617 to be first F-35 Sqn

[Running_In]

Dambusters to get new F-35 Lightning II fighter - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/ben-farmer/10186131/Dambusters-to-get-new-F-35-Lightning-II-fighter.html)

[Red Line Entry]

Outstanding news - should we now call the dog Dave?

[Sandy Parts]

"between 12 and 16 aircraft" - the sqn aircraft numbers appear to be on a worryingly similar trajectory to the MRA4....Hope there will be some left by the time it appears at Marham - will be a nice job for some new pilots currently at UAS (or holding).

[Ken Scott]

What the article doesn't say is that 617 will be disbanded after their return from Herrick next year & 'stand up' (horrible expression, see 'Naff Mil phraseology' thread) in 2016 with JSF. This will be their third disabndment having done so in 1955 & after the withdrawl of the Vulcan in 1981.

[Bastardeux]

will be a nice job for some new pilots currently at UAS (or holding)

I'm sure the 700 or so UAS students are all very excited for the boundless opportunities (at sea) open to 5 or 6 of them.

[SpazSinbad]

Dambusters To Be Next Lightning II Squadron 18072013 18 Jul 2013
"...
“Lightning shall be operated jointly by the Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm pilots, from land or from the Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. Overall, a hugely flexible and futuristic joint capability.”

The UK’s Lightning II is the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, which will give the supersonic multi-role stealth aircraft the ability to operate from land or sea. When it reforms in 2016, 617 Squadron will have both RAF and Royal Navy personnel. The next squadron will carry a Royal Navy squadron number but be similarly jointly manned."
Dambusters To Be Next Lightning II Squadron (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/dambusters-to-be-next-lightning-ii-squadron-18072013)

[Heathrow Harry]

the second squadron will be called "Sharkey's Own"

[orca]

Do I smell very carefully chosen words. Will operate from land or the carriers. If we keep saying it enough we will forget that we bought this thing specifically for operations from the sea base.

Land ops would seem to be somewhat implicit wouldn't you say?

Where's that Ward chap when you need him?;)

I have never seen the official 617 Sqn crest before as the chaps always seemed to wear the red on black 'Dambuster' badge. It's actually quite apposite as it shows a DPI (that might not make the JPTL these days;)) succumbing to Electronic Attack.

Bastardeux - come along, there are hundreds of jobs to do getting the turd barge around the world with a few Gen 5 jets on the top...or are we saying that only the drivers count?

[Wensleydale]

I have never seen the official 617 Sqn crest before


http://dazzlin-dk.com/images/Airman/Squadrons/Crest617sqn.jpg

However, the badge implies that the aircraft should be Lightning III!

[BEagle]

Why is this new fighter to be flown by an historic bomber squadron?

Surely there must be some real fighter squadron numbers available?

[PhilipG]

BEagle, is the F35 really a fighter? It would seem to me that it was designed as a bomb truck, to replace the A10s and F16s, in the great scheme of things as I understand it the USAF wanted the F22 as a fighter and the F35 as a tactical bomber, the USN as I understand it intends to use the F18s as fighters and the F35s as attack aircraft.
So it seems not unreasonable that 617 stands up as an F35 squadron.

[1.3VStall]

Beags,

I couldn't agree more, 74 and 92 come immediately to mind.

[Pontius]

801 NAS would be better, just like the last time the crustaceans were allowed to drink with the finest on a proper airfield :)

[CoffmanStarter]

Let's not forget that this "development" also marks the end of the road for our gallant and highly skilled FJ backseat community be they good old style Nav's or the Wizzo's of today :(

Coff.

[seadrills]

801 NAS would be better, just like the last time the crustaceans were allowed to drink with the finest on a proper airfield :)
801 NAS will be the next F35 squadron

[MAINJAFAD]

However, the badge implies that the aircraft should be Lightning III!

It would have been for the UK had this had happened in any numbers more than the few that the UK got for evaluation.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Duggy009/P38-LightningI-AE979-1.jpg

[smujsmith]

I'm with Sir, Beags on this one, the designation F** relates to Fighter aircraft. Without trying to give any type of lecture FB** is a Fighter Bomber. Bomber would therefore, and logically be B**. So, accepting that there are many, "laid up" fighter Squadrons, why have an aircraft with an F prefix serving on a squadron that has no history of Fighter operations. Now, if we are saying what's in a number ??????

Smudge :uhoh:

[Idle Reverse]

Well be it a fighter or a bomber designate letter I guess the decision on the first Sqn to operate it would be down to it going to the Bravest of the Brave . . . hence 617 ! :D

[orca]

Hmmm.

