Shortage of Navs
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Nimrod navigators may have been Gp 2 so as to grapple with legacy kit like the Kollsman sextant, Loran, and log on chart work, but were said to be really Gp 1.
I knew at least one Nimrod nav that went to GR 1 and another to SK. I have a vague idea of a FJ nav going Nimrod after losing his bang seat cat.
With a new maritime aircraft I suspect the ability to do a manual airplay and 3-star fix will be a distant memory for even the oldest still serving.
I knew at least one Nimrod nav that went to GR 1 and another to SK. I have a vague idea of a FJ nav going Nimrod after losing his bang seat cat.
With a new maritime aircraft I suspect the ability to do a manual airplay and 3-star fix will be a distant memory for even the oldest still serving.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I repeat, the most sensible thing is to expend the RN Obs pipeline on the King Air at Culdrose. As far as I am aware the Avenger flies with a radar emulator console so it should be configurable to any rear seat simulation. As the RAF have ceased the Nav Officer pipeline the RN should provide this maritime role, after all 6 or so P8s shouldn't need a huge cadre of Officer Navs. Also I don't think it would take long for a Merlin or Lynx Obs to convert to the FW MPA role.
Are you saying the RN has a surplus, Bismark? If so, you'd better hope the Chancellor doesn't read this. If not, who will fill their shoes? If the RN has a secret pipeline running with a capability greater than its requirement, watch out for SDSR2015.
No announcements have even been made yet. If decisions have been made, we don't know about them yet.
The biggest problem is that you and I see buying P-8 as re-establishing a long-standing capability. In Government funding terms it is now, effectively, introducing a new capability with all the other expensive stuff that involves. There will have to be trade-offs and the Navy, sadly, is likely to have to give up its share of "other stuff" in order to maintain/secure the funding for the carriers, aircrew for F-35, support issues, existing programmes, etc, etc.
I would love it to be joint, and I hope it may well be, but there is no slack left. I suspect, if it does become an RAF role again, the Air Force will have to give up something else.
Nothing is free these days.
No announcements have even been made yet. If decisions have been made, we don't know about them yet.
The biggest problem is that you and I see buying P-8 as re-establishing a long-standing capability. In Government funding terms it is now, effectively, introducing a new capability with all the other expensive stuff that involves. There will have to be trade-offs and the Navy, sadly, is likely to have to give up its share of "other stuff" in order to maintain/secure the funding for the carriers, aircrew for F-35, support issues, existing programmes, etc, etc.
I would love it to be joint, and I hope it may well be, but there is no slack left. I suspect, if it does become an RAF role again, the Air Force will have to give up something else.
Nothing is free these days.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said or intimated, putting a Pilot in the boot would, at first glance anyway, seem to relieve the shortage of WSO/Navs. I think there'd be a rush for the door from a Pilot branch perspective if that were the case. Few signed up to that, flying tours are now like gold dust and it isn't where most Pilots would wish to find themselves (note I said "most" not all) It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul at the end of the day. The system incorrectly took the saving a few years back, probably on "risk" and will pay for it as it comes back to bite their proverbial behinds. Such is life; we all make mistakes and hardly ever learn from them.
CM, I was thinking the same thing as you. The money has to come from somewhere but at the same time CAS doesn't want to see any further reduction in his combat aircraft numbers which are already barely more than Sweden's!
The Chancellor has, yet again, unscrupulously set another bar for Defence to find money in-year and seems to forget that although we stopped spunking money at the Afghanistan problem, the ISIS one is still very much right at the front of the RAF's mission. All this against a backdrop of ageing platforms (GR4) that require a replacement within the next SDSR period.
CM, I was thinking the same thing as you. The money has to come from somewhere but at the same time CAS doesn't want to see any further reduction in his combat aircraft numbers which are already barely more than Sweden's!
The Chancellor has, yet again, unscrupulously set another bar for Defence to find money in-year and seems to forget that although we stopped spunking money at the Afghanistan problem, the ISIS one is still very much right at the front of the RAF's mission. All this against a backdrop of ageing platforms (GR4) that require a replacement within the next SDSR period.
Pilot sin the back seat
I didn't say anything about it being a full tour. You just schedule a pilot to be in the back for a trip. The next day he can be in the front. Much like how a QFI (or an OCU instructor if flying a twin sticker) can fly in either seat. Rather than limiting their flying they will actually get much more airborne time. They will just need to get over the fear of not having a stick and letting someone else fly them. I'm not saying I'd enjoy it but then I'm not a Tornado pilot.
