Rumours of cuts in E-3D fleet?
Thread Starter
Rumours of cuts in E-3D fleet?
Posts have appeared on a thread on e-goat discussing cuts to the UK E-3D fleet. Someone apparently in the know says it was briefed (presumably at Waddington?) on Friday that one of the E-3D Sqns is to fold.
See post 26 on this thread...
More defence cuts? - Page 3 - E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network forums
If it's true not particularly surprising given the current financial climate.
And this is a "rumour" site!
See post 26 on this thread...
More defence cuts? - Page 3 - E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network forums
If it's true not particularly surprising given the current financial climate.
And this is a "rumour" site!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks as though they are talking about a manpower reduction rather than a cut in the number of aircraft. Don't know why they ever needed 2 operational squadrons to operate just 7 aircraft aircraft, anyway. Nevertheless, reducing the number of trained crews and support personnel would constrain options for long-term OOA operations in the future. If true, I can only suppose that the other (untaken) measures would have caused more immediate, and/or even less acceptable, pain.
Now stand by for PR10.
Now stand by for PR10.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
They can always take up the resulting hole in capability with Nimrod 
Seven aircraft and two squadrons.....
....Get rid of one squadron and keep all seven airframes, promote one sqn boss to Gp Capt, give him a couple of Wg Cdrs to manage A Flt and B Flt, and keep everyone else.
Net result one new Gp Capt post........
Now there's something for their Airships to think about.
....Get rid of one squadron and keep all seven airframes, promote one sqn boss to Gp Capt, give him a couple of Wg Cdrs to manage A Flt and B Flt, and keep everyone else.
Net result one new Gp Capt post........
Now there's something for their Airships to think about.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they have taken 2 catastrophicaly undermanned sqns and made them into one.
I suspect that there may be almost no personnel losses at all (one bosses job?), just suddenly one fully manned sqn for the first time in E3 history.
I suspect that there may be almost no personnel losses at all (one bosses job?), just suddenly one fully manned sqn for the first time in E3 history.
I love the Ru in PPRuNe.
8 & 23 combine (LlllllllOoooooooNnnnnnnnnGgggggg overdue)
8 have seniority with numberplates & VC
Down to 8/9 crews
54 Stay as ISTAR
Max 5 ac in fwd fleet (with 1 always in single track serv)
2 ac in 'rotational cyclic (poss) cal-based' spin within fwd, maintaining full numerical fleet assets.
Eng manpower pooled into 8 with SEngO control
Eng groundcrew down to approx 65%
Fg hrs reduced.
excess posted out
Morale shattered
8 & 23 combine (LlllllllOoooooooNnnnnnnnnGgggggg overdue)
8 have seniority with numberplates & VC
Down to 8/9 crews
54 Stay as ISTAR
Max 5 ac in fwd fleet (with 1 always in single track serv)
2 ac in 'rotational cyclic (poss) cal-based' spin within fwd, maintaining full numerical fleet assets.
Eng manpower pooled into 8 with SEngO control
Eng groundcrew down to approx 65%
Fg hrs reduced.
excess posted out
Morale shattered
Last edited by reds & greens; 10th May 2009 at 17:12.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SOUTH OF EGQS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF's Contribution To NATO AWACS
Back in the mid 1970s, the UK was originally in negotiation with NATO to be part of the NATO E-3 Force. However, there were several delays in getting agreement amongst the various contributing nations, especially Germany. As a consequence of these delays, Britain went down the road of the AEW Nimrod, with the agreement that this would be the UK's contribution to the NATO Force. The UK conveniently had surplus Nimrods to convert to the AEW role, as we were pulling a Nimrod Squadron out of Malta as part of the withdrawal from the island.
Not so long afterwards, Germany was able to sign up to the E-3 Project, and with the UK now committed to to the Nimrod Project, the Germans very kindly offered Geilenkirchen as a base for the E-3s. With the failure of the AEW Nimrod project, the UK government eventually went for the E-3D. The UK stuck with the original pledge, that the UK would still contribute towards the NATO Force, with the aircraft and UK crews based at Waddington.
All the nations that make up the NATO E-3 Force at Geilenkirchen make a financial contribution to the running of the base and provide the personnel. The aircraft at Geilenkirchen are owned by NATO, and registered in Luxembourg.
The UK completely funds the NATO E-3D Component at Waddington, and the Station Commander has a NATO appointment as the E-3D Component Commander, reporting to the 2* NATO AEW Force Commander. With the UK contributing over a quarter of the total NATO AEW Force, the Deputy Force Commander is a RAF 1*
Not so long afterwards, Germany was able to sign up to the E-3 Project, and with the UK now committed to to the Nimrod Project, the Germans very kindly offered Geilenkirchen as a base for the E-3s. With the failure of the AEW Nimrod project, the UK government eventually went for the E-3D. The UK stuck with the original pledge, that the UK would still contribute towards the NATO Force, with the aircraft and UK crews based at Waddington.
All the nations that make up the NATO E-3 Force at Geilenkirchen make a financial contribution to the running of the base and provide the personnel. The aircraft at Geilenkirchen are owned by NATO, and registered in Luxembourg.
The UK completely funds the NATO E-3D Component at Waddington, and the Station Commander has a NATO appointment as the E-3D Component Commander, reporting to the 2* NATO AEW Force Commander. With the UK contributing over a quarter of the total NATO AEW Force, the Deputy Force Commander is a RAF 1*
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Why 2 x Squadrons?
