RAF future fast jets
Thread Starter
RAF future fast jets
So let me get this straight:
Two more Typhoon squadrons still to come and will be based at Lossie along with 6 Sqn.
Presumably two Tornado units will make way for them? And then the remaining Lossie Tornado unit (the OCU?) will move to Marham.
We will buy approx 50 (if I remember right) JSFs . The remaining Tornados will then be retired.
The RAF will then only have one fast jet type as the JSFs will be for the FAA?
Or have I got it all wrong?
Thread Starter
Irrespective of the service name on the side of the machine probably all we will be buying is enough to populate one carrier – not enough to have RAF land based squadrons?
Pure Pursuit I very much doubt that the FAA will have fast jets on its books again. Any JSF that come into service will be RAF.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alf,
you've got it in one. If the ABE LINCOLN passing through Hormuz this week did not convince Cameron of the utility of a visible floating sovereign base with an embarked attack capability I suspect nothing will. I didn't see the USAF or RAF conducting a show of force or demonstration of the right of innocent passage through an International strait!
you've got it in one. If the ABE LINCOLN passing through Hormuz this week did not convince Cameron of the utility of a visible floating sovereign base with an embarked attack capability I suspect nothing will. I didn't see the USAF or RAF conducting a show of force or demonstration of the right of innocent passage through an International strait!
No matter who owns them, the JFSs will have a land base at Lossie - Scottish indepenence not withstanding. I went to a briefing about it some time ago and they discussed the enormous amount of work required to kit out the base and local area for it - including a LOT more sound-proofing for local houses. The upshot was that it would operate from Lossie when not embarked and, apart from landaways, it wouldn't really be able to operate from anywhere else, which could make things interesting. Of course, that was B-model so may be different now.
Senior thinking at the time was that we would have a Joint Force Strike Fighter. The tribes will want to be involved, I suspect. By then, of course the FAA won't have anyone FJ qualified so it would be a fresh recruitment, therefore the RAF would have to provide enough single-seat suitable pilots from Tornado (presumably) to kick things off - OEU, OCU, first squadrons, etc. If RN gets in, it probably won't be until much later.
My guess would be, as Alfred the Great said, RAF pilots on 2 deck, port side.
Senior thinking at the time was that we would have a Joint Force Strike Fighter. The tribes will want to be involved, I suspect. By then, of course the FAA won't have anyone FJ qualified so it would be a fresh recruitment, therefore the RAF would have to provide enough single-seat suitable pilots from Tornado (presumably) to kick things off - OEU, OCU, first squadrons, etc. If RN gets in, it probably won't be until much later.
My guess would be, as Alfred the Great said, RAF pilots on 2 deck, port side.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I recall in 1964 that the RN stated that it would exercise right of passage through the Sunda Strait with the Victorious. She was back up with the deployment of 8 Victor and 4 Vulcan aircraft, a squadron of Javelin FAW9, a couple or more of Canberra, a Shackleton sqn, an RNZAF Canberra sqn as well as the resident Hunters, RAAF F86 Wing and sundry others.
In the event she took a different less provocative route and a single destroy exercised right of passage.
The Lincoln may have been the most visible SoF but I bet there were a few B2/B52 around the bazaars.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By then, of course the FAA won't have anyone FJ qualified so it would be a fresh recruitment,
Yes, indeed, Bismark, I'm aware of the F18 guys, but are there enough to go it alone and are we going to keep doing that for so many years? I would imagine the initial cadre will go to do manufacturer's course, which would have to include C&T training (probable a bit basic without experience at it). In that respect (this is a question, not an attack) don't you think it likely that the RAF could start working guys up in the same way? The RN can obviously use their maintained capability as a strong argument, but whether that's enough to convince MoD that it's a good enough reason to be in the game, I'm not sure.
Actually, you would be perfectly entitled to make that dig at the RAF; there isn't exactly a history of planning ahead for these things, is there?
But, as I said before, perhaps it comes back to a JFSF?
Actually, you would be perfectly entitled to make that dig at the RAF; there isn't exactly a history of planning ahead for these things, is there?
But, as I said before, perhaps it comes back to a JFSF?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
The FAA and the RNAS before it invented carrier aviation and all the main tools that the USN now use (and some they don't - ski jump) - until the RAF's successful campaign to get rid of the RN's true FW carriers we still were world leaders. They tried again in the 2000's to get rid of the FAA FW once and for all and have, so far. failed in this attempt. Cats and traps is not a turn on capability that is picked up in a quick conversion course - this is what the junior joes do but the Sqns need to be run by experienced CV operators. In addition the LSOs need to be very experienced C&Ts pilots - again something the RAF shows no interest in developing.
