RAF Fast-Jet Combat Squadrons - 80% Reduction Since Gulf War I

[CoffmanStarter]

Many thanks RAFEngO ... Don't worry the F35 will solve all our problems

[alfred_the_great]

Easy Street - surely at least one of the F-35 Sqns will be spending 66% of the time away.

[Easy Street]

The trouble with RN harmony is that it works on the assumption that people will alternate between sea and shore postings, so over the course of 2 tours it averages out at more like 33% of the time away (although probably a bit more like 40% if there is an out-of-area during the shore posting - hmmm, 40% sounds a bit like the other 2 services' harmony!). Trouble is with the F-35 fleet there won't be enough shore postings that will allow guys to maintain their expertise. So we will either need to rotate people in and out of the F-35 fleet to other aircraft types every 2-3 years, with commensurate loss of experience, or we'll need to give them back-to-back tours working at a 66% deployment ratio. It can undoubtedly be sold to eager 20-somethings but the only people that stick around in the F-35 force long enough to become tactical expert QWIs or seasoned COs will be the kind of sociopaths who don't give a monkeys about family life... hang on, that might just work :-)

[alfred_the_great]

On the basis most Warfare Officers are around and about 660/3 until senior Lt Cdr/junior Cdr*, I'm not sure why other Warfare Officers - who will be paid much more - are "potentially" griping.

More to the point, standby for the RAF and Army to follow RN harmony rules!

*I certainly was until PWO Course, and the system is still living of the fat of my 14 months shoreside for my last 2 sea drafts and the next 2 (fingers crossed) coming up.

[Easy Street]

No chance of Army or RAF adopting RN harmony. Ignoring discussion of the willingness of different types of people to spend 2/3 their time away, the training requirements of both services cannot be squeezed into 33% of their time. A warship can conduct training in international waters to maintain its skills during a long deployment, but soldiers and aircraft deployed overseas are constrained by host nation agreements which often limit training (even assuming there are any decent opportunities to train in the first place). Given that a typical Brigade took almost 18 months to work up for HERRICK, they'd have to pull a 3-year deployment at RN harmony.... can't see that one somehow.

[Onceapilot]

The sad thing, is that some of us can see that Brit Mil is going to get kicked up the arse in a fight soon! Hmmm... maybe we have been already?

OAP

[alfred_the_great]

ES - Medicine Man and BATUK immediately spring to mind to disprove your point for the Army, and the extended OOA deployments in the ME for FJ Sqns also point to the RAF having to embrace it. The COUGAR series of Exercises will also see units routinely deploying every Autumn (and thus training Spring-time).

As for training cycles - perhaps the process needs to change. I'll grant you that I don't think the RN trains enough, but 18 months for a Bde to generate is far too much.

Don't forget, 660/3 relates to time out of base port, not time on deployment.

[Martin the Martian]

RAF/RN fast jet combat assets and associated training units /shadow squadrons as at 1 January 1991, not taking into account composite units in the Middle East (information from World Air Power Journal volumes 2, 3, 6):

Belize City Airport (Strike Command)
Harrier GR.3 (No.1417 Flight)

RAF Brawdy (Support Command)
Hawk T.1A (No.1 TWU/Nos.79, 234 Squadrons)

RAF Brüggen (RAF Germany)
Tornado GR.1 (Nos.9, 14, 17, 31 Squadrons)

RAF Chivenor (Support Command)
Hawk T.1A (No.2 TWU/Nos.63, 151 Squadrons)

RAF Coltishall (Strike Command No.1 Group)
Jaguar GR.1A (Nos.6, 41, 54 Squadrons)

RAF Coningsby (Strike Command No.11 Group)
Tornado F.3 (Nos.5, 29 Squadrons, No.229 OCU/No.65 Squadron

RAF Cottesmore (Strike Command No.1 Group)
Tornado GR.1 (TTTE)

RAF Gütersloh (RAF Germany)
Harrier GR.5 (No.3 Squadron)
Harrier GR.7 (No.4 Squadron)

RAF Honington (Strike Command No.1 Group)
Tornado GR.1 (TWCU/No.45 Squadron)
Tornado GR.1A (No.13 Squadron)

RAF Laarbruch
Tornado GR.1 (Nos.15, 16, 20 Squadrons)
Tornado GR.1A (No.2 Squadron)

RAF Leeming (Strike Command No.11 Group)
Tornado F.3 (Nos.11, 23, 25 Squadrons)