Pilots won't PVR just because they have to do a few back seat trips. They would be understandably miffed to have to do it for a full tour though.
Of course there will be those that say it'll take far too long to train a pilot to do the job of a WSO. Let's bear in mind though that we are talking GR4. In 2015. Once the guy learns the switches surely he could cope. He may not immediately do the job in the same way as a WSO but he wouldn't be terrible. After all, who better to speak to a pilot than another pilot. They will know what each other are thinking since they have been trained in the same way.
It may not be perfect and I expect the Nav mafia to brand me an infidel in due course but I have been reliably informed it has worked in the not so distant past.
Can anyone who operates or has operated the GR4 back this up or should I just crawl back into my lair?
BV
Pilots won't PVR just because they have to do a few back seat trips. They would be understandably miffed to have to do it for a full tour though.
Of course there will be those that say it'll take far too long to train a pilot to do the job of a WSO. Let's bear in mind though that we are talking GR4. In 2015. Once the guy learns the switches surely he could cope. He may not immediately do the job in the same way as a WSO but he wouldn't be terrible. After all, who better to speak to a pilot than another pilot. They will know what each other are thinking since they have been trained in the same way.
It may not be perfect and I expect the Nav mafia to brand me an infidel in due course but I have been reliably informed it has worked in the not so distant past.
Can anyone who operates or has operated the GR4 back this up or should I just crawl back into my lair?
BV
Bob,
You don't usually do this, but today you have just come up with a complete bucket of poo. Sorry, buddy, but that is just so wrong in almost every respect.
I hardly know where to start.
Firstly, the squadrons don't have twice as many pilots as they need. You work the rest out regarding that one. Next, no pilot can just jump in the back seat, where many have never even been before, and automatically work all the kit - let alone become practiced and proficient to the degree where they could be declared operational.
QFIs, QWI pilots, IREs, etc, fly in the back seat. Experienced people with additional back seat training. So, you going to take a junior pilot, still working up or at very least getting good at what we need him to do and now tell him he's got to get proficient in tha back seat too? Remember that all the time he's in the back seat, he's not available to fly in his own seat, therefore his progression slows by 50%. They will not get more airborne time, it's just that half of it will be in the wrong place.
And as for this...
He wouldn't be terrible? This is the measure of the RAF's operational aircrew you are suggesting?
You see how rediculous your post is or would further explanation help?
You don't usually do this, but today you have just come up with a complete bucket of poo. Sorry, buddy, but that is just so wrong in almost every respect.
I hardly know where to start.
Firstly, the squadrons don't have twice as many pilots as they need. You work the rest out regarding that one. Next, no pilot can just jump in the back seat, where many have never even been before, and automatically work all the kit - let alone become practiced and proficient to the degree where they could be declared operational.
QFIs, QWI pilots, IREs, etc, fly in the back seat. Experienced people with additional back seat training. So, you going to take a junior pilot, still working up or at very least getting good at what we need him to do and now tell him he's got to get proficient in tha back seat too? Remember that all the time he's in the back seat, he's not available to fly in his own seat, therefore his progression slows by 50%. They will not get more airborne time, it's just that half of it will be in the wrong place.
And as for this...
Once the guy learns the switches surely he could cope. He may not immediately do the job in the same way as a WSO but he wouldn't be terrible.
You see how rediculous your post is or would further explanation help?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 10th Jun 2015 at 11:12.
CM
As I said I have never flown the Tornado and of course it is pure speculation on my point.
Partially it was intended to get a rise from some of the nav mafia. Failed. Partially it was to enquire if it was feasible. Probably failed. However, it is partially based on the fact that I know a guy who, as a pilot, has flown as a WSO in the back of a GR4. He was a creamie who was posted to the GR4. During his first 18 months he flew in the rear seat. It wasn't just a local jolly either.
Anyway, I respect your opinion so will just let it lie. I didn't even get so much as a nibble.
BV
Partially it was intended to get a rise from some of the nav mafia. Failed. Partially it was to enquire if it was feasible. Probably failed. However, it is partially based on the fact that I know a guy who, as a pilot, has flown as a WSO in the back of a GR4. He was a creamie who was posted to the GR4. During his first 18 months he flew in the rear seat. It wasn't just a local jolly either.
