Future of the FAA
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vie sans frontieres
"RAF SH have been getting airborne off ships and dropping the troops and equipment on land for years. If that's not the route taken by an amphibian, I don't know what is. Someone please explain the difference because I can't see it."
And that lack of ability to see it is exactly the reason why we need Junglies.
"RAF SH have been getting airborne off ships and dropping the troops and equipment on land for years. If that's not the route taken by an amphibian, I don't know what is. Someone please explain the difference because I can't see it."
And that lack of ability to see it is exactly the reason why we need Junglies.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing new here, historically there have been many tries to sideline the FAA. Two main occasions in particular;
1. Mid 1930s RAF took over procurement and supply of aircraft to FAA, result, began WW2 with bi-planes;
2. late 60s excellent RAF staffwork resulted in cancellation of CVA01, loss of "Vic" and run-down of FW (hence Omega on F4 tails)
On both occasions subsequent maritime conflict proved value of organic air. Just hope it's not too late this time, perhaps something unexpected will come along to prove the point (viz Chris Parry's excellent article in Times last week)
1. Mid 1930s RAF took over procurement and supply of aircraft to FAA, result, began WW2 with bi-planes;
2. late 60s excellent RAF staffwork resulted in cancellation of CVA01, loss of "Vic" and run-down of FW (hence Omega on F4 tails)
On both occasions subsequent maritime conflict proved value of organic air. Just hope it's not too late this time, perhaps something unexpected will come along to prove the point (viz Chris Parry's excellent article in Times last week)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
High Spirits, thank you, may be they will move the sims, but when did the MOD ever apply fact logic and reason.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not just passengers
VSF,
FAA are sailors who fly/fix aircraft.
As such they are also the ships company and make up part of the crew of a ship whilst embarked. This is the difference between “getting airborne off ships” and being a CAG or embarked flight. The FAA keep all their men “current” to embark by completing BISSC and ISSC courses and ensuring that they exercise and work up with the ship.
Ships are lean manned, they can’t afford to carry a “passenger” who has no idea about firefighting or damage control and the best way to ensure currency is to do it all the time, which is what they do.
Each to their own is probably the best way to put it.
FAA are sailors who fly/fix aircraft.
As such they are also the ships company and make up part of the crew of a ship whilst embarked. This is the difference between “getting airborne off ships” and being a CAG or embarked flight. The FAA keep all their men “current” to embark by completing BISSC and ISSC courses and ensuring that they exercise and work up with the ship.
Ships are lean manned, they can’t afford to carry a “passenger” who has no idea about firefighting or damage control and the best way to ensure currency is to do it all the time, which is what they do.
Each to their own is probably the best way to put it.
Oldgrubber,
Before the current Op, when the Chinook force had the capacity, crews and engineers attended the RN courses you mention. Post 2015 they can again, and the RAF Merlin crews can attend in due course. As other say on here, in a time of austerity how can it possibly make sense to re-train 70+ crews whilst attempting to continue to induct new trainees in order to keep the training pipeline intact? Does ethos alone justify it? Probably not. As for marinisation, well Betty and Chuck are victims of their own success with deck edge elevators & hangar decks big enough for spread Chinook...and since a Chinook will carry at least 3 times as many people as a SK4 (and often much more) it's actually a more efficient use of deck and hangar space - though, of course you lose the concurrency piece.
I was stunned at a maritime nation giving up MPA, and surprised by the ASTOR decision - though it does tell you what you need to know of the severity of the hole we're in (god alone knows what a 20% cut would have been like....). I was saddened by the loss of Ark (having many fond memories and some fond memory-blanks when embarked) but feel numb at the thought of losing my Jungly breatheren, some of which are close friends. Guys, I'm sorry, but if you're looking for an area to pour your fire on then I'd suggest you look at the decision to retain Wildcat; delete the Wildcat and you could fund all 24 Chinooks and the Merlin transfer would go ahead as planned and it would be the AAC looking down the barrel (except AH/D4K) not CHF. I hate to agree, but this does look like the RAF playing the long game and betting that the Admirals would do anything for their carriers....
Comments about night currency are purile; crews do not go uncurrent because they can't be bothered to night fly, they go uncurrent due to a crippling lack of spares/serviceable ac as the effort is forward in Theatre supporting the boots on the ground.