If one were to choose the next squadron number. If it were a training or test squadron then 899 NAS might be more appropriate. If it were another front line unit then it would probably come down to a 800 NAS/ 801 NAS play off...just like the good old 'chequered death vs quiche eater' fights of old. (Actually flight safety hazards...but great fun!)

How about 809 NAS as an outsider? Particularly poignant given the phoenix emblem and the fact that it would mark the re-emergence of the FW Fleet Air Arm from not at all persecuted nomadic seed corn at the end of the perfectly understandable, logical, apolitical, purely financial, nothing whatsoever a sister service, petite, capability holiday.;)

[NutLoose]

Do I smell very carefully chosen words. Will operate from land or the carriers

Actually it reads worse than that, it says Carrier as in singular, not plural..

[MSOCS]

Maybe history and revery has resulted in 6-ft getting the first F-35 Sqn; proving that age, seniority and provenance are perhaps not as important to those at the very top of the RAF. So, just because 617 hasn't flown a 'fighter' since 1943 are we saying they shouldn't be doing it from 2016 onwards? As a comparison both 3(F) and 19(F) flew reconnaissance aircraft for some time during their early years - not a fighter in sight!

Orca, it'd be nice to see 'Chequers' or 'Quiche' get the next one...

[Postman Plod]

Have the RAF given it an F designator yet? Just cos the Yanks call it an F doesn't mean me will... I would have thought FGR?

and was I the only person who saw someone say they're disbanding 617Sqn before reforming if we actually get these things? What happens if we don't....

[Easy Street]

BEags,1.3Vs, smuj et al,

The F-35 is, first and foremost, an attack and electronic warfare platform (F- or B-designation irrelevant to the Americans, who chose the designation - witness F-105). We bought some natty destroyers to do the air defence bit. There are already arguments ongoing about whether the F-35 will need to augment this due to the issues of radar horizon, etc, but the number of F-35s we are going to get is almost certainly inadequate for them to be employed in both roles. If they are sat on CAP, the carrier will not be contributing very much by its presence. So they quite simply have to be attack platforms first, or the whole package will be exposed as a waste of money. A bomber numberplate is therefore entirely appropriate!

However I'm not convinced that the (undoubted) PR value of 617 Sqn should be allowed to override the seniority order to such a gross extent - it is over 30 years younger than II(AC) Sqn, for example, and I am a bit surprised that the succession of that squadron hasn't been sorted out yet. 120 Sqn is out there, with early standard award, a maritime history and a far more important role in WW2, and while it is probably being held back for an as-yet unconfirmed MPA squadron, nominating such a famous Coastal Command unit would have shown a bit of an olive branch to the Navy after all the recent rancour. Nominating 617 just sticks up the middle finger, really - especially at their old rivals IX(B), who are by far the senior bomber squadron and have an exemplary operational history stretching through the entire history of the RAF, including sinking the Tirpitz!

[smujsmith]

Easy Street,

Respect to your argument re squadron seniority etc. a thought occurred to me about tradition/history. Wasn't 360 Squadron (Cottesmore Canberra's) a joint RAF, Royal Navy unit ? Would that not be more appropriate in this situation?

Just a thought

Smudge

[WhiteOvies]

Smuj, you are correct Sir, 360 being a joint aircraft up to disbandment to my knowledge.

I was wondering how the RAF 'traditionalists' (habitists) feel about 617 being a 50% dark blue Sqn?

Personally I agree with Orca that 809 NAS would be an entirely appropriate numberplate. It never felt right having 800 NAS without 801 NAS to banter at Cottesmore! ;-)

[Evalu8ter]

It's a clever bit of cynical PR; good headlines for the RAF/MoD - the dykebreachers are probably the only RAF Sqn the public knows (apart from the Reds) and many of my civvy friends sleep in their beds at night convinced we have at least 617 sqns of aircraft in the RAF.....after all, most organisations wouldn't miss out all numbers from 230 to 617 would they???

No issue at all having RN crew/maintainers on 617, as 801 NAS will be similar. No need for 899 to stand up provided RN needs are catered for by 17(R) TES as the OEU. I agree with Easy Street - the small (initial) number of F35s being purchased conveys a small CAG, leaving the T45s to pick up the Air defence role. This seems quite a risk - esp given the ASaC 'holiday'. Perhaps subsequent further F35 purchases in the next epoch will permit enlarged CAGs, but this will be reliant of decisions re UCAVs and F35A/B/Hybrid C made in the future.

