Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Suspicion breeds confidence
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh FFS Navaleye, grow up. You really have cheapened yourself with that comment.
'Crabforce' Harrier is Joint as you well know, despite the inability of the RN to fill all their billets. Most importantly however, the RAF AND RN GR7/9 sqns are VERY heavily commited to ops and have better things to do.
Last time I checked, there weren't many UK soldiers in need of CAS and recce in the US.
MM
'Crabforce' Harrier is Joint as you well know, despite the inability of the RN to fill all their billets. Most importantly however, the RAF AND RN GR7/9 sqns are VERY heavily commited to ops and have better things to do.
Last time I checked, there weren't many UK soldiers in need of CAS and recce in the US.
MM
Suspicion breeds confidence
MM,
Don't mistake Banter for a lack of appreciation for what the boys and girls are doing. Sadly the fact is that post JFH, we only have a fixed wing naval air component that can embark for 3 weeks a year. We need to get back to dedicated air groups because tailored airgroups are a cop out which simply doesn't work. The NSW needs to be doing this, not kicking dirt around in some landlocked desert.
Don't mistake Banter for a lack of appreciation for what the boys and girls are doing. Sadly the fact is that post JFH, we only have a fixed wing naval air component that can embark for 3 weeks a year. We need to get back to dedicated air groups because tailored airgroups are a cop out which simply doesn't work. The NSW needs to be doing this, not kicking dirt around in some landlocked desert.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RUSI Speech - 19th Sep 2006
Speech by Des Browne MP, Secretary of State for Defence:
My priority, for now, is to make sure our people engaged in this most vital and difficult of tasks, have the support they need and the support deserve. I have already said that I am expending every effort with our allies to see that our people are not left exposed in this fight. I am expending every effort too to ensure they get the equipment they need, even if that means rebalancing some of the overall effort in Defence towards the here and now, rather than the possible challenges of tomorrow. Across Government I am urging us to be imaginative in our approach and not let habit, or bureaucracy, constrain the solutions we need on the ground.
Speech by Des Browne MP, Secretary of State for Defence:
My priority, for now, is to make sure our people engaged in this most vital and difficult of tasks, have the support they need and the support deserve. I have already said that I am expending every effort with our allies to see that our people are not left exposed in this fight. I am expending every effort too to ensure they get the equipment they need, even if that means rebalancing some of the overall effort in Defence towards the here and now, rather than the possible challenges of tomorrow. Across Government I am urging us to be imaginative in our approach and not let habit, or bureaucracy, constrain the solutions we need on the ground.
Perhaps what we are seeing with fixed wing Naval aviation is the manifestation of the Browne solution to everything.
Navaleye,
WHAT???????????
"kicking dirt around in some landlocked desert"
You really have got your priorities ar** about face haven't you? So they should be indulging in some pointless exercise on the other side of the world and NOT supporting in contact British troops dying in actual combat with the Taleban?
If the RN could actually man 2 squadrons then perhaps they would have one to spare for this sort of thing, as they haven't, I guess this is JOINT Force Harrier actually doing it's job..............................
pr00ne
WHAT???????????
"kicking dirt around in some landlocked desert"
You really have got your priorities ar** about face haven't you? So they should be indulging in some pointless exercise on the other side of the world and NOT supporting in contact British troops dying in actual combat with the Taleban?
If the RN could actually man 2 squadrons then perhaps they would have one to spare for this sort of thing, as they haven't, I guess this is JOINT Force Harrier actually doing it's job..............................
pr00ne
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Adminisphere: FL Nosebleed
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landlocked Desert, or Not?
If we end up kicking dirt around some not so landlocked desert (don't go there George, just don't go there), a floating airfield could be useful.
And if the RN could man 2 squadrons, the spare one would almost certainly be part of the roulement for somewhere hot, high and sandy - that's where the priority is.