Anyway, I respect your opinion so will just let it lie. I didn't even get so much as a nibble.
BV
As an aside, snr navs were in various positions to make a case for keeping WSO Nav trg going, or at least extending the pipeline. They were also in a position to retain light blue dedicated rear-crew trg, did they............... No they were more interested in getting a foot in the door with Voyager, and bumping the NCA out of the crew equation. You reep what you sow!
Could that be the Last,
You are very badly informed. Cases were made on all sides. Do you really think that it would just be navs fighting for navs? Do you think there is a special line of command that just deals with navs?
Now, just out of interest, you tell us all who those navs were, what positions they were in and what they could have possibly done to change things. Then tell me what magic spells they cast to get themselves onto Voyager and which NCAs were bumped.
Or was your entire statement just conjecture? Your call.
You are very badly informed. Cases were made on all sides. Do you really think that it would just be navs fighting for navs? Do you think there is a special line of command that just deals with navs?
Now, just out of interest, you tell us all who those navs were, what positions they were in and what they could have possibly done to change things. Then tell me what magic spells they cast to get themselves onto Voyager and which NCAs were bumped.
Or was your entire statement just conjecture? Your call.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly will a Nav or Observer bring to the party that a fully swept-up FMS coupled with glass cockpit systems couldn't manage itself?
I'm afraid I have to agree with Circle Kay that certain fleets will probably not survive an SDSR and could easily provide the MMA platform with highly skilled and proficient mission managers from their Non-Commissioned WSOp cadre.
Now if there's a dimmer switch that needs operating, that changes things completely.......
I'm afraid I have to agree with Circle Kay that certain fleets will probably not survive an SDSR and could easily provide the MMA platform with highly skilled and proficient mission managers from their Non-Commissioned WSOp cadre.
Now if there's a dimmer switch that needs operating, that changes things completely.......
MAD Boom,
All fine, but this they'd isn't about rear crew for anything in particular. The RAF doesn't need Navs for two pilot airliners. The shortage is showing up in the fast jet force with no replacements likely.
So you've jumped from fast jet WSOs to NCA rear crew. A bit of a disconnect.
All fine, but this they'd isn't about rear crew for anything in particular. The RAF doesn't need Navs for two pilot airliners. The shortage is showing up in the fast jet force with no replacements likely.
So you've jumped from fast jet WSOs to NCA rear crew. A bit of a disconnect.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening?
LJ
LJ
Nice that you agree we don't necessarily need them for P8 though.
CM,
At the time decisions were being made, and you are obviously informed, Navs not WSOs were in the decision loop, or at least providing the info to the VSOs on what savings etc could be made!
Wrt the MSO v WSOp on Voyager, what trade was the branch sponsor at the time.......?
As with most things in Defence, but more so with the RAF there seems to very little strategy, or, more importantly, a plan!
At the time decisions were being made, and you are obviously informed, Navs not WSOs were in the decision loop, or at least providing the info to the VSOs on what savings etc could be made!
Wrt the MSO v WSOp on Voyager, what trade was the branch sponsor at the time.......?
As with most things in Defence, but more so with the RAF there seems to very little strategy, or, more importantly, a plan!
Mad,
I see your point. I saw the P8 reference as something that was just going to exacerbate the shortage. But, given the fact, as you rightly say, modern multicrew ac don't need navs, I supposed that the discussion was more about legacy fj.
Courtney
I see your point. I saw the P8 reference as something that was just going to exacerbate the shortage. But, given the fact, as you rightly say, modern multicrew ac don't need navs, I supposed that the discussion was more about legacy fj.
Courtney
MAD Boom, Observers in the RN do not just navigate, they are the airborne Principal Warfare Officer; the mission commander or mission systems/ weapon system manager- navigation is just a small part of their role, but I'm sure you knew that.
Don't Apache Aircrew swap roles between being the Pilot one mission and the Gunner the next?
Too simplistic a comparison? Hmmm, so is calling the Observer "a navigator". And no, I am not an Observer!
Don't Apache Aircrew swap roles between being the Pilot one mission and the Gunner the next?
Too simplistic a comparison? Hmmm, so is calling the Observer "a navigator". And no, I am not an Observer!