AOC 3 Group - What's the score?

[fuel2noise]

Can any one tell us what the current state of play is with regard to 3 Group at Strike? Is it true that the Admiral has been posted already and that the Harriers are now under 1 Group? Presume the Navy has been quietly side-lined in the interests of jointery!:confused:

[Colonel W E Kurtz]

yep

[teeteringhead]

So to make up the full set, does this mean that PLukes will bring the JHC back to Strike (the only front line organisation for whom flying is core business)??;) ;) ;) Perhaps we could call it 4 Group!

(....with a deft flick, he casts a purplish fly upon the waters, and waits for a bite...)

[Jimlad]

But won't an RN Admiral take over in turn - I thought 3 Gp was to be a rotating command? If not then the RN is well and truly shafted. Methinks that we'll soon see all fixed wing flying done by the evil light blue :)

[canberra]

and why shouldnt the raf do all military flying? dont forget that from april the first 1918 until 1937 all british military aviation was done by the raf so why not now? after all we do all the at and the majority of the sh role so why not put it all under the raf?

[polyglory]

Yep , remember that canberra and they inherited obsolete aircraft.

I agree that the move is on again, rotation of leadership is no bad thing:)

[Jimlad]

Because flying a plane from a ship is very different to flying a plane from a land base. Not in a technical sense - but in terms of ethos and service. Not everyone wants to join the RAF and fly from a land base - some want to join the navy, have naval tradition and fly as well. It is very different in terms of quality oof life and conditions of service, far better torecruit naval officers to do naval flying. Also sure the RAF ran things in the inter war years, but look at the damage it did to the fleet air arm. Sure we had an RAF equipped with loads of medium and light bombers which didnt seem that useful, but we had a totally obsolete FAA. I cant help but feel that the RAF would not pursue a flying policy that is in the best interests of the RN or the Army. Far better to have clear separate divides to ensure that each service procures what it needs - if the RAF had its way we'd have loads of B1's - if the RN had its way there would be no RAF, merely carriers and shore based carrier air wings :) In a small armed forces jointery makes sense when you only worry about a few naval helos and army transports - in our relatively large forces I'd say that it wouldn't work.

[fuel2noise]

Thanks guys but what is the actual position with respect to 3 Group? Has it been canned? Are the GR7s/FA2s now in another Group? Where has the Admiral moved on to?

Jimlad. I very much doubt if you will ever see another dark blue 2 star inside Strike Command....the RN fell for the bait when they closed down FONA. AOC 3 Group was (at the time, for the then, forseeable future) going to be a navy slot due to the need for a carrier focus, etc. It was not sold as a rotational post.

Who holds the candle for the Fleet Air Arm now?

[Hertz Van Rental]

F2N, Group organisation is once again being looked at, but for the moment JFH remains within 3 Gp and the RAdm remains in charge.

Jimlad "Far better to have clear separate divides to ensure that each service procures what it needs "...

In theory at least the DECs have removed such Service-based in-fighting. The focus is quite rightly on capability now, not platforms......honest. Certainly there are no clear separate divides, smart procurement and jointery have formally abolished them. However, there are still plenty of legacy projects running.

[cobaltfrog]

Is that why the rotational post of Comd JHC has gone from RAF to oh wait a minute...................You guessed it RAF!

[teeteringhead]

Comd JHC not "rotational" but "best man". I'm pretty sure RF will get it next.