MOh
And if the RN could man 2 squadrons, the spare one would almost certainly be part of the roulement for somewhere hot, high and sandy - that's where the priority is.
MOh
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a civvy I'm rather puzzled by the comments about the FAA not being able to man its squadrons. Surely, if the FAA felt it had a fixed wing future it would be able to recruit and retain pilots? Obviously this may change if Brown makes his expected announcement "soon", but even then flying Lightnings from CVF's will still be a decade away. In the meantime the RN is reduced to hosting USMC Harriers- who in their right mind will join or stay in a service that frankly, hasn't got a future?
In short- don't blame the RN for the state of the "joint force".
Otoh, if you join now you may rise like a current as the cake is baked....
In short- don't blame the RN for the state of the "joint force".
Otoh, if you join now you may rise like a current as the cake is baked....
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne,
If history teaches us anything it is that foreign military intervention in Afghanistan is a waste of time, resources and lives. The Taleban have limitless volunteers via the porous border with Pakistan where they are able to regroup and attack again with impunity. Failure is inevitable, so lets just leave now. A democratic government has been established and that is what we went there to do. Then of course the FAA can get on with what its really paid to do.
If history teaches us anything it is that foreign military intervention in Afghanistan is a waste of time, resources and lives. The Taleban have limitless volunteers via the porous border with Pakistan where they are able to regroup and attack again with impunity. Failure is inevitable, so lets just leave now. A democratic government has been established and that is what we went there to do. Then of course the FAA can get on with what its really paid to do.
Last edited by Navaleye; 18th Jul 2007 at 16:31.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Then of course the FAA can get on with what its really paid to do."
i.e. do some good old fashioned poncing around on the self-licking ice cream, aggressively defending itself and throwing cocktail parties in all the nicest ports of the globe.....
Some might suggest that flying on Operations is what an attack pilot is paid to do??
i.e. do some good old fashioned poncing around on the self-licking ice cream, aggressively defending itself and throwing cocktail parties in all the nicest ports of the globe.....
Some might suggest that flying on Operations is what an attack pilot is paid to do??
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then of course the FAA can get on with what its really paid to do.
Unbelievable.
MM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we can safely assume this is now going ahead:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...cnships119.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...cnships119.xml
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chafford5I think we can safely assume this is now going ahead:
We can assume nothing of the sort. Gordo mereley "hopes" to make an announcement "soon", no guarantee what that announcement might be - it could be to bin the whole project.
We can assume nothing of the sort. Gordo mereley "hopes" to make an announcement "soon", no guarantee what that announcement might be - it could be to bin the whole project.
Scottish PM, member for Kirkaldy, bin CVF? So, no jobs at Rosyth, no CVF at Faslane, less JCA at Kinlossiemouth. Chopping HMS Queen Elizabeth, leaving the French in the lurch He wouldn't just not be PM, he would not be an MP at all at the next election.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just HAD to put my head above the parapet on the JFH/Illustrious AV-8B debate.
MM, I agree that some of the comments here are WAY off beam - FAA people do what they are tasked to do, and that can include ops from ashore. They usually make a bl**dy decent fist of it. 820 operating Swordfish out of the Western desert in 1940, all the way to Junglies in NI/Bosnia/Kosovo/Kurdistan/Pakistan/Iraq (and the list goes on) - there are plenty of examples to be had. If this is the current tasking for JFH, then they will get on and do it, and do it well.
But there's a serious point here about JFH and carrier embarked time. I share the concerns that 3 weeks a year embarked is just not enough to be able to advertise JFH as an effective seagoing force. It's certainly not enough to keep the RN surface fleet, professional as they are, 'current' on embarked air ops. My direct experience is that there is significant danger of 'skill fade' - and that happens all the way from the pilot having trouble getting to the deck, to the handler who can't accurately move an aircraft around the deck in the time required.
This generates safety concerns. We have lost good people (in the recent past) due to ships not being ready to operate aircraft. At three weeks per year, my considered opinion is that the risks of doing so again are real.
