RAF Fast-Jet Combat Squadrons - 80% Reduction Since Gulf War I
Kitbag] Available RAF assets 1989:
ROYAL AIR FORCE - UNITED KINGDOM
1. Binbrook, Lincs, UK:
a. No. 5 Squadron: 12 Tornado F3 (Lightning until 1987) (may have been at Coningsby)
b. No. 11 Squadron: 15 Tornado F3 (Lightning until May 1988, re-formed with F3 in August 1988)
ROYAL AIR FORCE - UNITED KINGDOM
1. Binbrook, Lincs, UK:
a. No. 5 Squadron: 12 Tornado F3 (Lightning until 1987) (may have been at Coningsby)
b. No. 11 Squadron: 15 Tornado F3 (Lightning until May 1988, re-formed with F3 in August 1988)
Binbrook closed as an operational base in 1988 when the Lightning was withdrawn from service.
Beagle - your post concerning the strength in 1956 is interesting, but of course quite irrelevant to today's situation. In those days we were geared up for a confrontation with the Soviets.
Nowadays of course it is quite unthinkable that there could be any military threat from Russia that we might get involved with!
Isn't it?
Nowadays of course it is quite unthinkable that there could be any military threat from Russia that we might get involved with!
Isn't it?
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter
It's quite funny to see the RW force listed as 'non combat sqns' in Kitbag's list. How times change......
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know where the '20 Sqn at Wildenrath' thing comes from? Corgi do a diecast GR1 of 20 Sqn Wildenrath and post #11 above lists 20 Sqn twice, once at Laarbruch and once at Wildenrath.
20 Sqn certainly were a Harrier squadron at RAF Wildenrath in 1975! I held for a short period at Wildenrath between my Gnat course and pre-TWU Hunter refresher. Which included a deployed Maxeval with 20 Sqn as an Ops Off.
Unfortunately their T-bird was U/S for the whole period though....
Unfortunately their T-bird was U/S for the whole period though....
20 Sqn went when the Harrier Force moved from Wildenrath up to Gutersloh in early '77.
As the Harriers taxied in to their new homes , the 20 Sqn machines dispersed to 3 and 4 Squadrons. Over the airwaves came a certain well known 20 Sqn aria.
" I scream , you scream , everybody loves ice cream......"
20s' twenties nights were no more, however 4 Squadron inherited their boss ( and my outfit).
As the Harriers taxied in to their new homes , the 20 Sqn machines dispersed to 3 and 4 Squadrons. Over the airwaves came a certain well known 20 Sqn aria.
" I scream , you scream , everybody loves ice cream......"
20s' twenties nights were no more, however 4 Squadron inherited their boss ( and my outfit).
Perhaps one of the best features of the training system was its ability to rapidly support the frontline. 1990/91 saw huge numbers of military aircrew and groundcrew pulled directly from Support Command to augment those deploying and to replace others that had deployed.
Strength in depth.
Strength in depth.
While quantity has a quality all of its own, has any assessment been done on how many aircraft those squadrons could generate, versus todays levels. Similarly, with the step forward in capability in general in terms of the weaponry, how many sorties would have been required 20 years ago to acheive the same effect that 16 aircraft did in ELLAMY?
While we are right to look at numbers (which in turn related to a large monolithic threat not far from our borders), comparing an airforce built to fight a short war prior to the end of the world as we know it, versus an expeditionary airforce optimised for precision targeting of buildings prior to our being embroiled in a decades long stabilty operation seems a bit pointless!
While we are right to look at numbers (which in turn related to a large monolithic threat not far from our borders), comparing an airforce built to fight a short war prior to the end of the world as we know it, versus an expeditionary airforce optimised for precision targeting of buildings prior to our being embroiled in a decades long stabilty operation seems a bit pointless!
Jimlad,
Of course your analysis of 'single-platform' capability has been the justification for the ramp-down in numbers over the past 20 years. The trouble is, that analysis only works if you can ensure that those platforms are in the right place at the right time. Setting aside operational-level considerations, such as whether a small number of "super-fighters" can maintain air supremacy without being able to sustain 24/7 operations, the strategic fact is that our leaders seem insitutionally incapable of keeping assets "in barracks", lest they be seen as irrelevant. And there is a requirement to have aircraft deployed for "Defence Diplomacy" purposes regardless of how capable each platform is; this gets progressively more painful the fewer aircraft you gave. You can sustain a 24-year detachment of Tornados to the Middle East with 7 then 5 squadrons, but if we are to have only one squadron of F-35s then it will have to spend at least 50% of its time at home, or it will soon not have any personnel - even the Navy couldn't retain people at that level of commitment over a specialist career.
