RN Fixed Wing future?
That concludes it then.
You're a Walt.
You're a Walt.
My favourite so far was.....
I have decided to do a PPL (H), Can't put enough time into at the Moment, coz of the Intense Jet Flying!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadian experience is widely misunderstood. It's interesting, not from the point of view of why it didn't work at first, but what they went back to.
For a start, they are still called the Canadian Armed Forces and have a single HQ - there aren't separate navy, army and air force HQs. However, they are orgainised along environmental lines and - get this - the air force flies all the aircraft, the navy sails all the ships and the army drives all the tanks.
Thus you have Canadian frigates, crewed by navy crews, with an army boarding party and a helicopter flown and maintained by their air force. they say it works for them......
For a start, they are still called the Canadian Armed Forces and have a single HQ - there aren't separate navy, army and air force HQs. However, they are orgainised along environmental lines and - get this - the air force flies all the aircraft, the navy sails all the ships and the army drives all the tanks.
Thus you have Canadian frigates, crewed by navy crews, with an army boarding party and a helicopter flown and maintained by their air force. they say it works for them......
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O_A.
You'll know better than me but take a look here -
Jointery - Going to Sea
As near as dammit 2/3's of them would vote with their feet if it became a permenent feature of their careers. not good for retention and costly in training I think.
You'll know better than me but take a look here -
Jointery - Going to Sea
As near as dammit 2/3's of them would vote with their feet if it became a permenent feature of their careers. not good for retention and costly in training I think.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist - about your post !!
Tourist, post 10 - "Harrier? ........2 became dark blue"
Gotta be a bit of a pedant here, the RAF actually only lost 1 Harrier Sqn (3(F) Sqn) to form the Naval Strike Wing, consisting of 800 and 801 NAS. 1(F), IV(AC) and 20(R) Sqns still exist. (An RAF Harrier Sqn has twice as many aircraft as a RN one, hence why the RN deploy as NSW rather as separate sqns.) Please don't get me started on where the manpower came from either.............Also, you seem to have forgotten the fate of 899 NAS
HOWEVER, as for the rest of your post I concede that we light blue have lost a number of aircraft types, for instance when I joined, we had Harrier, Phantom, Lightning, Tornado, Jaguar, Canberra, Buccaneer, Hunter, Shackleton, E3, HS125, BAe146, Andover, C130, TriStar, VC10 as well as several flavours of rotary wing and probably numerous other aircraft types that I can't recall........
And before, you start it wasn't really that long ago.
Gotta be a bit of a pedant here, the RAF actually only lost 1 Harrier Sqn (3(F) Sqn) to form the Naval Strike Wing, consisting of 800 and 801 NAS. 1(F), IV(AC) and 20(R) Sqns still exist. (An RAF Harrier Sqn has twice as many aircraft as a RN one, hence why the RN deploy as NSW rather as separate sqns.) Please don't get me started on where the manpower came from either.............Also, you seem to have forgotten the fate of 899 NAS
HOWEVER, as for the rest of your post I concede that we light blue have lost a number of aircraft types, for instance when I joined, we had Harrier, Phantom, Lightning, Tornado, Jaguar, Canberra, Buccaneer, Hunter, Shackleton, E3, HS125, BAe146, Andover, C130, TriStar, VC10 as well as several flavours of rotary wing and probably numerous other aircraft types that I can't recall........
And before, you start it wasn't really that long ago.
The RAF, on the other hand seems to be in terminal decline.
How many Sqns did the RAF have even 10 yrs ago compared with now?
More importantly, how many of those sqns actually still fly on a regular basis?
E3? ........not really
Nimrod?.....Hanging in there god bless em, and soon to be replaced by something inferior (another nimrod)in all respects except endurance.
F3........who knows, or cares.
Jaguar?.......computer says no.
Canberra??.......computer says no.
Harrier? ........2 became dark blue.
Sentinel?.......very pretty on the pan.
C17?...........Hurrah!!! you got something new and decent!
Merlin Mk3?...Not a bad bit of kit, but lets face it, it's not what you would have picked.
Ok and you got the airshow jet.
C130? .......Not many left.
How many Sqns did the RAF have even 10 yrs ago compared with now?
More importantly, how many of those sqns actually still fly on a regular basis?
E3? ........not really
Nimrod?.....Hanging in there god bless em, and soon to be replaced by something inferior (another nimrod)in all respects except endurance.
F3........who knows, or cares.
Jaguar?.......computer says no.
Canberra??.......computer says no.
Harrier? ........2 became dark blue.
Sentinel?.......very pretty on the pan.
C17?...........Hurrah!!! you got something new and decent!
Merlin Mk3?...Not a bad bit of kit, but lets face it, it's not what you would have picked.
Ok and you got the airshow jet.
C130? .......Not many left.
Chinook.....not stopped since mid 90's
Tornado GR4...about to deploy to the Stan
Tristar....going like the clappers just trying to keep up
VC10....knackered but still stagging on
Conversely, the present carriers are FA use in the Stan (our commitment for the next 15 years), and cant see the new ones being much more use other than the normal round of cocktail parties and exercises in the Caribbean and Far East.
I know where Id make savings to ensure troops get back from theatre on time. Typhoon would be first, but your new war canoes would be a close second.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"our commitment for the next 15 years"
You talk as if 15 yrs is a long time.
The lead time on things like carriers is longer than that, and we must look to the future.
Carriers are useful for a long time. Some of our last real carriers are still in service with other nations after 50.
As to your other points:-
"Chinook.....not stopped since mid 90's
Tornado GR4...about to deploy to the Stan
Tristar....going like the clappers just trying to keep up
VC10....knackered but still stagging on
more than happy to add them to the list, with your accurate desriptions of their state. It all bolsters my argument that the RAF is in a bad way, and the FAA is a better bet.
You talk as if 15 yrs is a long time.
The lead time on things like carriers is longer than that, and we must look to the future.
Carriers are useful for a long time. Some of our last real carriers are still in service with other nations after 50.
As to your other points:-
"Chinook.....not stopped since mid 90's
Tornado GR4...about to deploy to the Stan
Tristar....going like the clappers just trying to keep up
VC10....knackered but still stagging on
more than happy to add them to the list, with your accurate desriptions of their state. It all bolsters my argument that the RAF is in a bad way, and the FAA is a better bet.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I agree with Tourist that the RAF is in a bad way, the FAA is in no way a better bet. When FLynx is cancelled, the carriers are delayed, JSF is delayed/scaled down/cancelled etc it won't look too rosy. Add to that the fact that there is no money to replace SK4, or SK7, and how does that make the FAA a better bet?