Mainjafad - the P38 was assessed as sub optimal by the UK as the proposed UK version ordered in 1940 lacked turbo-superchargers and was therefore underperforming. The UK order was taken up by the USAAF after Dec 41; however, it was the RAF name of 'Lightning' that was adopted by the US...so we did have a part to play...

[XV490]

Anyone here from 617 Sqn? What's the view in the squadron? As fine a reputation as 617 has, this business smacks of a PR sop to a Twittering public who, after all its publicity this year, are almost as familiar with the number 617 as they are 633 - and in any case probably think these are the only two squadrons in the RAF.
I agree that 74 or 92 are far better candidates; didn't the former introduce our first Lightning?

[newt]

Yes it did XV490! I agree that 74 or 92 would be a much better option. Would be nice to see 92 with aircraft again instead of desks!!:ok:

[1.3VStall]

Weren't 92 the highest scoring RAF fighter squadron in WWII? If so, that should count as much as six foot seven's exploits!

[althenick]

the ASaC 'holiday'.

Is this official I the SK is old but there will be plenty of spares available in the near futuire :confused:

[Not_a_boffin]

It's as official as you can get. There's a DIN out for the drawdown. You can have as many spares as you like, but no SKIOS = no support = no airworthiness.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Surely rather than an 8xx squadron number, the first should be a trials squadron numbered 700?
How about 700D ? (for dave)
You can't use 700L - thats already taken

[rab-k]

The F-35 is, first and foremost, an attack and electronic warfare platform (F- or B-designation irrelevant to the Americans, who chose the designation - witness F-105).Surely in UK service it'll simply be Lightning FGR1, with any subsequent post in-service tweaks resulting in an FGR1A or FGR2 designator?

As for choice of squadron, perhaps some wag in the MoD simply thought the 617 badge might be appropriate for the type. The boys in the paint shop have been getting in enough practice after all...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02109/_Joint-Strike-Figh_2109707b.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02199/jet_2199511b.jpg

[Evalu8ter]

Milo,
No need for a 7XX Sqn provided 17(R) TES delivers all of the RN's needs. Given the joint nature of the whole JCA Programme I'd suggest this is the case.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

XV490,

Anyone here from 617 Sqn? What's the view in the squadron?

I doubt many on 617 care about what the squadron will be doing in 2016, and will instead be focussed on their imminent det to KAF (I presume they'll be off there in 4 months or so to replace 12), and subsequent disbanding!

With the age and experience range of the majority of 617's aircrew, I seriously doubt if more than 10% of them will fly F35. Certainly none of the back seaters will be involved with the programme at all.

Also, considering we're nowhere near 17(R) actually doing anything with an ac yet, isn't 2016 a bit early for an operational squadron? Are we even going to bother running our own OCU?

Edit: in fact, speaking of 12, what's their future? Are they disbanding post-HERRICK as per the popular rumours, or continuing until March 2014 like I imagine 617 will?

[Bismark]

I thought 17(R) forms and disbands in the US once the trials on the first 3 are complete.

Looking at the pics above perhaps all of the UK F35s should have ROYAL NAVY on one side and ROYAL AIR FORCE on the other. Whilst the RN have a history of this the RAF didn't until they started putting it on their helos recently.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I thought the same with 17(R), but isn't it going to continue in the UK as a TES unit, rather than an OCU?

Where are we actually planning on training crews for the post-2016 617; will they all go through the US FTU before doing a short "finishing school" in the UK?

[CoffmanStarter]

I still don't see how they will config the traditional ordinance on the F-35 :E

http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/images/upkeep.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

that curved surface is brilliant for stealth tho'.......................

[MSOCS]

As long as the UK operate F-35 there will be a requirement to enhance and validate emergent capabilities through trials; therefore, 17(R) will continue to exist. The TES aircraft will be permanently based in the US and so will 17(R).

UK students will conduct their F-35 training at Eglin AFB as part of the Integrated Training Centre or ITC. Whether the UK goes ahead with forming its own OCU later downstream remains to be seen but I'm confident the intention is still there to do so.

[Rhino power]

Maybe having UK aircrew train at Eglin at the ITC is actually a better long term idea than having our own OCU here in the UK, surely this way will maximise airframes available to the frontline squadron(s)? Could RAF/RN specific tactics/ops/etc then be refined once the aircrew are posted to a squadron in the UK?

-RP