Looking to the future, JFH is supposed to be the bridge to the JSF/CVF future. At this rate, the country runs the risk of bringing a very capable aircraft to a ship (and a service) that won't be able to operate it effectively. There are definite shades of the WW2 situation here, where loss of aviation command expertise within the RN led to real problems for the FAA early on.
Bottom line is that Illustrious SHOULD have had a GR7 element embarked - with 4 front line squadrons of GR7s in JFH, it does seem odd that none could be spared for CVS exercises. I'd be curious to know why JFH have been tasked with Afghanistan - why not Tornados? (Genuine question, not trying to start a Harrier/Tonka slanging match).
And the follow on -why can't the RN man the squadrons? (if true). The RN pipelines are now fully integrated with, and run by the RAF system - so where are the people leaking out of?
Regards
Engines
MM, I agree that some of the comments here are WAY off beam - FAA people do what they are tasked to do, and that can include ops from ashore. They usually make a bl**dy decent fist of it. 820 operating Swordfish out of the Western desert in 1940, all the way to Junglies in NI/Bosnia/Kosovo/Kurdistan/Pakistan/Iraq (and the list goes on) - there are plenty of examples to be had. If this is the current tasking for JFH, then they will get on and do it, and do it well.
But there's a serious point here about JFH and carrier embarked time. I share the concerns that 3 weeks a year embarked is just not enough to be able to advertise JFH as an effective seagoing force. It's certainly not enough to keep the RN surface fleet, professional as they are, 'current' on embarked air ops. My direct experience is that there is significant danger of 'skill fade' - and that happens all the way from the pilot having trouble getting to the deck, to the handler who can't accurately move an aircraft around the deck in the time required.
This generates safety concerns. We have lost good people (in the recent past) due to ships not being ready to operate aircraft. At three weeks per year, my considered opinion is that the risks of doing so again are real.
Looking to the future, JFH is supposed to be the bridge to the JSF/CVF future. At this rate, the country runs the risk of bringing a very capable aircraft to a ship (and a service) that won't be able to operate it effectively. There are definite shades of the WW2 situation here, where loss of aviation command expertise within the RN led to real problems for the FAA early on.
Bottom line is that Illustrious SHOULD have had a GR7 element embarked - with 4 front line squadrons of GR7s in JFH, it does seem odd that none could be spared for CVS exercises. I'd be curious to know why JFH have been tasked with Afghanistan - why not Tornados? (Genuine question, not trying to start a Harrier/Tonka slanging match).
And the follow on -why can't the RN man the squadrons? (if true). The RN pipelines are now fully integrated with, and run by the RAF system - so where are the people leaking out of?
Regards
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
All very valid points. The current AV8B deployment can only help the boat people to stay up to speed with all the skills that you talk about while JFH are too heavily tasked to be able to provide the training assets.
As to why the RN can't produce enough people - I wouldn't have thought there was a simple answer. I certainly don't believe the answer to be "it's those pesky Crabs doing the damnedest to undermine the FAA".
I'm not privy to the exact numbers, but I know when I last operated alongside the FAA in 2000 they weren't anywhere near 'fully manned' - when fully manned to them meant 8-pilot sqns or something like that. Reading about the Falklands, it sounds as if they relied heavily on numerous RAF exchange officers to make up their numbers even as far back as then (though happy to stand corrected by an old and bold SHar boy in the know). So the notion that they could suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat and fully man two RAF-sized sqns was always plain baloney. Unfortunately it would appear that the senior RN chaps have repeatedly asserted that they could and their bluff has been well and truly called.
Add to that a bit of a retention problem because the silk-scarved ones had to move house once in their careers, swap roles to doing the Lord's work and move some mud, and get involved with some Ops where there wasn't a cocktail party and a port call to Sydney on the horizon... It's easy to see why there might be a problem.
