Sea Jet
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
Try whinging to 2SL - surely he has your ear as a Naval chap?!
Why does it always seem to be the RAF's fault, stinking 'Crabs' etc? I seem to remember it was the admiralty that envisioned JFH and got rid of the SHAR in the first place.
Now, can we all get on?
ICBM
Try whinging to 2SL - surely he has your ear as a Naval chap?!
Why does it always seem to be the RAF's fault, stinking 'Crabs' etc? I seem to remember it was the admiralty that envisioned JFH and got rid of the SHAR in the first place.
Now, can we all get on?
ICBM
Spot on ICBM.
When the RN stood up and announced rather sheepishly that it had bitten off more than it could chew, and was unable to man it's share of JFH, it was pathetic to see the amount of people that tried to blame the "f-ing crabs." It's a terrible thing to not be able to admit to your own failings and shortcomings and always feel the need to try and pin the blame on someone else.
This paranoia is a terrible thing, but thankfully there is far more of it here on this thread than there is at Cottesmore.
Navaleye: We have a more capable and relevant Naval Air Squadron today than we have had in the past twenty years. Please take off those rose tinted glasses and try embracing the future rather than dripping constantly about the good old days.
If, as you say, the NAS is put under exclusive naval control, would things be any different? I very much doubt it. But what would I know, I'm just an f-ing crab who is out to ruin the RN completely....
When the RN stood up and announced rather sheepishly that it had bitten off more than it could chew, and was unable to man it's share of JFH, it was pathetic to see the amount of people that tried to blame the "f-ing crabs." It's a terrible thing to not be able to admit to your own failings and shortcomings and always feel the need to try and pin the blame on someone else.
This paranoia is a terrible thing, but thankfully there is far more of it here on this thread than there is at Cottesmore.
Navaleye: We have a more capable and relevant Naval Air Squadron today than we have had in the past twenty years. Please take off those rose tinted glasses and try embracing the future rather than dripping constantly about the good old days.
If, as you say, the NAS is put under exclusive naval control, would things be any different? I very much doubt it. But what would I know, I'm just an f-ing crab who is out to ruin the RN completely....
Suspicion breeds confidence
We have a more capable and relevant Naval Air Squadron today than we have had in the past twenty years.
But doing a more useful job today than at any time since 1982, and still entirely capable of going to sea should the circumstances require it.
Which is as unlikely now as it has been since '82.....
Which is as unlikely now as it has been since '82.....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I believe the situation is fairly clear:
1 - The FAA no longer fly the Sea Harrier.
2 - FAA pilots now fly the GR7/9, become QFIs at Valley/Linton or go and work for Sir Richard.
3 - The RN occupy many Flt Cdr / Senior Officer positions on the Front Line - This has reduced the opportunity for RAF pilots to occupy positions that were always traditionally available to them.
4 - The RN will get the F-35 Lightning II, one day, and then go back to living at sea, defending the CAG (WEBF may then stop pontificating about a lack of "Organic Air Defence")
I don't see where the FAA loses out in all the above!? However, I do see the disadvantaged senior Flt Lts looking for a career in what used to be an RAF Harrier Force. Does it help to publicly cry and make out that the FAA are nearly extinct? No! Does it help to keep quiet, carry on doing a good job and await the future? Yes! Why? - Because you then don't completely pi$$ off your RAF work colleagues by harbouring feelings of deep-rooted resentment at an idea that was, at the time, considered and approved by the Royal Navy!
Again, can we please all get on?!
ICBM
1 - The FAA no longer fly the Sea Harrier.
2 - FAA pilots now fly the GR7/9, become QFIs at Valley/Linton or go and work for Sir Richard.
3 - The RN occupy many Flt Cdr / Senior Officer positions on the Front Line - This has reduced the opportunity for RAF pilots to occupy positions that were always traditionally available to them.
4 - The RN will get the F-35 Lightning II, one day, and then go back to living at sea, defending the CAG (WEBF may then stop pontificating about a lack of "Organic Air Defence")
I don't see where the FAA loses out in all the above!? However, I do see the disadvantaged senior Flt Lts looking for a career in what used to be an RAF Harrier Force. Does it help to publicly cry and make out that the FAA are nearly extinct? No! Does it help to keep quiet, carry on doing a good job and await the future? Yes! Why? - Because you then don't completely pi$$ off your RAF work colleagues by harbouring feelings of deep-rooted resentment at an idea that was, at the time, considered and approved by the Royal Navy!
Again, can we please all get on?!
ICBM
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If i may....