The original concept for Waddington was to have just one Sqn (8). In those days (1991) it was envisaged that 9 op Crews would be available plus an extra 2 x Crews for Sentry Training Sqn (STS) plus Staneval. However, this gave a supervision burden for the leadership - with 17 personnel per crew then the Sqn would be over 150 strong (including Boss, XO etc). This was more than half the aircrew in 11 Group!
So, for example, iaw GASOs the Surveillance leader had to personally fly a 6 month check with each of his charges - each crew having 5 surveillance personnel. In those days we flew 10 hour missions, so the leader would have to fly 900 hours a year just to carry out checks! (not that we got close to 9 crews available).
At the same time, STS wanted a Sqn number plate, so the decision was taken to reform 23 as the second E-3D Sqn. This would lead to 8 Sqn with 6 Op Crews, and 23 with 3 Op crews plus the training crew.
Following 11 years of continual operational deployments (Balkans/Bosnia/Albania/Kosovo/Afghanistan/GW2), it was decided that more crews were needed (personnel were flying in excess of 800 hours per year - One pilot even approached 1000 hours and had to be sent on leave so as not to break the tabboo. Therefore both 8 and 23 received 6 Op crews each, and 54 was reformed to take the training effort. Although in theory we had 14 crews, that figure was rarely approached, and personnel had to be brought back to the Component to man the Sqns for some operational flying.
Following GW2, the Sqn were brought home for rest and recouperation having greatly outflown all expected hours. Sadly we never went back again - tha aircraft considered too expensive and too capable to carry out the roles over Afghanistan and Iraq (the low overall flying allied rate and lack of a creditable air threat). So, not on Ops we have taken a low priority for funding for the past few years and although we are forbidden to talk about the result......
lets just hope that we are given an operation again soon, and resources will return (but don't hold your breath!
W
So, for example, iaw GASOs the Surveillance leader had to personally fly a 6 month check with each of his charges - each crew having 5 surveillance personnel. In those days we flew 10 hour missions, so the leader would have to fly 900 hours a year just to carry out checks! (not that we got close to 9 crews available).
At the same time, STS wanted a Sqn number plate, so the decision was taken to reform 23 as the second E-3D Sqn. This would lead to 8 Sqn with 6 Op Crews, and 23 with 3 Op crews plus the training crew.
Following 11 years of continual operational deployments (Balkans/Bosnia/Albania/Kosovo/Afghanistan/GW2), it was decided that more crews were needed (personnel were flying in excess of 800 hours per year - One pilot even approached 1000 hours and had to be sent on leave so as not to break the tabboo. Therefore both 8 and 23 received 6 Op crews each, and 54 was reformed to take the training effort. Although in theory we had 14 crews, that figure was rarely approached, and personnel had to be brought back to the Component to man the Sqns for some operational flying.
Following GW2, the Sqn were brought home for rest and recouperation having greatly outflown all expected hours. Sadly we never went back again - tha aircraft considered too expensive and too capable to carry out the roles over Afghanistan and Iraq (the low overall flying allied rate and lack of a creditable air threat). So, not on Ops we have taken a low priority for funding for the past few years and although we are forbidden to talk about the result......
lets just hope that we are given an operation again soon, and resources will return (but don't hold your breath!
W
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SOUTH OF EGQS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why 2 x E-3D Squadrons
It wasn't just the Sentry Training Squadron that wanted a number plate, there was at least one Wing Commander in the decision making process who was hoping to command a squadron.
Politics apart, I've always found it healthy to have some inter squadron comptetition, and it gives more options for those on the promotion ladder, even if they are ex F-3s and looking for a Squadron command. Having just the one squadron can make for an insular outlook.
It will be interesting to see which squadron their Airships decide to disband.
Politics apart, I've always found it healthy to have some inter squadron comptetition, and it gives more options for those on the promotion ladder, even if they are ex F-3s and looking for a Squadron command. Having just the one squadron can make for an insular outlook.
It will be interesting to see which squadron their Airships decide to disband.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks for the explain, Wensleydale.
This does beg the question though, if the requirement existed in 1991, for seemingly very good reasons, why has it gone away now?
So by inference, not only are there insufficient crews as is, the intention is to make that situation permanent by making it impossible to maintain standards?
I must be missing something, nobody is that stupid.
This does beg the question though, if the requirement existed in 1991, for seemingly very good reasons, why has it gone away now?
So by inference, not only are there insufficient crews as is, the intention is to make that situation permanent by making it impossible to maintain standards?
I must be missing something, nobody is that stupid.
I think anyone outside of AT/SH & CAS needs a very robust case for existence when the beancounters inevitably arrive in the near future.
The rationale applied several years ago will cut very little in the form of ice. Don't agree, but there you go!
The rationale applied several years ago will cut very little in the form of ice. Don't agree, but there you go!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuts?
Let us just hope that any cuts are part of an overall assessment of threats to the UK and not just cut so we can afford Afghanistan. History is littered with similar type of events - it takes someone strong with a big mouth to stop us slicing away capability only to find us on having to pay a fortune to get it back when the situation changes. I can certainly see a role for E3D - and there is nothing wrong with only one squadron provided we still have the capability.