The trouble is, as anyone familiar with the training machine well knows - once you've identified the problem and turned the training pipeline tap fully on, it takes 3-4+ years before you see the results. Maybe everything will be just fine in another couple of years...
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
All very valid points. The current AV8B deployment can only help the boat people to stay up to speed with all the skills that you talk about while JFH are too heavily tasked to be able to provide the training assets.
As to why the RN can't produce enough people - I wouldn't have thought there was a simple answer. I certainly don't believe the answer to be "it's those pesky Crabs doing the damnedest to undermine the FAA".
I'm not privy to the exact numbers, but I know when I last operated alongside the FAA in 2000 they weren't anywhere near 'fully manned' - when fully manned to them meant 8-pilot sqns or something like that. Reading about the Falklands, it sounds as if they relied heavily on numerous RAF exchange officers to make up their numbers even as far back as then (though happy to stand corrected by an old and bold SHar boy in the know). So the notion that they could suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat and fully man two RAF-sized sqns was always plain baloney. Unfortunately it would appear that the senior RN chaps have repeatedly asserted that they could and their bluff has been well and truly called.
Add to that a bit of a retention problem because the silk-scarved ones had to move house once in their careers, swap roles to doing the Lord's work and move some mud, and get involved with some Ops where there wasn't a cocktail party and a port call to Sydney on the horizon... It's easy to see why there might be a problem.
The trouble is, as anyone familiar with the training machine well knows - once you've identified the problem and turned the training pipeline tap fully on, it takes 3-4+ years before you see the results. Maybe everything will be just fine in another couple of years...
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF,
Thanks for the reply. Let's see if this part of the thread gets picked up - I hope it does, because it's a key issue for the Future carrier - are we moving the right way to generate a real maritime strike capability in the RN?
Shortage of RN pilots is not, IMHO, down to 'pesky crabs'. The RN SHAR pipeline was pretty inefficient, and has picked up considerably since the RAF took charge. And by the way, the intention was never to 'pull a rabbit out of a hat and fully man two RAF-sized sqns', - it was always intended to have the JFH squadrons 'light blue heavy' and 'dark blue heavy', and that the RN pilot numbers would take a while to get there.
There is, I believe, a retention issue going on, and I don't believe it's because 'the silk-scarved ones had to move house once in their careers, swap roles to doing the Lord's work and move some mud, and get involved with some Ops where there wasn't a cocktail party and a port call to Sydney on the horizon... '. Cheap shot, that. The SHARs were just the latest chapter in the FAAs tradition of 'first to the fight' - WW1, WW2, Korea, Suez, etc. The RN pilots on JFH are upholding that, I'm sure.
The issue might be what sort of career prospects a JFH pilot has in the RN after he's done his stint at on JFH - these guys are Naval Officers, and they should be moving on up into the higher reaches of the RN to build the necessary knowledge and appreciation of maritime strike. If the RN can't keep them in, that is not good news. See my earlier post. And let's not forget the many other skill sets (engineers, met., intel, targetting, etc.) that need to be specially honed for maritime ops.
What JFH should be doing is balancing todays's operational demands with building the skills and knowledge base that the UK will need to get JSF and CVF working together in a few years time. I have a real concern that this is not happening. Thoughts, anyone?
Engines
Thanks for the reply. Let's see if this part of the thread gets picked up - I hope it does, because it's a key issue for the Future carrier - are we moving the right way to generate a real maritime strike capability in the RN?
Shortage of RN pilots is not, IMHO, down to 'pesky crabs'. The RN SHAR pipeline was pretty inefficient, and has picked up considerably since the RAF took charge. And by the way, the intention was never to 'pull a rabbit out of a hat and fully man two RAF-sized sqns', - it was always intended to have the JFH squadrons 'light blue heavy' and 'dark blue heavy', and that the RN pilot numbers would take a while to get there.
