RAF future fast jets
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres a third option
See which of Rafale / Sea Typhoon is finally purchased by the Indians, and join them in a production run of whichever they choose
You could even take it a stage further and have a joint OCU based in India, where the weather is so much better.
See which of Rafale / Sea Typhoon is finally purchased by the Indians, and join them in a production run of whichever they choose
You could even take it a stage further and have a joint OCU based in India, where the weather is so much better.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, and it is perhaps a big if, the RN decided that they did not need to provide the whole training infrastructure for FW training, but entered into a pertership with the USN, this would save the duplication and also be a buffer to the vagaries of recruitment.
Is this not what the French Aeronavale do?
With a change of mindset, the matelots could tap into all of the institutional knowledge of CV ops for the last 70 years, and provide sufficient experinced staff overtime to take on instructional roles too.
Hopefully they will also get some CV combat experience, as well as buddy-buddy tanker experience and some Growler action over time.
If JFSF is such a good idea, why not this time let the RN lead it, seeing as how JFH was RAF based.
There would need to be some key light blue personnel in certain roles - but this might create the "embarked bias" in the ethos of the force that would be needed. At least that way Team F-35 (or whatever) is a truly amphibious force, that also deploys from land bases - a bit like the Junglies.
Is this not what the French Aeronavale do?
With a change of mindset, the matelots could tap into all of the institutional knowledge of CV ops for the last 70 years, and provide sufficient experinced staff overtime to take on instructional roles too.
Hopefully they will also get some CV combat experience, as well as buddy-buddy tanker experience and some Growler action over time.
If JFSF is such a good idea, why not this time let the RN lead it, seeing as how JFH was RAF based.
There would need to be some key light blue personnel in certain roles - but this might create the "embarked bias" in the ethos of the force that would be needed. At least that way Team F-35 (or whatever) is a truly amphibious force, that also deploys from land bases - a bit like the Junglies.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBH I don't think FAA has the 'critical mass' to man an F-35 force, I believe they couldn't fill the seats or other posts they were meant to in JFH. After the current culls across the Services any pretence at regenerating an effective Naval force of 12 aircraft is a joke.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've often found it funny that die hard FAAists presume that us "Crabs" could not cope and more importantly would not want to "come aboard." Reasons I've heard include not joining up for that, not understanding nautical ways etc. whereas the WAFUs are equally at home on dry land as on ship. By FAA logic this could not be the case as they joined to fly off ship, which the strip at KAF certainly ain't!!
On my last tour, I spent 5-7 months away each year. Where to me was not important, what was important was that I was away doing my job.
I think you'll find that if the JFSF becomes light blue in nature, you will have a happy bunch of aviators. The USN exchanges are much sort after, and I didn't hear much beaking from mates on JFH. From this, I can't deduce that the RAF could operate from RN vessels with little fuss.
Holy Sh
t I sound like Torpy.
On my last tour, I spent 5-7 months away each year. Where to me was not important, what was important was that I was away doing my job.
I think you'll find that if the JFSF becomes light blue in nature, you will have a happy bunch of aviators. The USN exchanges are much sort after, and I didn't hear much beaking from mates on JFH. From this, I can't deduce that the RAF could operate from RN vessels with little fuss.
Holy Sh
t I sound like Torpy.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Wrong. Both cases I quoted are fact.
PUG,
I hear much of what you say but whether the FAA take on the major role in the end or not the fact is someone has to develop the competencies for operations of "cat and trap" aircraft from the sea. It is a whole different ballgame from JFH and as CNO himself said "Once qualified for day and night deck ops you have to stay qualified for the whole commission....that means staying embarked and operating from the sea for up to 12 months. it has to be a mindset from the start and not a hop-on hop-off mentality that is often spouted by current and recently retired RAF SOs.
Many of the current FAA aircrew operating F18s are not there to become F35 pilots but to be the LSOs, Cdrs(Air), CAGs etc - competence is needed beyond the cockpit and you can't just career manage a Typhoon jock into these roles.
I simply do not believe the RAF are serious about the whole thing. If they were they would be demanding slots in the USN and directing aircrew to follow a "maritime" career path.
