RAF Dropping to 6 Fast-Jet Units
"In the immediate aftermath of the SDR being published, the First Sea Lord posted a "heads up" on the Navy's website and referred to the "Naval Service" far more than Royal Navy
"
Slight thread drift, but the phrase 'Naval Service' refers to both the RN, and other parts of it, such as the RNR and RFA and so on - its an all ecompassing title.
"Slight thread drift, but the phrase 'Naval Service' refers to both the RN, and other parts of it, such as the RNR and RFA and so on - its an all ecompassing title.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jimlad1
Appreciate that and yes a bit off subject but with the decline in RN escorts, RFA's are now in effect being used as warships to counter piracy. They operate helos and have room for Marines so why the distinction? Why not incorporate whats left of the RFA into the RN proper. Manpower shouldn't be an issue and civvies would then be out of the firing line!
Oh and if bases are an issue for a declining RAF how does the Navy justify Devonport?
The implications of having fewer platforms in the air and at sea are throwing up all manner of issues for the Government to handle. At the moment they seem to want to put things out to pasture but that's just leading to mass speculation in the Press and continued uncertainty for those who could be affected
Appreciate that and yes a bit off subject but with the decline in RN escorts, RFA's are now in effect being used as warships to counter piracy. They operate helos and have room for Marines so why the distinction? Why not incorporate whats left of the RFA into the RN proper. Manpower shouldn't be an issue and civvies would then be out of the firing line!
Oh and if bases are an issue for a declining RAF how does the Navy justify Devonport?
The implications of having fewer platforms in the air and at sea are throwing up all manner of issues for the Government to handle. At the moment they seem to want to put things out to pasture but that's just leading to mass speculation in the Press and continued uncertainty for those who could be affected
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so how many fighter squadrons are there in the United States of Europe.
Boys this is where it is all headed for you guys.
Boys this is where it is all headed for you guys.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was on Newsnight last, immediately before it showed Putin singing 'Blueberry Hill. I think the figure was 40 Trillion Roubles. That'll buy a lot of T-tanks & Migs.
Well so long as they don't buy any new Submarines we'll be fine.
I'm sure it will all be fine. Reaper is the answer to everything don't you know.
This just hits it on the head how we are regarded...
It seems to me that many people in the military need to have it explained to them just how invisible they are. I mean nothing by this statement other than what it literally means; when something is your job and your life it seems globe-spanningly important, but the only people I know who are or were in the military are people I've met through this very forum and none of my friends know any military people nor are they specifically aware of what capabilities exist.
I say this now because I had to explain it to one of those people just a couple of days ago, but it seems to me that most of the UK population have absolutely no idea what sort of cuts have been made to UK forces since Gulf 1. There is in general an impression that there's a large, capable fighting force out there, with only the haziest understanding of its extent; there is an assumption that it can handle what it needs to handle, without much understanding of what it can really do. I'm sure a lot of people would be unutterably horrified at the discovery that fast jet forces will be one-sixth of their pre-Gulf levels in a few years, but I suspect that as long as the Red Arrows and the marching bands exist, this will go entirely unremarked.
Therefore the fairly gentle reminder to the public from the military of just how bad things have become, which spawned this discussion, is highly appropriate and should be reinforced at every opportunity.
P
I wish one of those investigative TV programme producers would do an exposé showing how the state of UK military aviation has atrophied over the last 50 years - in terms of aircraft numbers, manning strength and aerodromes.
Or even just a comparison of 1990, 2000 and 2010.
Throwing away the UK's Harrier force, Nimrod force, the creeping cancer of contractorisation in flying training, AT/AAR, SAR - where will the rot stop?
And yes, I know that drones are quite clever, but they are not a universal panacea.
Good luck to all those who still have a job in military aviation!
Or even just a comparison of 1990, 2000 and 2010.
Throwing away the UK's Harrier force, Nimrod force, the creeping cancer of contractorisation in flying training, AT/AAR, SAR - where will the rot stop?
And yes, I know that drones are quite clever, but they are not a universal panacea.
Good luck to all those who still have a job in military aviation!
So, out of our first 1-20 numbered Sqns we have lost 1,4,20 and 5 to go soon. What I am asking is how many Typhoon Sqns or whatever have yet to form? Nowhere near enough to accommodate the four Sqn number plates available methinks. Are we going to go further down the road of making Sqns out of would not have been considered years ago to make us look good on paper, some would say we already have when you look at some of our ‘Sqn’ credentials. Maybe if we just numbered real front-line Sqns from 1 upwards Jo public would then realise what few assets we really have!
Nb. I have a lorry driver friend who runs 6 trucks, all numbered, the highest being 17 at the moment. Every time he changes one it gets a different number on the cab door, he just laughs and says it’s to make customers think he is a lot bigger than he actually is................. The RAF, public and world stage come to mind!
Nb. I have a lorry driver friend who runs 6 trucks, all numbered, the highest being 17 at the moment. Every time he changes one it gets a different number on the cab door, he just laughs and says it’s to make customers think he is a lot bigger than he actually is................. The RAF, public and world stage come to mind!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BEags,
Have you written to your MP recently, expressing your alarm? Perhaps you could also pass on our concerns?