Before the current Op, when the Chinook force had the capacity, crews and engineers attended the RN courses you mention. Post 2015 they can again, and the RAF Merlin crews can attend in due course. As other say on here, in a time of austerity how can it possibly make sense to re-train 70+ crews whilst attempting to continue to induct new trainees in order to keep the training pipeline intact? Does ethos alone justify it? Probably not. As for marinisation, well Betty and Chuck are victims of their own success with deck edge elevators & hangar decks big enough for spread Chinook...and since a Chinook will carry at least 3 times as many people as a SK4 (and often much more) it's actually a more efficient use of deck and hangar space - though, of course you lose the concurrency piece.
I was stunned at a maritime nation giving up MPA, and surprised by the ASTOR decision - though it does tell you what you need to know of the severity of the hole we're in (god alone knows what a 20% cut would have been like....). I was saddened by the loss of Ark (having many fond memories and some fond memory-blanks when embarked) but feel numb at the thought of losing my Jungly breatheren, some of which are close friends. Guys, I'm sorry, but if you're looking for an area to pour your fire on then I'd suggest you look at the decision to retain Wildcat; delete the Wildcat and you could fund all 24 Chinooks and the Merlin transfer would go ahead as planned and it would be the AAC looking down the barrel (except AH/D4K) not CHF. I hate to agree, but this does look like the RAF playing the long game and betting that the Admirals would do anything for their carriers....
Comments about night currency are purile; crews do not go uncurrent because they can't be bothered to night fly, they go uncurrent due to a crippling lack of spares/serviceable ac as the effort is forward in Theatre supporting the boots on the ground.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right 
just for that 4 greens.... We are going back, to the good old days
The Navy Net: Rum Ration Forums Royal Navy Branches The Fleet Air Arm HMS Victorious R38 Procedure Alpha Subic Bay Jan 1965
just for that 4 greens.... We are going back, to the good old daysThe Navy Net: Rum Ration Forums Royal Navy Branches The Fleet Air Arm HMS Victorious R38 Procedure Alpha Subic Bay Jan 1965
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with Evalu8ter that RAF empire building strikes again wonder when they will start putting forward the argument the Nimrod electronic ops should go to merlin HMA fleet to get the foot through the door so they can "absorb" them to. And in 2015 their target will be AAC. In the mean time I think Dr Fox should learn from the experience and impose order on the 3 services not play them of against each other like Labour did.
Wildcat may however strike back if T26 or the Survey/Patrol/MCMV platform has a small flight deck
Wildcat may however strike back if T26 or the Survey/Patrol/MCMV platform has a small flight deck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a minute....
The RAF is being cut just as deeply as the RN. It is losing a huge chunk of its FJ force, MPA capability, additional SH (which were badly needed anyway even without Afgh), and a similar number/proprotion of its people. I know people at MoD who were involved in the decisions (including a very good friend who's a RN officer) and it is clear that the final solution has been as capability-based as possible given the funding issues.
I am utterly fed up of people suggesting that the RAF spends its time scheming and spinning to do down the aviation arms of the other Services. Can anyone actually point me at an article in a paper, magazine or online publication that's an example of this alleged 'spin'? I have seen plenty of retired admirals, naval historians and the like writing stuff about how we should never cut the RN or RM, and Sharkey Ward's piece linked to from this forum a few days ago which basically just rubbished the RAF based on outdated hearsay and conjecture - but I'm not about to accuse the RN of having some secret PR/spin machine.
Could we all please stop blaming each other for the cuts and try and get on with sorting out how we're going to do UK defence please?
The RAF is being cut just as deeply as the RN. It is losing a huge chunk of its FJ force, MPA capability, additional SH (which were badly needed anyway even without Afgh), and a similar number/proprotion of its people. I know people at MoD who were involved in the decisions (including a very good friend who's a RN officer) and it is clear that the final solution has been as capability-based as possible given the funding issues.
I am utterly fed up of people suggesting that the RAF spends its time scheming and spinning to do down the aviation arms of the other Services. Can anyone actually point me at an article in a paper, magazine or online publication that's an example of this alleged 'spin'? I have seen plenty of retired admirals, naval historians and the like writing stuff about how we should never cut the RN or RM, and Sharkey Ward's piece linked to from this forum a few days ago which basically just rubbished the RAF based on outdated hearsay and conjecture - but I'm not about to accuse the RN of having some secret PR/spin machine.
Could we all please stop blaming each other for the cuts and try and get on with sorting out how we're going to do UK defence please?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet more infantile musings from the Dark Blue. Been on the emotion liquid have we NURSE? I note that you still can't give me a good reason why we should spend a lot of money (that we have not got) re-training 77 crews when we can barely spare the cash to train our aircrew for current desert ops. The fact that they have run out of ACME Nato stock turd polish for the Mk4 SeaKing at the time of a large defence cut is not the fault of the light blue....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the Littoral
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the RAF should be careful at the moment.
