR7. The SHAR is a sister aircraft to the GR3.

Whilst the RAF and USMC went for the "big wing" new model for increased range/payload (doubled)the RN stayed with the original airframe for (and I am willing to be corrected) for both cost and hanger space reasons (They remanufactured over 30 FRS1s and only bought 18 new).

If, however, they are now going to have the GR7/9 onboard the rationalisation in spares and training in having a GR7 variant would seem obvious. The additional range/payload would also be of use - as would the additional thrust!

Since, however, they are supposed to be replaced by the JSF I think it highly unlikely that the purchase of new airframes could be justified. The question is, therefore, are there sufficient GR7 airframes for the entire force and whether some could be modified to accept the FRS2's Sea Vixen radar and AMRAAM, as the USMC did to the AV8B with the F18s APG-65 to create the AV8B+. (See below).

I suppose it would a good little earner for BWoS till the JSF work ramps up.

Specifications below:

<a href="http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/attack/av8a.html" target="_blank">AV8A</a>

<a href="http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/attack/av8.html" target="_blank">AV8B</a>

<a href="http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/attack/av8bp.html" target="_blank">AV8B+</a>

<a href="http://www.vectorsite.net/avav83.html" target="_blank">GR7/AV8B</a>

<a href="http://www.vectorsite.net/avav82.html" target="_blank">SHAR/GR3</a>

HOODED

16th Feb 2002, 21:54

ORAC, you're spot on! As for Cott/Witt/Ytn well Cott/Witt are 10 miles apart, Ytn is a little further. Why can't the senior service move? The boys from 5 Sqn Conningsby will have to! Now if we disbanded a GR7 Sqn we could bolt on a Blue Vixen to say, 20 ac, and solve the RN/RAF Harrier pilot shortage at a stroke. Think of the savings, you could even sell the SHARs to India.

Just a thought!

--------------------------------------------------

Its dificult to soar with eagles when you work for turkeys!

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Feb 2002, 22:39

Err no Orac

The Sea Harrier FRS1 was a sister to the Harrier GR3......but with a number of sigficant changes

The Sea Harrier FA2 is a development of the FRS1, therefore NOT a sister aircraft to the GR3. Niece perhaps?

And why should the Navy lose their air defence? Or move their planes? The command structure can be integrated still.

Within a few months, we could be in a real shooting war, so this isn't the time to be mucking about with things.

ORAC

16th Feb 2002, 23:52

We Branch Fanatic. Still a sister, just had a face lift! Still the same chassis however.

Why would the Fleet lose it's Air Defence?

Modification of the GR7 along the lines of the AV8B+ would retain the entire AD capability of the SHAR whilst doubling the range/on CAP time.

I presume work was done upon those lines at BWoS over the years and is on file.

[ 17 February 2002: Message edited by: ORAC ]

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Feb 2002, 01:48

RN guys help me out here....

Bruiserloose, Oggin Aviator, Spur Lash, Si Click, FJJP, Jockspice, Stan Deasy....

HELP!!!!

oldpinger

18th Feb 2002, 02:08

Well, why worry, all the harriers are going to get scrapped when the V/STOL JSF gets bought anyway!!. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Oggin Aviator

18th Feb 2002, 02:22

WEBF,

'fraid ORAC's point of view makes a lot of sense.. .Coupled with a JTIDS fit and the ability to work with a Mk 7 SKW, Fleet air defence would be sorted.

Just need to retain the crews to fly 'em. So how could we do that ............??

ORAC

18th Feb 2002, 02:23

If the VSTOL version ever gets built!!

Anyway, I thought all you deep blue jobbers were desperate to get a full carrier with a fixed wing capability again.

Bri Uggin-Out

18th Feb 2002, 02:51

What's the point in having a VSTOL JSF anyway? It may well have a superior thrust/weight margin than the Sea Jet or GR7 in hot and high.....for now. Wait until they upgrade and chuck more stuff on then the margin will decrease (unless the engine is significantly uprated) and you'll end up dumping stuff in the oggin again. Great.

Besides, get a conventional carrier and the problem may be solved. Anyone know what the current status of the future carrier idea is?

There has been much discussion in the last two years whether to bin the SHAR or Jag, so I don't think it would come as a surpise. Agree with the lack of radar if it did go. So, keep the skills up and send some boys to the US to play with some fluffy new FA18s and they can also become conventional deck ops gurus.

I know.....a little too wishful or forward thinking!

ORAC

18th Feb 2002, 02:57

Wasted, I was just being a devil's advocate. Even with a carrier suitable for fixed wing VSTOL has a lot of advantages. These were well explained by John Farley if you look at the threads in the archive.

[ 17 February 2002: Message edited by: ORAC ]

oldpinger

18th Feb 2002, 04:33

Well, I think a lot of people would like a large CV to fly lots of sexy aircraft off, but I think if the're arguing over funding to keep the aircraft that the RN have airborne at the moment, it, like most of the "solve the problems of the navy/army/air force in the crewroom over a brew given funding,manpower etc etc etc solutions" are a little hypothetical!