Nope, that's pure folklore peddled by the fisheaded ones.
PUG,
I hear much of what you say but whether the FAA take on the major role in the end or not the fact is someone has to develop the competencies for operations of "cat and trap" aircraft from the sea. It is a whole different ballgame from JFH and as CNO himself said "Once qualified for day and night deck ops you have to stay qualified for the whole commission....that means staying embarked and operating from the sea for up to 12 months. it has to be a mindset from the start and not a hop-on hop-off mentality that is often spouted by current and recently retired RAF SOs.
Many of the current FAA aircrew operating F18s are not there to become F35 pilots but to be the LSOs, Cdrs(Air), CAGs etc - competence is needed beyond the cockpit and you can't just career manage a Typhoon jock into these roles.
I simply do not believe the RAF are serious about the whole thing. If they were they would be demanding slots in the USN and directing aircrew to follow a "maritime" career path.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark, perhaps you should tell the USN that they need to stay permanently embarked, because they aren't, they spend extended times ashore. When they are going to deploy they do a work-up and off they go. The deployment may then be a long one, but probably not so much in UK aircraft carriers, but it's hardly a FOB in the USV is it?
And how will it work when the sole aircraft carrier isn't available, will all the pilots suddenly forget how to do it and turn into pumpkins or will they do what every other maritime air operation does and do a short work up, get current and crack on? I'm not suggesting that carrier ops is something you can try once on the OCU and pick up 5 years later, but it isn't as difficult as you seem to be espousing, at least not according to the many people I've talked to that have actually done it.
ps they're not all out to get you.
pps I don't know your background but I get the distinct impression it isn't flying aircraft?!?
And how will it work when the sole aircraft carrier isn't available, will all the pilots suddenly forget how to do it and turn into pumpkins or will they do what every other maritime air operation does and do a short work up, get current and crack on? I'm not suggesting that carrier ops is something you can try once on the OCU and pick up 5 years later, but it isn't as difficult as you seem to be espousing, at least not according to the many people I've talked to that have actually done it.
ps they're not all out to get you.
pps I don't know your background but I get the distinct impression it isn't flying aircraft?!?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo
Interesting comment, where did you get it from? Everyone I know works on the assumption that the carriers will enter service, in some form. Just as expensive to cancel and all that. Mind you if you didn't do all the support and upkeep stuff and sold for scrap as soon as they were delivered it would save a bucketload of money, now you mention it.
Interesting comment, where did you get it from? Everyone I know works on the assumption that the carriers will enter service, in some form. Just as expensive to cancel and all that. Mind you if you didn't do all the support and upkeep stuff and sold for scrap as soon as they were delivered it would save a bucketload of money, now you mention it.
Kitbag
TBH I don't think FAA has the 'critical mass' to man an F-35 force, I believe they couldn't fill the seats or other posts they were meant to in JFH. After the current culls across the Services any pretence at regenerating an effective Naval force of 12 aircraft is a joke.
TBH I don't think FAA has the 'critical mass' to man an F-35 force, I believe they couldn't fill the seats or other posts they were meant to in JFH. After the current culls across the Services any pretence at regenerating an effective Naval force of 12 aircraft is a joke.
A subtle, yet important, distinction.
And why will a 'Naval Force' consist solely of 12 jets? The point about a full C buy is the fact all of them can embark, depending on the pilots capability and currency.
And lets not think that this is a Dark Blue bite - having been in a carrier with 800, 801, 1 and IV Squadrons, frankly you're all as big as pricks as each other.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backwards,
You are as bad as the others. You can't just do a "short work up" and hop aboard with C&T ops....ask any F18 etc driver. This is exactly the reason JFH was never fully day and night qualified (notwithstanding Afgh ops) - they were never onboard long enough to qualify all the pilots, because the RAF command did not buy into the concept of carrier operations.
Believe me when CVF gets its jets they will be embarked for very long periods, like the USN.
I am an aviator with plenty of experience of CV ops on both sides of the pond.
You are as bad as the others. You can't just do a "short work up" and hop aboard with C&T ops....ask any F18 etc driver. This is exactly the reason JFH was never fully day and night qualified (notwithstanding Afgh ops) - they were never onboard long enough to qualify all the pilots, because the RAF command did not buy into the concept of carrier operations.