I am pretty convinced that the RN can demonstrate significant savings to Defence by demonstrating why the 12 new (RN) CH47s should not be based at RNAS Yeovilton to deliver a specialist and amphibious lift capability in the maritime environment.
Think about all those savings in training air/ground crew in embarked and sea going operations, think of the capacity freed up to the RAF CH47 force to focus on delivering Land lift, think of the savings in a Joint CH47 OCU and Joint RWOETU. Think of all that space South Side that is no longer for the RN FW, that can at zero cost to the tax payer house 12 RN CH47s. Thanks to SDSR we no longer have to worry about the constraints of deck size and hangar space when considering the Sea King HC4 replacement, as SDSR as given us a very large CVF in the LPH role, that requires full (political) utilisation and concurrent use with a future RN FW community - 12 RN CH47 will deliveR a very potent future defence option.
At last the customer (3 Commando Brigade RM) and CHF eventually get the capability that they have been asking for years, and as rightly identified why retrain RAF Merlin crews to CH47 or recruit extra CH47 pilots for an RAF CH47 force that is already running hot, when by 2016 the seamless transition to an RN CH47 force based at RNAS Yeovilton can deliver maritime trained and experienced personnel (CHJF is still undertaking amphibious exercises [B]and[B] delivering on operations in Afghanistan - now that is value for money to the tax .
In short, crack on and spin your single service Merlin piece - I think you will find that in so doing that an opportunity for CHF and amphibious capability enhancement will be fully exploited.
I am pretty convinced that the RN can demonstrate significant savings to Defence by demonstrating why the 12 new (RN) CH47s should not be based at RNAS Yeovilton to deliver a specialist and amphibious lift capability in the maritime environment.
Think about all those savings in training air/ground crew in embarked and sea going operations, think of the capacity freed up to the RAF CH47 force to focus on delivering Land lift, think of the savings in a Joint CH47 OCU and Joint RWOETU. Think of all that space South Side that is no longer for the RN FW, that can at zero cost to the tax payer house 12 RN CH47s. Thanks to SDSR we no longer have to worry about the constraints of deck size and hangar space when considering the Sea King HC4 replacement, as SDSR as given us a very large CVF in the LPH role, that requires full (political) utilisation and concurrent use with a future RN FW community - 12 RN CH47 will deliveR a very potent future defence option.
At last the customer (3 Commando Brigade RM) and CHF eventually get the capability that they have been asking for years, and as rightly identified why retrain RAF Merlin crews to CH47 or recruit extra CH47 pilots for an RAF CH47 force that is already running hot, when by 2016 the seamless transition to an RN CH47 force based at RNAS Yeovilton can deliver maritime trained and experienced personnel (CHJF is still undertaking amphibious exercises [B]and[B] delivering on operations in Afghanistan - now that is value for money to the tax .
In short, crack on and spin your single service Merlin piece - I think you will find that in so doing that an opportunity for CHF and amphibious capability enhancement will be fully exploited.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While its always a bit of fun to knockabout amusing conspiracy theories and chat about hidden grand single service strategies......its never been my experience of how Main Building (and also Abbey Wood) really works. Sure there are always those who rightly try and be loyal to their Service as far as possible, but there has to be a solid (normally financial as well as task) driven argument behind what gets accepted at DMB level. Thats before the politicians stick their oars in of course and derail some of the sense in it all! I can also understand why consumate professionals feel real pain and have a tendency to lash out from loyalty and true concern as they see their life's work dismissively binned for unfathomable reasons and sadly, more mundane ones...like total lack of cash!
The reality of now is that all 3 Services have taken massive hits and the Nation at the strategic level has a new strategy but much less with which to back it up - we are much more of a Paper Tiger.
The RN no longer has dedicated amphibious forces (so why keep a dedicated CHF?), no dedicated carrier strike fleet or ac, even fewer smaller ships to do the jobs that still need doing, and of course no LRMPA capability to offer it an essential element of protection or attack either.......Whither Rule Britannia now.
Meanwhile the Army has lost considerable fire power...its rapidly becoming an infantry-only force (to be reckoned with?)..........but it is also loosing a considrable amount of supporting CAS and other airpower (half the tactical AT & Sentinel/ASTOR forces for example) to get those troops out there and properly supported and protected (Who said logistics is ever the cinderella of any war eh?)