If JSF goes very badly wrong timewise, the FAA would be able to stand up an F18 Sqn fairly quickly and certainly in the timeframe of a capable QE Class. Again this is not anti RAF banter but they need to refocus from their daily attempts to diminish the FAA (and AAC) and get on with delivering this new (for a while) capability in a Joint fashion.
The FAA and the RNAS before it invented carrier aviation and all the main tools that the USN now use (and some they don't - ski jump) - until the RAF's successful campaign to get rid of the RN's true FW carriers we still were world leaders. They tried again in the 2000's to get rid of the FAA FW once and for all and have, so far. failed in this attempt. Cats and traps is not a turn on capability that is picked up in a quick conversion course - this is what the junior joes do but the Sqns need to be run by experienced CV operators. In addition the LSOs need to be very experienced C&Ts pilots - again something the RAF shows no interest in developing.
If JSF goes very badly wrong timewise, the FAA would be able to stand up an F18 Sqn fairly quickly and certainly in the timeframe of a capable QE Class. Again this is not anti RAF banter but they need to refocus from their daily attempts to diminish the FAA (and AAC) and get on with delivering this new (for a while) capability in a Joint fashion.
I understand that following the extended lease given to the R.N. Buccaneer and Phantom squadrons, in 1970, they were run on but increasingly with R.A.F. Air and Ground Crews. Something the then C.A.S. Sir John Grandy wasn't happy about at all, but that is what was decided. Do any of you recall this being the case and were the Navy Phantom/Buccaneer squadrons made up of a significant number of light blue people by 1978 when all came to an end.
FB
FB
Not sure if there were many (if any) RAF ground crew embarked on Ark back then.... but, the honor of making the last ever RN cat launch went to a light blue pilot, when Flt.Lt M.MacLeod RAF, departed Ark's waist cat on 27th Nov 1978 in Phantom/012, XT820.
IIRC......about half of 892's aircrew were light blue on that last Ark embarkation....??
Edit:
Not quite 50% judging by uniform colour in this 1978 photo.
IIRC......about half of 892's aircrew were light blue on that last Ark embarkation....??
Edit:
Not quite 50% judging by uniform colour in this 1978 photo.
Last edited by GeeRam; 28th Jan 2012 at 12:44.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Future Fast Jets?
Whatever the yanks decide to let us have (witholding certain electronics or keeping the avionics/weapons software access codes for themselves, of course).
Whatever the yanks decide to let us have (witholding certain electronics or keeping the avionics/weapons software access codes for themselves, of course).
I would think....the question better asked is there going to be an RAF that needs Future Fast Jets....and can afford them? The other question that is begged...is just how many Fast Jets can the RAF/UK MOD afford?
What Threat must the RAF consider from future adversaries?
Just who is going to be the "Enemy" and what capability do they have and will have in the future?
Will the FFJ even be a manned aircraft?
What Threat must the RAF consider from future adversaries?
Just who is going to be the "Enemy" and what capability do they have and will have in the future?
Will the FFJ even be a manned aircraft?
A recent editorial in one of the glossy magazines, by Jon Lake, says that Senior Air Force officers are not that convinced that the unmanned fighter is not quite the future its been all cracked up to be. I can't quote nything more specifically because I don't have the magazine article to hand. But I can look it out later.
FB
FB
says that Senior Air Force officers are not that convinced that the unmanned fighter is not quite the future its been all cracked up to be
Senior air force officers don't fly fast jets, perhaps bar a once-in-a-tour jolly, so I wouldn't say they have any inherent motivation to favour manned aircraft. As and when the unmanned option surpasses the manned one in capability and flexibility, I would bet the farm on their airships chopping cockpits in double-quick time. They've had their fun already and probably don't care if we get ours or not.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez it must get awfully tiring being that paranoid, Bismark. The entire RAF isn't out to destroy the FAA, believe it or not, although I suspect nothing that I or anyone else says will convince you of that. Does the RAF want to operate F-35? Yes, of course - it is Airpower, just as the RN want to because they see it as maritime power. You could turn the RN argument around and say the carrier is only a moving airfield to deploy air power so should be run by the RAF. 
JSF will be a joint RN/RAF endeavour, which is the correct way ahead, imho. With only 9-12 embarked and far more on land you cannot argue that all RN is the way ahead and when they are embarked those RN pilots will be useful (for example explaining that it is a ship NOT a boat).
Now if everyone could stop bitching and get on with it that would be great.
JSF will be a joint RN/RAF endeavour, which is the correct way ahead, imho. With only 9-12 embarked and far more on land you cannot argue that all RN is the way ahead and when they are embarked those RN pilots will be useful (for example explaining that it is a ship NOT a boat).
