617 to be first F-35 Sqn
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe history and revery has resulted in 6-ft getting the first F-35 Sqn; proving that age, seniority and provenance are perhaps not as important to those at the very top of the RAF. So, just because 617 hasn't flown a 'fighter' since 1943 are we saying they shouldn't be doing it from 2016 onwards? As a comparison both 3(F) and 19(F) flew reconnaissance aircraft for some time during their early years - not a fighter in sight!
Orca, it'd be nice to see 'Chequers' or 'Quiche' get the next one...
Orca, it'd be nice to see 'Chequers' or 'Quiche' get the next one...
Last edited by MSOCS; 18th Jul 2013 at 23:25.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the RAF given it an F designator yet? Just cos the Yanks call it an F doesn't mean me will... I would have thought FGR?
and was I the only person who saw someone say they're disbanding 617Sqn before reforming if we actually get these things? What happens if we don't....
and was I the only person who saw someone say they're disbanding 617Sqn before reforming if we actually get these things? What happens if we don't....
BEags,1.3Vs, smuj et al,
The F-35 is, first and foremost, an attack and electronic warfare platform (F- or B-designation irrelevant to the Americans, who chose the designation - witness F-105). We bought some natty destroyers to do the air defence bit. There are already arguments ongoing about whether the F-35 will need to augment this due to the issues of radar horizon, etc, but the number of F-35s we are going to get is almost certainly inadequate for them to be employed in both roles. If they are sat on CAP, the carrier will not be contributing very much by its presence. So they quite simply have to be attack platforms first, or the whole package will be exposed as a waste of money. A bomber numberplate is therefore entirely appropriate!
However I'm not convinced that the (undoubted) PR value of 617 Sqn should be allowed to override the seniority order to such a gross extent - it is over 30 years younger than II(AC) Sqn, for example, and I am a bit surprised that the succession of that squadron hasn't been sorted out yet. 120 Sqn is out there, with early standard award, a maritime history and a far more important role in WW2, and while it is probably being held back for an as-yet unconfirmed MPA squadron, nominating such a famous Coastal Command unit would have shown a bit of an olive branch to the Navy after all the recent rancour. Nominating 617 just sticks up the middle finger, really - especially at their old rivals IX(B), who are by far the senior bomber squadron and have an exemplary operational history stretching through the entire history of the RAF, including sinking the Tirpitz!
The F-35 is, first and foremost, an attack and electronic warfare platform (F- or B-designation irrelevant to the Americans, who chose the designation - witness F-105). We bought some natty destroyers to do the air defence bit. There are already arguments ongoing about whether the F-35 will need to augment this due to the issues of radar horizon, etc, but the number of F-35s we are going to get is almost certainly inadequate for them to be employed in both roles. If they are sat on CAP, the carrier will not be contributing very much by its presence. So they quite simply have to be attack platforms first, or the whole package will be exposed as a waste of money. A bomber numberplate is therefore entirely appropriate!
However I'm not convinced that the (undoubted) PR value of 617 Sqn should be allowed to override the seniority order to such a gross extent - it is over 30 years younger than II(AC) Sqn, for example, and I am a bit surprised that the succession of that squadron hasn't been sorted out yet. 120 Sqn is out there, with early standard award, a maritime history and a far more important role in WW2, and while it is probably being held back for an as-yet unconfirmed MPA squadron, nominating such a famous Coastal Command unit would have shown a bit of an olive branch to the Navy after all the recent rancour. Nominating 617 just sticks up the middle finger, really - especially at their old rivals IX(B), who are by far the senior bomber squadron and have an exemplary operational history stretching through the entire history of the RAF, including sinking the Tirpitz!
Easy Street,
Respect to your argument re squadron seniority etc. a thought occurred to me about tradition/history. Wasn't 360 Squadron (Cottesmore Canberra's) a joint RAF, Royal Navy unit ? Would that not be more appropriate in this situation?
Just a thought
Smudge
Respect to your argument re squadron seniority etc. a thought occurred to me about tradition/history. Wasn't 360 Squadron (Cottesmore Canberra's) a joint RAF, Royal Navy unit ? Would that not be more appropriate in this situation?
Just a thought
Smudge
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smuj, you are correct Sir, 360 being a joint aircraft up to disbandment to my knowledge.
I was wondering how the RAF 'traditionalists' (habitists) feel about 617 being a 50% dark blue Sqn?
Personally I agree with Orca that 809 NAS would be an entirely appropriate numberplate. It never felt right having 800 NAS without 801 NAS to banter at Cottesmore! ;-)
I was wondering how the RAF 'traditionalists' (habitists) feel about 617 being a 50% dark blue Sqn?
Personally I agree with Orca that 809 NAS would be an entirely appropriate numberplate. It never felt right having 800 NAS without 801 NAS to banter at Cottesmore! ;-)
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 19th Jul 2013 at 02:15.
It's a clever bit of cynical PR; good headlines for the RAF/MoD - the dykebreachers are probably the only RAF Sqn the public knows (apart from the Reds) and many of my civvy friends sleep in their beds at night convinced we have at least 617 sqns of aircraft in the RAF.....after all, most organisations wouldn't miss out all numbers from 230 to 617 would they???