So while I accept that modern aircraft are more capable on a platform-for-platform basis, basic consideration of our personnel will force us to scale back what we actually achieve with them. Assuming our 2* / 3* / 4* actually accept that, from time to time, none of the aircraft will be deployed on some operation or other as a way of justifying their existence. That might be a tall order.
Of course your analysis of 'single-platform' capability has been the justification for the ramp-down in numbers over the past 20 years. The trouble is, that analysis only works if you can ensure that those platforms are in the right place at the right time. Setting aside operational-level considerations, such as whether a small number of "super-fighters" can maintain air supremacy without being able to sustain 24/7 operations, the strategic fact is that our leaders seem insitutionally incapable of keeping assets "in barracks", lest they be seen as irrelevant. And there is a requirement to have aircraft deployed for "Defence Diplomacy" purposes regardless of how capable each platform is; this gets progressively more painful the fewer aircraft you gave. You can sustain a 24-year detachment of Tornados to the Middle East with 7 then 5 squadrons, but if we are to have only one squadron of F-35s then it will have to spend at least 50% of its time at home, or it will soon not have any personnel - even the Navy couldn't retain people at that level of commitment over a specialist career.
So while I accept that modern aircraft are more capable on a platform-for-platform basis, basic consideration of our personnel will force us to scale back what we actually achieve with them. Assuming our 2* / 3* / 4* actually accept that, from time to time, none of the aircraft will be deployed on some operation or other as a way of justifying their existence. That might be a tall order.
why would anybody now want to formally invade the U.K
Here is a list of likely/slightly less likely things that would happen if we got rid of our military (in no particular order):
1. Argentina takes the Falklands.
2. Turkey takes the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus.
3. Spain takes Gibraltar.
4. Sinn Fein/IRA take Ulster.
5. North Korea/China/Iran/Uganda or some other lot fancy the UK's wealth and mineral assets plus a seat at the EU table and invade.
No Bucks = No Buck Rogers to keep them away!
LJ
what have we done with that crock of sh!te that is MFTS?
That said, the current fleet isn't too bad a replacement for your picture above (but MFTS hasn't been delivered yet, either!):
And your picture above missed out the last of the Raspberry Ripple scheme aircraft:
Seeing as they are plastic, there is a good reason why they aren't black!
LJ
And your picture above missed out the last of the Raspberry Ripple scheme aircraft:
Seeing as they are plastic, there is a good reason why they aren't black!
LJ
LJ / Coff,
In the mid-1980s when I was on the HQ RAFSC Flight Safety Staff, the training fleet numbered over 1,000 aircraft (including gliders, AEFs / UASs). In addition, there were nearly 200 "reserve" aircraft (mainly Lightning, Hunter, Jaguar, Canberra and all the small training types) in storage at St Athan and Kemble. Immediate Readiness Reserve aircraft had all mods kept up to date and could be issued to the front-line in a few days. There were so many flying units / aircraft MUs that it took 6 months of the year to conduct the very comprehensive 3 to 5-day Flight Safety pre-AOC's Inspections back then.
In the mid-1980s when I was on the HQ RAFSC Flight Safety Staff, the training fleet numbered over 1,000 aircraft (including gliders, AEFs / UASs). In addition, there were nearly 200 "reserve" aircraft (mainly Lightning, Hunter, Jaguar, Canberra and all the small training types) in storage at St Athan and Kemble. Immediate Readiness Reserve aircraft had all mods kept up to date and could be issued to the front-line in a few days. There were so many flying units / aircraft MUs that it took 6 months of the year to conduct the very comprehensive 3 to 5-day Flight Safety pre-AOC's Inspections back then.
That to me is a niaive comment (unless I missed the irony).
Having said that , (it was of course tongue in cheek) do note that :
1. Argentina takes the Falklands.
2. Turkey takes the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus.
3. Spain takes Gibraltar.
4. Sinn Fein/IRA take Ulster.
5. North Korea/China/Iran/Uganda or some other lot fancy the UK's wealth and mineral assets plus a seat at the EU table and invade.
2. Turkey takes the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus.
3. Spain takes Gibraltar.
4. Sinn Fein/IRA take Ulster.
5. North Korea/China/Iran/Uganda or some other lot fancy the UK's wealth and mineral assets plus a seat at the EU table and invade.
4.The N.I. Prods alone would knock that lot out ( why do you think the six counties were delineated in the first place ?)
5. It's a pretty long hitch- hike for any of those others to get to us in the EU.
Uganda - bring 'em on!!!!!
Last edited by Haraka; 2nd Mar 2014 at 13:58.