There is, I believe, a retention issue going on, and I don't believe it's because 'the silk-scarved ones had to move house once in their careers, swap roles to doing the Lord's work and move some mud, and get involved with some Ops where there wasn't a cocktail party and a port call to Sydney on the horizon... '. Cheap shot, that. The SHARs were just the latest chapter in the FAAs tradition of 'first to the fight' - WW1, WW2, Korea, Suez, etc. The RN pilots on JFH are upholding that, I'm sure.
The issue might be what sort of career prospects a JFH pilot has in the RN after he's done his stint at on JFH - these guys are Naval Officers, and they should be moving on up into the higher reaches of the RN to build the necessary knowledge and appreciation of maritime strike. If the RN can't keep them in, that is not good news. See my earlier post. And let's not forget the many other skill sets (engineers, met., intel, targetting, etc.) that need to be specially honed for maritime ops.
What JFH should be doing is balancing todays's operational demands with building the skills and knowledge base that the UK will need to get JSF and CVF working together in a few years time. I have a real concern that this is not happening. Thoughts, anyone?
Engines
".........and by the way, the intention was never to 'pull a rabbit out of a hat and fully man two RAF-sized sqns', - it was always intended to have the JFH squadrons 'light blue heavy' and 'dark blue heavy',"
The problem is that with significantly less than 1/4 of the available pilots, the RN expected to have 1/2 of the exec and CO positions on the new JFH.
As a result, you have the situation in which some sharp RAF Harrier officers will never get the exec/command positions they had every right to expect, while less experienced, less able Naval officers take those jobs, and younger RAF Harrier pilots find themselves sidelined while the RN surges people through Valley in a frantic effort to get enough dark blue bums on the bang seats.
Manning one of the four squadrons with RN aviators would have been sensible, and there would have been nothing wrong with moving towards a 50:50 structure (or even an RN-heavy force) in the fullness of time.
The problem is that with significantly less than 1/4 of the available pilots, the RN expected to have 1/2 of the exec and CO positions on the new JFH.
As a result, you have the situation in which some sharp RAF Harrier officers will never get the exec/command positions they had every right to expect, while less experienced, less able Naval officers take those jobs, and younger RAF Harrier pilots find themselves sidelined while the RN surges people through Valley in a frantic effort to get enough dark blue bums on the bang seats.
Manning one of the four squadrons with RN aviators would have been sensible, and there would have been nothing wrong with moving towards a 50:50 structure (or even an RN-heavy force) in the fullness of time.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
Firstly, I agree totally ref your comments regarding the FAA and I didn't mean to intimate that you guys wouldn't pull your weight. I know they are, I know they will, and I know person for person they're bloody good operators. My frustration was aimed at Navaleye's particular comments.
Anyway, back to the main subject matter! I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of the RN career progression issue. The RN Harrier guys I've met seem not to see any worthwhile career progression beyond cdr rank, and very little past let cdr. The RM aircrew are even worse off. Although you guys are far better than the Army in this respect, I think you have to start moving aviation careers up a rung or two of the ladder so that they are on a par with AWO/PWOs etc. I may be wrong but it seems that right now, unless an officer steps out of aviation and back into 'mainstream' ship driving, he will not challenge for a satisfying career.
The future of the RN depends upon CVF. Yet the programme seems ship centric with less emphasis upon F-35, and almost zero on MASC etc. Likewise you need to develop the associated N2/N6 aspects of supporting a CVF airwing. Right now, the RN has almost no N2 capability despite acknowledging that they need it for the future air wing, and there are no plans to create such a branch in any useful sense. If you develop such factors, hopefully a more attractive career option would develop for aviators when they are required to have true responsibility as an 'Air Boss' type role.
Similarly, does the RN have an equivalent of PAS? There are many who would not want to be promoted out of the cockpit. Is there the potential for experienced pilots to remain flying as a lt or lt cdr and forego promotion? Spec aircrew/PAS has always been one of the strengths of the RAF I believe and is a major retention factor.