No issue at all having RN crew/maintainers on 617, as 801 NAS will be similar. No need for 899 to stand up provided RN needs are catered for by 17(R) TES as the OEU. I agree with Easy Street - the small (initial) number of F35s being purchased conveys a small CAG, leaving the T45s to pick up the Air defence role. This seems quite a risk - esp given the ASaC 'holiday'. Perhaps subsequent further F35 purchases in the next epoch will permit enlarged CAGs, but this will be reliant of decisions re UCAVs and F35A/B/Hybrid C made in the future.
Mainjafad - the P38 was assessed as sub optimal by the UK as the proposed UK version ordered in 1940 lacked turbo-superchargers and was therefore underperforming. The UK order was taken up by the USAAF after Dec 41; however, it was the RAF name of 'Lightning' that was adopted by the US...so we did have a part to play...
No issue at all having RN crew/maintainers on 617, as 801 NAS will be similar. No need for 899 to stand up provided RN needs are catered for by 17(R) TES as the OEU. I agree with Easy Street - the small (initial) number of F35s being purchased conveys a small CAG, leaving the T45s to pick up the Air defence role. This seems quite a risk - esp given the ASaC 'holiday'. Perhaps subsequent further F35 purchases in the next epoch will permit enlarged CAGs, but this will be reliant of decisions re UCAVs and F35A/B/Hybrid C made in the future.
Mainjafad - the P38 was assessed as sub optimal by the UK as the proposed UK version ordered in 1940 lacked turbo-superchargers and was therefore underperforming. The UK order was taken up by the USAAF after Dec 41; however, it was the RAF name of 'Lightning' that was adopted by the US...so we did have a part to play...
Anyone here from 617 Sqn? What's the view in the squadron? As fine a reputation as 617 has, this business smacks of a PR sop to a Twittering public who, after all its publicity this year, are almost as familiar with the number 617 as they are 633 - and in any case probably think these are the only two squadrons in the RAF.
I agree that 74 or 92 are far better candidates; didn't the former introduce our first Lightning?
I agree that 74 or 92 are far better candidates; didn't the former introduce our first Lightning?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely rather than an 8xx squadron number, the first should be a trials squadron numbered 700?
How about 700D ? (for dave)
You can't use 700L - thats already taken
How about 700D ? (for dave)
You can't use 700L - thats already taken
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 19th Jul 2013 at 20:33.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-35 is, first and foremost, an attack and electronic warfare platform (F- or B-designation irrelevant to the Americans, who chose the designation - witness F-105).
As for choice of squadron, perhaps some wag in the MoD simply thought the 617 badge might be appropriate for the type. The boys in the paint shop have been getting in enough practice after all...
XV490,
I doubt many on 617 care about what the squadron will be doing in 2016, and will instead be focussed on their imminent det to KAF (I presume they'll be off there in 4 months or so to replace 12), and subsequent disbanding!
With the age and experience range of the majority of 617's aircrew, I seriously doubt if more than 10% of them will fly F35. Certainly none of the back seaters will be involved with the programme at all.
Also, considering we're nowhere near 17(R) actually doing anything with an ac yet, isn't 2016 a bit early for an operational squadron? Are we even going to bother running our own OCU?
Edit: in fact, speaking of 12, what's their future? Are they disbanding post-HERRICK as per the popular rumours, or continuing until March 2014 like I imagine 617 will?
Anyone here from 617 Sqn? What's the view in the squadron?
With the age and experience range of the majority of 617's aircrew, I seriously doubt if more than 10% of them will fly F35. Certainly none of the back seaters will be involved with the programme at all.
Also, considering we're nowhere near 17(R) actually doing anything with an ac yet, isn't 2016 a bit early for an operational squadron? Are we even going to bother running our own OCU?
Edit: in fact, speaking of 12, what's their future? Are they disbanding post-HERRICK as per the popular rumours, or continuing until March 2014 like I imagine 617 will?
Last edited by 5 Forward 6 Back; 20th Jul 2013 at 15:34.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought 17(R) forms and disbands in the US once the trials on the first 3 are complete.
Looking at the pics above perhaps all of the UK F35s should have ROYAL NAVY on one side and ROYAL AIR FORCE on the other. Whilst the RN have a history of this the RAF didn't until they started putting it on their helos recently.
Looking at the pics above perhaps all of the UK F35s should have ROYAL NAVY on one side and ROYAL AIR FORCE on the other. Whilst the RN have a history of this the RAF didn't until they started putting it on their helos recently.
I thought the same with 17(R), but isn't it going to continue in the UK as a TES unit, rather than an OCU?
Where are we actually planning on training crews for the post-2016 617; will they all go through the US FTU before doing a short "finishing school" in the UK?
Where are we actually planning on training crews for the post-2016 617; will they all go through the US FTU before doing a short "finishing school" in the UK?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as the UK operate F-35 there will be a requirement to enhance and validate emergent capabilities through trials; therefore, 17(R) will continue to exist. The TES aircraft will be permanently based in the US and so will 17(R).
UK students will conduct their F-35 training at Eglin AFB as part of the Integrated Training Centre or ITC. Whether the UK goes ahead with forming its own OCU later downstream remains to be seen but I'm confident the intention is still there to do so.
UK students will conduct their F-35 training at Eglin AFB as part of the Integrated Training Centre or ITC. Whether the UK goes ahead with forming its own OCU later downstream remains to be seen but I'm confident the intention is still there to do so.