Now if everyone could stop bitching and get on with it that would be great.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Times a couple of days ago.
Tom Coghlan Defence Correspondent
Last updated January 26 2012 12:01AM
The Royal Navy may have to buy French fighter jets for Britain’s new aircraft carrier amid growing doubts over the American-designed Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior officer has warned.
Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, who retires as Commander-in-Chief Fleet in March, told industrialists that there was mounting concern within the Ministry of Defence about the increasing costs and delays to the JSF programme.
In a detailed note of his speech to the ADS Maritime Interest Group, which has been seen by The Times, Admiral Soar warned that US defence spending cuts could jeopardise the deal.
He was quoted as saying that Britain might do better to invest in what he called an “interim aircraft capability” and named two potentially cheaper alternatives – the American-built F18 Super Hornet or the French Dassault Rafale jet. The carrier is due to be ready in 2019 but Britain might not acquire the JSF until a decade later, Admiral Soar suggested.
The US is due to cut $487 billion (£312 billion) from defence spending over the next decade but this could rise to a $1 trillion. And as the Pentagon cuts its order of JSF aircraft, the overall cost per aircraft rises steadily. They already cost $100 million each.
Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary, acknowledged last week that the JSF programme may be delayed.
Admiral Soar told his audience last month that the developments were potentially “game changing” for Britain and predicted that the purchase of JSF will be the big question in Britain’s 2015 strategic defence review. Britain has invested £2 billion in the programme and components for the JSF will be made in British factories. The aircraft was due to be delivered in 2018.
MoD officials said that contingencies are now being considered with discussion on whether to change the variant of JSF Britain buys, or to purchase a different aircraft.
Elizabeth Quintana, of the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, said: “Most of the JSF partner [nations] are having to look at other options. There are no fixed costs; they are going ever upwards and if they cross a certain threshold Britain will have to look to buy elsewhere.”
In the Strategic Defence Review of 2010 the Government said it would change the JSF variant it was buying from the short take-off Variant B to the Variant C. Now, The Times understands, there is a renewed MoD consideration for Variant B, backed strongly by Mr Panetta this week.
Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said: “There will be very grave concerns that problems with JSF may lead to the Government purchasing an interim aircraft at a time of deep defence cuts. We need to know whether money already spent on this project would be wasted.”
Peter Luff, the Defence Equipment Minister, said: “We continue to plan on delivery of JSF; however, we will not set a firm in-service date until after 2013.”
Last updated January 26 2012 12:01AM
The Royal Navy may have to buy French fighter jets for Britain’s new aircraft carrier amid growing doubts over the American-designed Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior officer has warned.
Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, who retires as Commander-in-Chief Fleet in March, told industrialists that there was mounting concern within the Ministry of Defence about the increasing costs and delays to the JSF programme.
In a detailed note of his speech to the ADS Maritime Interest Group, which has been seen by The Times, Admiral Soar warned that US defence spending cuts could jeopardise the deal.
He was quoted as saying that Britain might do better to invest in what he called an “interim aircraft capability” and named two potentially cheaper alternatives – the American-built F18 Super Hornet or the French Dassault Rafale jet. The carrier is due to be ready in 2019 but Britain might not acquire the JSF until a decade later, Admiral Soar suggested.
The US is due to cut $487 billion (£312 billion) from defence spending over the next decade but this could rise to a $1 trillion. And as the Pentagon cuts its order of JSF aircraft, the overall cost per aircraft rises steadily. They already cost $100 million each.
Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary, acknowledged last week that the JSF programme may be delayed.
Admiral Soar told his audience last month that the developments were potentially “game changing” for Britain and predicted that the purchase of JSF will be the big question in Britain’s 2015 strategic defence review. Britain has invested £2 billion in the programme and components for the JSF will be made in British factories. The aircraft was due to be delivered in 2018.
MoD officials said that contingencies are now being considered with discussion on whether to change the variant of JSF Britain buys, or to purchase a different aircraft.
Elizabeth Quintana, of the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, said: “Most of the JSF partner [nations] are having to look at other options. There are no fixed costs; they are going ever upwards and if they cross a certain threshold Britain will have to look to buy elsewhere.”
In the Strategic Defence Review of 2010 the Government said it would change the JSF variant it was buying from the short take-off Variant B to the Variant C. Now, The Times understands, there is a renewed MoD consideration for Variant B, backed strongly by Mr Panetta this week.
Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said: “There will be very grave concerns that problems with JSF may lead to the Government purchasing an interim aircraft at a time of deep defence cuts. We need to know whether money already spent on this project would be wasted.”
Peter Luff, the Defence Equipment Minister, said: “We continue to plan on delivery of JSF; however, we will not set a firm in-service date until after 2013.”