I reckon they should cut the senior grownups out of the loop for equipment purchase, give all the squadrons a bucket of cash and get them to buy the best A/c for the job, after all, we seem to know which aircraft is best suited for the job we're trying to do with the cack they give us.

Monday rant complete, return and stow all gear

Recover

18th Feb 2002, 14:36

WE,

Okay, I'll help you a bit <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . Your post is almost correct, regarding the FRS1 to FRS2 conversion, but to say it was on time and on budget is well wide of the mark. It came in late (and well over budget) and we had the FRS2 rammed down our thoats even though it didn't work properly. The static system was crap and, without any changes made to the IRS, the HUD etc became the primary instruments because BAe couldn't fix the problem. Just to add a bit more flesh to the bone: the HUD wasn't previously allowed to be used for the primary instruments as the INS was considered too unreliable. A VERY, VERY good friend of mine was one of the test pilots on the FRS2 and I still have his list of all that was wrong with it. They didn't listen to him and his predecessor forced it through because it was his little puppy and he wanted to get it into service, he now works for the company <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> .But, that, as they say, is history. She was improved upon and now the boys reckon it's alright.

So, what about the AV8B II+. Lovely, <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . Big wing, big engine, lots of chaff/flares, a decent radar (which, despite a previous post is VERY good in the air-to-air environment...note it was nicked from the F18 and just had the edges filed off a bit), good night capability, lots of fuel and the ability to carry lots more ordanace AND bring it back to the ship if the temeperature gets above freezing. I'm a big fan of the machine and it was a shame we didn't put our money into the pot with the Spanish and Italians.

However, the powers that be'd, decided to go the JSF route and this looks like it's going to be a good bit of kit. This is why we never got the II+. The RN decided to save its dosh for JSF instead and I reckon this will probably pay off in the end....provided the crabs don't get hold of it and muck it all up <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> .

As to the FA2 (as we all know it now): I reckon it's a sister to the FRS1, after all, they did use several bits of her original anatomy to build her. The AV8s, well they're their US cousins, boy, and those ones from North Carolina.......you don't want to know about Red Neck families :)

. .And..........

. .Recover

WE Branch Fanatic

19th Feb 2002, 01:39

Recover

Thanks....I realised myself that the FA2 upgrade/conversion was delayed but I forgot that when I went on my rant. Wasn't the delay partly due to funding delays....

I'll make a fuller reply later, but I'm feeling a bit tired right now.....and I've got flu so my brain isn't working at 100%. Then again, is it ever?

fuel2noise

19th Feb 2002, 15:05

Well whatever the future of the FA2 holds you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be spun as a huge success by 'the system'. Big Q is: will the UK have the pilots (who are also prepared to go to sea for more than a month at a time) to man/woman the next generation of embarked jets?

SixOfTheBest

20th Feb 2002, 01:21

Just a few pointers, for what it's worth. Firstly, the cost of modifying a GR7/GR9 to take a RADAR would be almost the same cost as a brand new spangly 11+, which would be a bit of a waste of sponduliks. So why not buy 11+'s?? Without getting to technical and triggering the MIB, the APG-65 ain't nowhere near as good as de ole Blue Vixen. So, there's the dilemma. Until we buy TRUE multi-role ac and not keep attempting to BAe bodge bits on to existing ac, then we'll always be at square one. Oh, and it's about time the Brits admitted to themselves that they are no longer a Superpower. Maybe once the Govt. accepted this, we'd be better off. Sorry to rant, it's F#**&!g cold up 'ere. If it were up to yours truly, I would:

a. Build bigger carriers, and get away from all this VSTOL, ShmeeSTOL stuff.

or,

b. Pave all the worlds oceans and dispense with the Navy!

WE Branch Fanatic

21st Feb 2002, 01:04

In reply to Recover, Fuel2noise and SixoftheBest...

Keeping the Sea Harrier FA2 in the front line is the best option, considering (amongst other things) the cost of modifying Harrier GR7/GR9 airframes...oh yeah and the fact that the RAF bought their Harriers full of kapton wiring:very dodgy!

As to STOVL types in the future, In a certain special issue magazine sold before Christmas (about aircraft carriers) Cdr Tim Gedge RN Rtd (Falkland's SHAR jock) claimed that if we had had conventional naval aircraft and carriers (eg the Old ARK ROYAL with Phantoms / Buccs / Gannets) we would have LOST due to the **** poor weather conditions. Stopping before you land helps you land in really bad conditions. Incidently, is there any reason why STOVL aircraft couldn't be catapaulted?

Incidently, did anyone look at the link to the telegraph that I included in a post on the first page of this thread? Keep the Sea Harriers at Yeovilton.....thats what I say....even if we must go purple.

Oggin Aviator

21st Feb 2002, 02:58

"Stopping before you land helps you land in really bad conditions"

Only if there's a Green Diversion nearby !!!! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Feb 2002, 04:38

Ummmm...

It would seem that anyone who had clicked on the link I supplied would have been diappointed...

So..thanks to the wonder of cutting and pasting, is the article from the Telegraph I wish to bring to your attention.