JF2000 might have been useful, when operating from the CVS, as despite some obvious short comings you could launch strikers with OCA. You didn't have any EW or SEAD/DEAD which meant there were always going to be issues with most modern day IADS.
JFH off the CVS now has neither OCA or SEAD, giving you snags against every IADS in the world. You still have all the problems of bring back etc, you also compound the training side of the problem by having (about) half the amount of aircraft available.
Now, if you're relying upon another country or another base to provide your SEAD and OCA, you may as well disembark your A-G chaps so that they don't have any of the inherent problems of operating from CVS.
So I think we would all agree that the CVS really does represent a very poor return on investment, whilst accepting that there are a few scenarios in which it would be valuable. (How poor/How valuable up to you)
Now let's look at what the chaps at Cottesmore are doing. They are doing a very good job in theatre. They wear all sorts of uniforms. The fact that manning doesn't fit the original bill shouldn't really surprise anyone. Neither should there be any real surprise that the RN started with two small squadrons and an HQ with alot of gaps - they've ended up with the same. But none of this is anything to do with the maintainers on the ground or the guys in the cockpit. They don't make policy, in fact most of the policy was done years ago. I think people need to identify who they are talking about when they say Navy this, or RAF that...
I think it would be fair to summarise that we have lost a capability, of what magnitude is up to you. Everyone's felt a bit of pain here and there, and the boys and girls are delivering the goods where it matters.
JF2000 might have been useful, when operating from the CVS, as despite some obvious short comings you could launch strikers with OCA. You didn't have any EW or SEAD/DEAD which meant there were always going to be issues with most modern day IADS.
JFH off the CVS now has neither OCA or SEAD, giving you snags against every IADS in the world. You still have all the problems of bring back etc, you also compound the training side of the problem by having (about) half the amount of aircraft available.
Now, if you're relying upon another country or another base to provide your SEAD and OCA, you may as well disembark your A-G chaps so that they don't have any of the inherent problems of operating from CVS.
So I think we would all agree that the CVS really does represent a very poor return on investment, whilst accepting that there are a few scenarios in which it would be valuable. (How poor/How valuable up to you)
Now let's look at what the chaps at Cottesmore are doing. They are doing a very good job in theatre. They wear all sorts of uniforms. The fact that manning doesn't fit the original bill shouldn't really surprise anyone. Neither should there be any real surprise that the RN started with two small squadrons and an HQ with alot of gaps - they've ended up with the same. But none of this is anything to do with the maintainers on the ground or the guys in the cockpit. They don't make policy, in fact most of the policy was done years ago. I think people need to identify who they are talking about when they say Navy this, or RAF that...
I think it would be fair to summarise that we have lost a capability, of what magnitude is up to you. Everyone's felt a bit of pain here and there, and the boys and girls are delivering the goods where it matters.
Suspicion breeds confidence
JFH has been a disaster for the RN and not much less for the RAF. No one wants to see that, but someone in authority should have the balls and stand up and say so.
Why are we still discussing this? I've said everything I have to say (including my hopes and fears, limited optimism etc). I don't want to bump it again. Opps I already have.
I agree that JFH appears to have been a disaster for the RN.
ICBM Organic air defence is there for defence in depth, defending an entire task group/force (including forces ashore or in the air). Defence in depth/layered defence seems to be a concept that is overlooked.
Jacko you twist everything anyone says to you and turn it to fit your own prejudices, so why bother with you? If you spilt a cup of tea on yourself it would be because you looked up to watch a passing helicopter, and it was a RN/Army one and not RAF. On another thread you made a point that a number of carriers were sunk in WWII but no airfields on land, but somehow forgot about the airfields that were overun or put out of action by bombing or ground fire.
But guys since a) the beloved Sea Jet has now retired and b) these topics have been done to death, surely it is time to let this thread gracefully retire?
I agree that JFH appears to have been a disaster for the RN.
ICBM Organic air defence is there for defence in depth, defending an entire task group/force (including forces ashore or in the air). Defence in depth/layered defence seems to be a concept that is overlooked.
Jacko you twist everything anyone says to you and turn it to fit your own prejudices, so why bother with you? If you spilt a cup of tea on yourself it would be because you looked up to watch a passing helicopter, and it was a RN/Army one and not RAF. On another thread you made a point that a number of carriers were sunk in WWII but no airfields on land, but somehow forgot about the airfields that were overun or put out of action by bombing or ground fire.
But guys since a) the beloved Sea Jet has now retired and b) these topics have been done to death, surely it is time to let this thread gracefully retire?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Jan 2009 at 22:51.
Webf,
I made no such claim.
The necessity for the UK to have its own autonomous carrierborne AD will always be disputed.