As for the RAF.....well yes it would appear it is becoming a more SH biased force (whether it really likes it or not)...by the sheer numbers game alone......but the loss of Harrier and it versatile VSTOL capability is a real blow all round to it, the RN and the Army ...and our strategy over the next 10 years should we have no nearby major airfield to use for ops. The demise of its ISTAR capability is equally drastic.......and while a few UAVs and some rather elderly Boeings are on the way we should not under estimate what the UK has lost with this in an era of cyber and knowledge based warfare - MRA4 & Sentinel were key players in this (as was Sea King 7 ASAC). The loss of LRMPA capability is more of a tragedy and immense risk for this island nation (and our nuclear deterrent) than is believable. The hacking of the AT force - those rather modern C130Js, is equally drastic and tragic (for the untried A400M that costs more than even a C17!!!).....Ah logistics again eh.
All this adds up to the UK no longer being a real worldwide power of size and note for the first time in 500 years.....we are still willing in so many ways at professional level, and will still contribute...but lead it and determine the outcome we will not! The nation no longer has the will I am afraid....it would rather sacrifice its world beating defence industrial capability and areas of military expertise (some of the few we have left) than spend the cash which too many now want spent (often wastefully) on other home based stuff. They have forgotten after decades of peace at home that our military capability as seen by the rest of the world is still so signifcant in ensuring our influence and continued prosperity.
Lets not forget too that in cash terms, the recent decisions mean that the following has been wasted:
Nimrod MRA4 3.5 Bn. GR9 Harrier 1.5 Bn Sentinel 1.2 Bn C130J 800M SK7 ASAC 400M...now there is scandalous public waste....and all new stuff of top level capability that was apparently so essential to our success in the past few years....politicians...don't ya just luv'em.
Somehow, the esoteric ownership of some dedicated amphibious SH is minor beer in amongst these events......but then what do I know....
The reality of now is that all 3 Services have taken massive hits and the Nation at the strategic level has a new strategy but much less with which to back it up - we are much more of a Paper Tiger.
The RN no longer has dedicated amphibious forces (so why keep a dedicated CHF?), no dedicated carrier strike fleet or ac, even fewer smaller ships to do the jobs that still need doing, and of course no LRMPA capability to offer it an essential element of protection or attack either.......Whither Rule Britannia now.
Meanwhile the Army has lost considerable fire power...its rapidly becoming an infantry-only force (to be reckoned with?)..........but it is also loosing a considrable amount of supporting CAS and other airpower (half the tactical AT & Sentinel/ASTOR forces for example) to get those troops out there and properly supported and protected (Who said logistics is ever the cinderella of any war eh?)
As for the RAF.....well yes it would appear it is becoming a more SH biased force (whether it really likes it or not)...by the sheer numbers game alone......but the loss of Harrier and it versatile VSTOL capability is a real blow all round to it, the RN and the Army ...and our strategy over the next 10 years should we have no nearby major airfield to use for ops. The demise of its ISTAR capability is equally drastic.......and while a few UAVs and some rather elderly Boeings are on the way we should not under estimate what the UK has lost with this in an era of cyber and knowledge based warfare - MRA4 & Sentinel were key players in this (as was Sea King 7 ASAC). The loss of LRMPA capability is more of a tragedy and immense risk for this island nation (and our nuclear deterrent) than is believable. The hacking of the AT force - those rather modern C130Js, is equally drastic and tragic (for the untried A400M that costs more than even a C17!!!).....Ah logistics again eh.
All this adds up to the UK no longer being a real worldwide power of size and note for the first time in 500 years.....we are still willing in so many ways at professional level, and will still contribute...but lead it and determine the outcome we will not! The nation no longer has the will I am afraid....it would rather sacrifice its world beating defence industrial capability and areas of military expertise (some of the few we have left) than spend the cash which too many now want spent (often wastefully) on other home based stuff. They have forgotten after decades of peace at home that our military capability as seen by the rest of the world is still so signifcant in ensuring our influence and continued prosperity.
Lets not forget too that in cash terms, the recent decisions mean that the following has been wasted:
Nimrod MRA4 3.5 Bn. GR9 Harrier 1.5 Bn Sentinel 1.2 Bn C130J 800M SK7 ASAC 400M...now there is scandalous public waste....and all new stuff of top level capability that was apparently so essential to our success in the past few years....politicians...don't ya just luv'em.
Somehow, the esoteric ownership of some dedicated amphibious SH is minor beer in amongst these events......but then what do I know....
Last edited by Tallsar; 22nd Oct 2010 at 17:11.