Harrier pilots threaten to quit
By Neil Tweedie
(Filed: 12/10/2000)

ALMOST a third of the Navy's trained Sea Harrier pilots are threatening to resign their commissions rather than move to new bases under RAF control.

Some 13 pilots, equivalent to the strength of one of the Fleet Air Arm's two frontline Sea Harrier squadrons, plan to buy themselves out of the service before the expiry of their contracts.

The resignations, known as Premature Voluntary Releases, would produce a manning crisis in British naval aviation, which relies on a small cadre of expensively-trained jet pilots. Their action stems from the merger of Navy and RAF Harriers into a single force integrated for joint operations and sharing the same bases in eastern England.

Many Navy pilots oppose the move, which will result in uprooting their families, isolation from the rest of the naval community and loss of the Fleet Air Arm's identity as an independent entity.

The Navy's Harrier force is concentrated in two operational squadrons, Nos 800 and 801, and one headquarters and training unit, 899 Squadron, based at Yeovilton, Somerset. They share only 45 pilots between them.

The RAF's three frontline Harrier squadrons already operate from Navy carriers and, from 2003, the two services will share the same operational base at RAF Cottesmore, Rutland, and the same training base at RAF Wittering, Cambs.

That will mean Navy pilots and families moving more than a hundred miles from their West Country homes. In addition, Royal Navy pilots will effectively find themselves submerged within the RAF. A Fleet Air Arm source said: "Pilots accept being away at sea but they don't want to be taken away from the rest of the Navy and dumped in the middle of England, miles from carriers with flying restrictions they don't face over the ocean.

"There are plenty of airline jobs at the moment and so the decision to resign is a lot easier than it otherwise might be." Last night, the Ministry of Defence said that "a few" pilots had put in for early release from their contracts.

Arkroyal

22nd Feb 2002, 14:39

"There are plenty of airline jobs at the moment"

Oh really! That's why 50 of my colleagues have just been given the heave-ho!

Still, the Big Issue's favourable to living with the crabs :)

Hot 'n' High

22nd Feb 2002, 14:49

WE Branch Fanatic and Arkroyal - Think you will see from the date on the DT article posted by WE B F that it is some 18 months old. Times have changed a tad since then, as many have found out!!!! <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Feb 2002, 21:33

Indeed, times have changed...but the Sea Harrier drivers (and others) are still "not in the best of moods".

The Ferret

25th Feb 2002, 00:22

Well congratulations "Bruiserloose" you have succeeded in making the Sunday Express today with your "scare mongery"! It certainly is a good spoof! I must admit I find it very surprising that they fell for it! I wonder what the RCCs will do without their Sea King Rescue assets on the 1st April (is this an early April Fool message?) - wait a moment isn't that the start of a new financial year? Oh yes! Nice one! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Feb 2002, 01:13

I managed to get a letter in Air Forces Monthly, but by accident....honestly

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Feb 2002, 03:22

I have been informed the rumoured demise of the Sea Harrier in the near future will NOT happen.

The same source tells me the MOD will be holding a survey of manpower, morale and personal opinions regarding jointery this spring amongst personnel serving in the Sea Harrier units.

If you have doubts or objections to any current policies/propasals.....possibly things I have mentioned then PLEASE use the chance to say so.

Personally the more I consider it, the more potential problems I can see.

robspottydog

25th Feb 2002, 04:14

Yes, maybe the SHAR has a future, but use it as a fleet defence asset as opposed to a carrier captains plaything!

Go for 5, Get 3

25th Feb 2002, 15:21

BEagle

WAFU;

Wonderfull. .And. .F***ing. .Underestimated

is a more acceptable meaning

Hot 'n' High

25th Feb 2002, 19:51

WE Branch Fanatic -

"Indeed, times have changed...but the Sea Harrier drivers (and others) are still "not in the best of moods"."

Have the Stovies ever been in "the best of moods"? :)

Let me think? Noooo, still draw a blank on that one! :) :) :)

Seriously, speaking from the other side of the fence, the phrase "The grass is greener..." springs rapidly to mind. Not saying that there may be things happening in the FAA which are causing additional hastles for everyone and I'm definitely not trying to play down the upheaval for the many families involved. However, on a plus side, the Services still have a lot going for them. Civi street seems to do well but when things go wrong - just make sure you have parachute, safety-net and bouncy-castle to cushion the fall!

Toddles off to "watch my back" again <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

bakseetblatherer

26th Feb 2002, 17:32

Go For 5 Get 3;. .I always thought it was:. .Women. .All. .Fancy. .Us!

the funky munky

28th Feb 2002, 03:05

The wife saw this on the local telly and had the good grace to inform me. It would seem like their Lordships have finally decided one way or another.

<a href="http://www.htvwest.com/htvwest-cgi/news/show?id=16" target="_blank">web page</a>

IMHO I believe that Jointery is fine, but lets keep things in perspective. Why not have a have a force that can do all 3.. .It should handle . .a) Maritime ops from flight decks b) Land based ops from muddy fields and c)5* hotel based jollies from air con hangars and 10,000 foot runways.

[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: the funky munky ]