Even if accepted, there is then the question as to whether a CVS can ever provide it 24/7 and usefully do anything else, or whether the best use of a CVS is not to project offensive air.
And in any case, SHar is gone, and no amount of hysterical nostalgic rambling will bring it back.
The point about current JFH manning (as alluded to by ICBM above) is that a combined GR7/SHar force that was much more than 50% light blue has migrated to a 50:50 JFH, for largely political reasons.
The RAF has had to shed experienced Harrier operators while the Navy has proved unable to man its 'half share' and is having to ramp up the training of ab initios. This isn't a matter of anti-Navy prejudice, it's simple fact, and it was only to be expected, when combining three large (fully manned) RAF squadrons and two tiny (allegedly under strength) RN units.
It has never been rationally explained why JFH needs to be split 50:50 RAF/RN. Apart from the necessity of offering a sop to hurt feelings on the dark blue side, it seems clear that a more sensible, more rational, more cost effective and more operationally effective solution would have been to retain as much of the best manpower as possible on both sides and accept whatever the resulting ratio might be. This, I believe, would have allowed one 'all dark blue' Harrier unit, with three primarily light blue units, each of which could have incorporated a small but significant number of dark blue aviators (who would have been invaluable when the light blue units deployed on ship, and as a source of information and hard won knowledge). Training of ab initios could then have been structured to retain this balance.
I'm fascinated that none of the usual SHar mafia have answered the simple questions posed about manning, and that you (of all people), now the argument is lost, propose dropping the subject.
Though I wouldn't want to put worms in his mouth, ICBM seems to infer that the RN now occupy a disproportionate proportion of Flt Cdr/Senior Officer positions on the Front Line, and that this is reducing the opportunity for RAF pilots to occupy positions that "were always traditionally available to them", and he reports that he sees "the disadvantaged senior Flt Lts looking for a career in what used to be an RAF Harrier Force."
I have no reason to believe that ICBM is not entirely correct, and if he is, and if the colour of one's uniform is of more value in getting a 'Flight Commander slot; than one's competence and experience, it's clear that military effectiveness (and natural justice) has been sacrificed because of the RN's need to be seen to be 'equal'.
I made no such claim.
The necessity for the UK to have its own autonomous carrierborne AD will always be disputed.
Even if accepted, there is then the question as to whether a CVS can ever provide it 24/7 and usefully do anything else, or whether the best use of a CVS is not to project offensive air.
And in any case, SHar is gone, and no amount of hysterical nostalgic rambling will bring it back.
The point about current JFH manning (as alluded to by ICBM above) is that a combined GR7/SHar force that was much more than 50% light blue has migrated to a 50:50 JFH, for largely political reasons.
The RAF has had to shed experienced Harrier operators while the Navy has proved unable to man its 'half share' and is having to ramp up the training of ab initios. This isn't a matter of anti-Navy prejudice, it's simple fact, and it was only to be expected, when combining three large (fully manned) RAF squadrons and two tiny (allegedly under strength) RN units.
It has never been rationally explained why JFH needs to be split 50:50 RAF/RN. Apart from the necessity of offering a sop to hurt feelings on the dark blue side, it seems clear that a more sensible, more rational, more cost effective and more operationally effective solution would have been to retain as much of the best manpower as possible on both sides and accept whatever the resulting ratio might be. This, I believe, would have allowed one 'all dark blue' Harrier unit, with three primarily light blue units, each of which could have incorporated a small but significant number of dark blue aviators (who would have been invaluable when the light blue units deployed on ship, and as a source of information and hard won knowledge). Training of ab initios could then have been structured to retain this balance.
I'm fascinated that none of the usual SHar mafia have answered the simple questions posed about manning, and that you (of all people), now the argument is lost, propose dropping the subject.
Though I wouldn't want to put worms in his mouth, ICBM seems to infer that the RN now occupy a disproportionate proportion of Flt Cdr/Senior Officer positions on the Front Line, and that this is reducing the opportunity for RAF pilots to occupy positions that "were always traditionally available to them", and he reports that he sees "the disadvantaged senior Flt Lts looking for a career in what used to be an RAF Harrier Force."
I have no reason to believe that ICBM is not entirely correct, and if he is, and if the colour of one's uniform is of more value in getting a 'Flight Commander slot; than one's competence and experience, it's clear that military effectiveness (and natural justice) has been sacrificed because of the RN's need to be seen to be 'equal'.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Jacko, The MoD is looking at creating 6 Dave squadrons. Three RN (to take the bulk of the maritime work) and 3 RAF for land based ops. To achieve that it is necessary to have squadrons in place even if they are under equipped, under manned and (in the RN case) using the wrong aircraft, but you've got to start somewhere.