Phil-R
Among the residents of my locality, there is a general apathy to matters of defence. Raising the debate invariably attracts responses such as 'well you would say that, wouldn't you', 'so what, defence has to suffer just like the rest of us', and a polite, accepting 'shrug'. There is a low boredom threshold over the state of military issues whereas, unsurprisingly, immigration, health and policing attract immediate and stong vocal attention. I fear that unless and until a direct and recognisable threat to the UK population emerges, the passion of those who have little or no connection with uniform won't be aroused. And then it will all be too late. Quite alarming really.
Have you written to your MP recently, expressing your alarm? Perhaps you could also pass on our concerns?
Phil-R
Among the residents of my locality, there is a general apathy to matters of defence. Raising the debate invariably attracts responses such as 'well you would say that, wouldn't you', 'so what, defence has to suffer just like the rest of us', and a polite, accepting 'shrug'. There is a low boredom threshold over the state of military issues whereas, unsurprisingly, immigration, health and policing attract immediate and stong vocal attention. I fear that unless and until a direct and recognisable threat to the UK population emerges, the passion of those who have little or no connection with uniform won't be aroused. And then it will all be too late. Quite alarming really.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dctyke,
Please don't forget that those sqns numbered 1 - 20 were the first RFC Sqns; the first RNAS Sqns - with equal historical influence, I would argue - were renumbered in 1918, starting with the soon to be disbanded No 201 Sqn.
Duncs
Please don't forget that those sqns numbered 1 - 20 were the first RFC Sqns; the first RNAS Sqns - with equal historical influence, I would argue - were renumbered in 1918, starting with the soon to be disbanded No 201 Sqn.
Duncs
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Bagwell said the RAF would likely axe its 55 Tranche 1 Typhoons by mid-decade because it would cost too much to bring them up to the required multirole standards offered by Tranche 2 and Tranche 3. That would mean the RAF Typhoon fleet would top out at 107 machines. But the Typhoon fleet could shrink even further, Bagwell said. The "great unknown in the plans is the awful lot of potential export customers," he said.
The proposed deal with Oman is in the final stages of negotiation; discussions are now underway about where those dozen or so aircraft might come from. The RAF's Typhoon force could fall further if the planes are diverted from the Air Force's order and are not replaced. Difficulties in Britain's 72-plane sale to Saudi Arabia are creating more uncertainty. The first 24 are being diverted from the RAF's Tranche 2 order, and the service is to get more Tranche 3 aircraft instead. The other 48 are to be assembled in Saudi Arabia as part of an effort to build up local industry. But industry sources said the plan has run into difficulties that raise questions about how Britain will fill the Saudi order.
Bagwell said options could include taking additional aircraft from the RAF production run and replacing them later. "Should we get the buybacks out of Saudi Arabia and Oman as planned, we will be back to the number of Typhoons I need," he said. "At the moment, if I don't get the [Omani] buyback and this is under discussion ... it could take me down to 95 aircraft."
The proposed deal with Oman is in the final stages of negotiation; discussions are now underway about where those dozen or so aircraft might come from. The RAF's Typhoon force could fall further if the planes are diverted from the Air Force's order and are not replaced. Difficulties in Britain's 72-plane sale to Saudi Arabia are creating more uncertainty. The first 24 are being diverted from the RAF's Tranche 2 order, and the service is to get more Tranche 3 aircraft instead. The other 48 are to be assembled in Saudi Arabia as part of an effort to build up local industry. But industry sources said the plan has run into difficulties that raise questions about how Britain will fill the Saudi order.
Bagwell said options could include taking additional aircraft from the RAF production run and replacing them later. "Should we get the buybacks out of Saudi Arabia and Oman as planned, we will be back to the number of Typhoons I need," he said. "At the moment, if I don't get the [Omani] buyback and this is under discussion ... it could take me down to 95 aircraft."
BAe Systems looks set to land a huge order for Typhoon fighter jets from Oman that could be worth up to £1.2 billion to the defence giant.
According to a source, the Gulf state has written to the government and asked for a squadron of aircraft, amounting to between 12 and 15 planes..............Oman plans to buy third-generation typhoons, which have far superior technological capability to their predecessors.
..........Oman's order will be deducted from the 40 Tranche 3 fighters ordered for the RAF....
Surely those same (Good) exports will mean keeping the (bad) Tranche 1 for some while longer? Especially during the delivery period of the Exports to wherever.
That same period will also mean far less engine and airframe spares for RAF use as the export stock will take precedence (again) and may even affect some role equipment too. Don't forget these abominable foreigners will have money to get what they want and he who pays industry up-front gets their service first.
On the subject of the US of Europe's Air Force - I wonder what type will be chosen for all USEAF Defence squadrons to have? Rafale anyone? It fits on French Carriers and in 12 years time, maybe it'll fit on "ours" too?
That same period will also mean far less engine and airframe spares for RAF use as the export stock will take precedence (again) and may even affect some role equipment too. Don't forget these abominable foreigners will have money to get what they want and he who pays industry up-front gets their service first.
On the subject of the US of Europe's Air Force - I wonder what type will be chosen for all USEAF Defence squadrons to have? Rafale anyone? It fits on French Carriers and in 12 years time, maybe it'll fit on "ours" too?
Last edited by Rigga; 26th Dec 2010 at 23:01.
Good news. Exportsare good.
FB