In short, I don't think the RN is focussing sufficiently upon aviation yet it's the key to its future. High quality aviators need to see a realistic and attractive future career route, or one which enables your service to take advantage of their experience and keep them in the cockpit.
Thoughts?
Regards,
MM
Firstly, I agree totally ref your comments regarding the FAA and I didn't mean to intimate that you guys wouldn't pull your weight. I know they are, I know they will, and I know person for person they're bloody good operators. My frustration was aimed at Navaleye's particular comments.
Anyway, back to the main subject matter! I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of the RN career progression issue. The RN Harrier guys I've met seem not to see any worthwhile career progression beyond cdr rank, and very little past let cdr. The RM aircrew are even worse off. Although you guys are far better than the Army in this respect, I think you have to start moving aviation careers up a rung or two of the ladder so that they are on a par with AWO/PWOs etc. I may be wrong but it seems that right now, unless an officer steps out of aviation and back into 'mainstream' ship driving, he will not challenge for a satisfying career.
The future of the RN depends upon CVF. Yet the programme seems ship centric with less emphasis upon F-35, and almost zero on MASC etc. Likewise you need to develop the associated N2/N6 aspects of supporting a CVF airwing. Right now, the RN has almost no N2 capability despite acknowledging that they need it for the future air wing, and there are no plans to create such a branch in any useful sense. If you develop such factors, hopefully a more attractive career option would develop for aviators when they are required to have true responsibility as an 'Air Boss' type role.
Similarly, does the RN have an equivalent of PAS? There are many who would not want to be promoted out of the cockpit. Is there the potential for experienced pilots to remain flying as a lt or lt cdr and forego promotion? Spec aircrew/PAS has always been one of the strengths of the RAF I believe and is a major retention factor.
In short, I don't think the RN is focussing sufficiently upon aviation yet it's the key to its future. High quality aviators need to see a realistic and attractive future career route, or one which enables your service to take advantage of their experience and keep them in the cockpit.
Thoughts?
Regards,
MM
Suspicion breeds confidence
MM and all,
I still speak to a number of RN officers, FAA and others who voice grave concerns about the almost total dilution of our naval aviation capability since the Shars were given to Strike and then dissolved. As I understand it, their are no further scheduled deployments of the NSW on any RN carrier this year. Their are rumours (this is a rumour network after all) about the RN inviting a "guest" USMC squadron to fill the gap in our almost non-existent naval air capability on a regular basis. JFH has been a disaster for the Navy, make no bones about it, at present we can't match the capabilities or Spain or Italy in this respect. How many duskers or night qualified carrier pilots do we have available? Contrast where we are now, to 5 years ago. The answer is not good. I'm not having a dig at anyone, just reporting on the state of play and wondering how we are going to get out of it.
Here's one suggestion. Dissolve JFH. Take the two navy squadrons and take them back to Yeovilton and place them on naval tasking.
I echo Engine's comments about using Tornados in Afghanistan.
I still speak to a number of RN officers, FAA and others who voice grave concerns about the almost total dilution of our naval aviation capability since the Shars were given to Strike and then dissolved. As I understand it, their are no further scheduled deployments of the NSW on any RN carrier this year. Their are rumours (this is a rumour network after all) about the RN inviting a "guest" USMC squadron to fill the gap in our almost non-existent naval air capability on a regular basis. JFH has been a disaster for the Navy, make no bones about it, at present we can't match the capabilities or Spain or Italy in this respect. How many duskers or night qualified carrier pilots do we have available? Contrast where we are now, to 5 years ago. The answer is not good. I'm not having a dig at anyone, just reporting on the state of play and wondering how we are going to get out of it.
Here's one suggestion. Dissolve JFH. Take the two navy squadrons and take them back to Yeovilton and place them on naval tasking.
I echo Engine's comments about using Tornados in Afghanistan.