RAF Leuchars (Strike Command No.11 Group)
Tornado F.3 (Nos.43, 111 Squadrons)
Phantom FGR.2 (No.228 OCU/No.64 Squadron)

RAF Lossiemouth (Strike Command No.18 Group)
Buccaneer S.2B (Nos.12, 208 Squadrons, No.237 OCU)
Jaguar GR.1A (No.226 OCU) -No.1 Group

RAF Marham (Strike Command No.1 Group)
Tornado GR.1 (Nos.27, 617 Squadron)
Tornado GR.1A (No.13 Squadron)
Canberra PR.9 (No.1 PRU) -No.18 Group

Mount Pleasant Airport (Strike Command)
Phantom FGR.2 (No.1435 Flight)

RAF Wattisham (Strike Command No.11 Group)
Phantom FGR.2 (No.56 Squadrons)
F-4J(UK) Phantom II (No.74 Squadron)

RAF Wildenrath (RAF Germany)
Phantom FGR.2 (Nos.19, 92 Squadrons)

RAF Wittering (Strike Command No.1 Group)
Harrier GR.5 (No.1 Squadron, No.233 OCU)

RNAS Yeovilton (Flag Officer Naval Air Command)
Sea Harrier FRS.1 (800, 801, 899 Naval Air Squadrons)


Makes you want to weep, really.

[ATFQ]

So, How Many Fast-jet Squadrons Does the RAF Need?

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[Ronald Reagan]

ATFQ, we could leave the EU and save on that, we could cut the police by around 50% to 60%, we cut could the education budget, large cuts to much of the public sector, there are all sorts of ways to get the money if we wanted to!

[mopardave]

ATFQ, we could leave the EU and save on that, we could cut the police by around 50% to 60%, we cut could the education budget, large cuts to much of the public sector, there are all sorts of ways to get the money if we wanted to!

A joke right?

[Roadster280]

Martin,

The list you put up shows 5 fleets capable of ground attack (Harrier, Jag, Tornado, Buccaneer and Phantom).

AD has two types (three if you count Sea Harrier) - Tornado & Phantom.

This must have been ridiculously expensive, to have so many fleets with overlapping roles.

Now there are two types, and one to come (i.e. F35) that will replace the Tornado. Seems like a more affordable proposition to me. Maybe more frames in more squadrons required, but not more types.

[Rakshasa]

.... till something breaks and you find yourself grounding 50% of your Air Force...

[Dominator2]

Rakshasa,

I totally agree. Ask the USAF the impact on their Air Defence when all F15Cs were grounded due to a fatigue problem!. All eggs in one basket is a very dangerous (high risk) strategy.

[Heathrow Harry]

"So, if 6 fast-jet combat squadrons are not enough then how many will the RAF need by 2020 to be credible and effective?"

Credible to do WHAT?

All depends on the mission - if all we're going to do is intercept the odd LCA who has forgotten to change frequency or deter the ravening hordes of Wee Ecks Army then 6 squadrons is too much

If we expect Mr Putin to decide to "protect" Russians living in Mayfair then we'd need 60 squadrons

[Martin the Martian]

Roadster, the five fleets of ground attack aircraft were four, as the Phantom was used only for air defence. Bear in mind also that there were different roles for different fleets.

The Buccaneer was committed to maritime strike and would no doubt have been kept busy trying to keep the Soviet Navy from breaking out into the North Atlantic.

The Tornado GR.1 fleet was tasked with hitting strategic targets, many of which were in the rear of the WarPac forces.

Harriers and Jaguars would have operated in support of ground troops, and in different places. I believe a good proportion of the Coltishall and Wittering aircraft would have deployed to Norway. Remember that we needed so many jets because the front line would have stretched from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, as somebody once famously put it.

As for air defence, the Tornado had already replaced a good proportion of the Phantom force. The remainder, along, with the Jaguar, was due to be replaced by the EFA (whatever happened to that?). The Sea Harrier, of course, would be embarked on all three carriers and probably far away from British shores.

I think that if the Cold War had continued the Typhoon would have entered service as originally planned -and a lot sooner- supplanting the Jag and Phantom, while the Buccaneer would have been replaced by further Tornados. I seem to recall an article somewhere around 1990 in which BAe were looking at a variant based on the F.3 airframe with the Foxhunter optimised for surface search. I think three or even four Sea Eagles under the fuselage were touted as standard loads.

[Roadster280]

Fair points all.

Some may argue that if it can't be paid for today, it probably wasn't affordable then either, in reality. Hence the need for a "peace dividend".