Indeed.
My information is that there will be FOUR JCA squadrons, two RN/two RAF and possibly (additionally, and they may not be equipped with Dave Bs, nor even Daves at all) two more RAF FCAC squadrons.
You do have to start somewhere, of course, but starting with three RAF heavy and one wholly RN squadron would have made better uses of the existing resources. Moreover, I can see no good reason why the end point (with Dave) needs to be a 50:50 force either.
There's much to be said for phasing out the RN air branch altogether, letting the Navy supply the boats and letting the RAF provide and fly the aircraft.....
My information is that there will be FOUR JCA squadrons, two RN/two RAF and possibly (additionally, and they may not be equipped with Dave Bs, nor even Daves at all) two more RAF FCAC squadrons.
You do have to start somewhere, of course, but starting with three RAF heavy and one wholly RN squadron would have made better uses of the existing resources. Moreover, I can see no good reason why the end point (with Dave) needs to be a 50:50 force either.
There's much to be said for phasing out the RN air branch altogether, letting the Navy supply the boats and letting the RAF provide and fly the aircraft.....
"The necessity for the RN to have it's own autonomous carrier-borne AD assets will always be disputed"
Only by those incapable of doing simple time / distance / a/c on station calculations Jacko (and yes that includes the effects of AAR). A carrier can also use deck alert (vice CAP) to provide AD response where required / when required, - entirely preferable to relying on the ability of an air station far removed from the threat / AoA to generate a/c and put them on station.
Only by those incapable of doing simple time / distance / a/c on station calculations Jacko (and yes that includes the effects of AAR). A carrier can also use deck alert (vice CAP) to provide AD response where required / when required, - entirely preferable to relying on the ability of an air station far removed from the threat / AoA to generate a/c and put them on station.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Harrier with ASRAAM plus JTIDS would go someway to plugging the air defence gap we now have. External targetting input and longer legs of the ASRAAM and lock on after launch mode is a big step forward from Aim9L and the eye ball. I think someone upgraded the wrong aircraft when full ASRAAM integration went into the Jaguar.
I know I said I had written everything I could say, and it was time to concentrate on the Future Carriers (and JCA/JSF/F35), as discussed here, but one little post won't do any harm surely. Note this is purely a comment on how I see it, and not a question.
One legacy of the retirement of the Sea Jet, and the way the FAA has been messed generally, is the severe decline in RN fixed wing pilot numbers. Regardless of whether you view the decision to phase out the Sea Harrier and migrate to the Harrier GR7/9 as a disaster or as good policy, 800 and 801 will need pilots. This is a shortage that must be addressed in the next few years.
One legacy of the retirement of the Sea Jet, and the way the FAA has been messed generally, is the severe decline in RN fixed wing pilot numbers. Regardless of whether you view the decision to phase out the Sea Harrier and migrate to the Harrier GR7/9 as a disaster or as good policy, 800 and 801 will need pilots. This is a shortage that must be addressed in the next few years.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah, Pontius, as usual I think you might be close to the mark! Maybe all this Senior Service gnashing of teeth has less to do with any percieved increase in efficiency in having a naval Dave and more to do with a dark blue boat with light blue wings!
However, by the time all this comes about the British Defence Force will be purple
so it won't matter what colour it/we is/are.
However, by the time all this comes about the British Defence Force will be purple
so it won't matter what colour it/we is/are.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
But as some wag asked an Admiral, who said the Navy ruled the seas which covered two thirds of a planet, how much of the planet was covered by air. 
Anyway, the FAA needs a Fleet to be to Air Arm of.
Anyway, the FAA needs a Fleet to be to Air Arm of.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to comments about RN being unable to man their part of the JFH bargain, I think you'll find that had anyone been privvy to the real manning plot, they would find that the RN easily had enough people to do so, unfortunately due to a hasty re-think by the hierarchy in 1 Gp, the numbers were shuffled and the goal-posts moved and with a sudden requirement change for RN qfi's, it meant that the system had to be changed into a Wing Concept. It also showed that if the RN actually stood up both Sqns, the RAF ones remaining would have lost most of their mid-seniority supervisors which the RN had grown years prior when they knew that the SHAR was on it's way out. The early volunteers for the GR had been working in the RAF sqns and gained all their quals and at the time of RN Sqn conception would have meant a nearly 50% dilution in the RAF sqns. It was then realised that the RN sqns would be TOO qualified and would be over-heavy with senior supervisors and qualifications. Its amazing how people who have no visibility of what actually goes on in the force can talk such crap.