Believe me when CVF gets its jets they will be embarked for very long periods, like the USN.
I am an aviator with plenty of experience of CV ops on both sides of the pond.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so exactly how long is the work up? The USN Air Wings don't spend their entire lives on board, they spend extended periods land based so what does the work-up involve? I know they do a lot of it en route to wherever they are going, but that just emphasise that carriers take quite a while to get anywhere, unless you are lucky or have a crystal ball, which the RN don't like to talk about.
JFH was, quite rightly focussed on Afghan. They could of course have done less of that in order to be "fully day/night quald" on the carrier, which would have pleased the RN but perhaps not the right thing for defence. A good example of why Maritime/Land agnostic Air power is a good thing!
Just to reiterate my position - JSF should be jointly manned and run and we should have at least 1 carrier (pref 2). This is the view of the majority of the RAF, we dont prescribe to the "only we can do it, you just don't understand" view that the RN is peddling.
JFH was, quite rightly focussed on Afghan. They could of course have done less of that in order to be "fully day/night quald" on the carrier, which would have pleased the RN but perhaps not the right thing for defence. A good example of why Maritime/Land agnostic Air power is a good thing!
Just to reiterate my position - JSF should be jointly manned and run and we should have at least 1 carrier (pref 2). This is the view of the majority of the RAF, we dont prescribe to the "only we can do it, you just don't understand" view that the RN is peddling.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by backwards PLT
Bismark, perhaps you should tell the USN that they need to stay permanently embarked, because they aren't, they spend extended times ashore. When they are going to deploy they do a work-up and off they go. The deployment may then be a long one, but probably not so much in UK aircraft carriers, but it's hardly a FOB in the USV is it?
No, when they are "ashore" they regularly (weekly) conduct practice carrier landings on an airfield with a carrier deck marked out, and at least monthly fly out to a carrier that is working up towards deployment and conduct first "touch&go" landings then actual arrested landings and catapulted take-offs.
I was in a USMC squadron that got assigned to a carrier air-wing in 1985... and despite all our pilots having been carrier-qualified during their advanced training, they all had to take a full refresher course, followed by re-qualification.
Each time we went back aboard CV-61 Ranger after at least a month ashore, the entire squadron had to do a week of "refresher" landings & take-offs from the carrier before the ship actually set out on its deployment (we were part of the air-wing until the end of August 1989).
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Greenman....but of course the USN have a training carrier on which to conduct such practice, we do not which is why the UK force will spend plenty of time embarked. And, of course, to generate 12 FE@R will require most of the JSF force to be so qualified.
Backwards,
2 weeks to the Gulf (all jets, personnel, ammo, fuel, stores, GBAD etc. How long (and at what cost) did it take to establish Gioa as a UK operating base? Didn't we have to resurface major areas to make it fit for purpose? Also, I believe the last convoy home was welcomwed by CAS only last week? Not exactly expeditionary!
This is the line your 3and 4*s have been peddling to the ministers, and particularly so since the Torpy/Anderson years.
Backwards,
carriers take quite a while to get anywhere,
"only we can do it, you just don't understand"
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greenknight thank you for agreeing with my point (perhaps I expressed it badly, but I understood it) - have a "Carrier Wednesday" (airfield with carrier deck) and other training periodically, you aren't embarked all the time. Somewhere earlier I specifically said that you can't just do it on an OCU and expect to pick it up 5 years later.
The problem that the UK will have is training on a proper carrier as I suspect our one and only will either be several thousand miles away or alongside - not sure how we can get around that other than throw in a nebulous "use allies". Or catntrap the second carrier!
These issues are of course service blind, the RN are no better able to overcome them than the RAF.
ps Bismark, I'm going for Rotary Observer.
The problem that the UK will have is training on a proper carrier as I suspect our one and only will either be several thousand miles away or alongside - not sure how we can get around that other than throw in a nebulous "use allies". Or catntrap the second carrier!
These issues are of course service blind, the RN are no better able to overcome them than the RAF.
ps Bismark, I'm going for Rotary Observer.