Rose tinted specs and then some...

Jacko- How long have you worked on the Jag Force?

Do you know what RAIDS is? Like to see potential enemies quaking in their boots with the thought of the RAF deploying their raids pods operationally.

I understand some of what you're saying however-

The Jaguar has not participated in any operations since Jag Det was moved out of Incirilik in 2002- FACT. Whereas the GR1/4 force has been continously deployed on operations since 1990 and the GR7 force has been deployed on Telic and Kandahar since then also. The money spent on Colt and the Jag force could have been spent on easing the burden on the part of the RAF actually doing the biz.

Granted, the Jaguar has given good service, is still a relatively capable aircraft and has a smaller logistic footprint, but it has no place in the sort of op we are engaged in nowadays.

Getting airborne with an EPW and TIALD, ECM, etc.. from el-udied with an outside air of plus 45c?- not very likely.

Operating in the mountains of afganistan with a MSA of 19000ft?

If we were deploying to Denmark and fighting AQ or whoever on the north german plain ok.

Coltishall is an ok station and is a popular posting for some. It suffers from being stuck in the 1980's and people staying there too long or returning too often - a lot of people, especially groundcrew, are going to have a big shock when they come back to the real air force.

I met and worked with some excellent people during my time at Colt, however I can tell you that an excellent pilot does not always make an excellent leader. Everyone has their own opinion of someone and it depends where you are in the Koala Bear Tree on how you perceive people. I am not aircrew but served on SAR, C130, SHF(CH47)and GR4 Sqns as well as a Jag Sqn and I can tell you there are just as many high flyers in those forces too.

Rose coloured spectacles or realism?

No-one would pretend that the Jag's payload/range and performance characteristics are great, but equally only a fool would deny that the aircraft has made a contribution in the Middle East (even pre Adour 106!), while India has demonstrated the type's utility 'hot and high' over the Kargil. There are obviously many things that Jag can't do. There are other things it does better than other platforms.

Jag came within a gnat's of being used in 2003, and the reasons they weren't had nothing to do with the type's usefulness and capabilities.

With better, more appropriate weapons (how many inert 1,000 lb Paveways did the GR4s drop in Iraq, for want of a proper low collateral damage weapon?) the Jag could still be filling a very useful role. Not least in keeping hours of what remains of the 142 GR4s. How confident are you that those airframes will make it to 2023 without major attention? Or off the GR7s and GR9s. Think many of those will make it to 2017 without a new back end?

With your SF background, you'll doubtless be aware how happy some Jag customers are that their needs are being passed over to other platforms.....

I'm fully aware of what RAIDS is, and what it's primary purpose is. I'm also aware of what it's potential uses are.

"With better, more appropriate weapons (how many inert 1,000 lb Paveways did the GR4s drop in Iraq, for want of a proper low collateral damage weapon?) the Jag could still be filling a very useful role."

Jacko

Am I misreading this or are you suggesting that we use Jags as low collateral weapons. I do not think that they have MACE lugs on the Jaguar to attach to the Tonkas shoulders.

regards

retard

retard

I really did laugh out loud.....

Nice one!

Jacko-

It's pointless turning this into a Jag Vs. anything discussion- it's not the subject of this thread.
I am only pointing out to 3.14 that the Jag Force does not and in all likelihood will not go to hot sandy places and get shot at (atthe moment anyway).

Exactly. Which is why they have to waste thousands upon thousands of pounds worth of my money going on a jolly boys outing to COLD places.

Took the decision at our place today to cancel our crewroom copy of the Scum!

Southside,

Put a fecking sock in it! You are like a scratched gramophone record!

I wont put a sock in it until you lot realise that you cannot continue to make mugs out of the general public and you have to stop taking the pi$$ and act responsibly.

To think that you can get away with a jolly boys outing to Italy for a skiing weekend is poor leadership. Stop wasting my money

Southside, I'm actually a member of the public and don't mind MY money being spent by any RAF guys, especially the Jag guys, carrying out these 'sorties'. I'd rather they spent MY money than chavs and chavettes spending it on Burberry and prams (if you've even been to Swindon you'll know what I mean!).

I'll bug out now. Bye. :ok:

southside

You yourself admitted that port visits are expensive, so what are all the port visits undertaken by the Grey Funnel Line, if not a waste of money??!!

Jacko,

"has a cockpit that in some respects represents a good learning environment for Typhoon - paper tidy, with EFRCs and ETAPs,...."

EFRCs and ETAPS??? Who have you been talking to??!!!

Ray

I also refer to your point higher up the thread ...

My point was not to argue for the Jag sqn's right to do this, but the right of every serving RAF sqn - it's irrelevant that you perceive the Jag force as a waste the past 4 yrs ... the fact is that they have held a capability and whether used or not, it has existed. The point is, the weekend (Overseas Training Flight) was budgeted for and in very real terms they have spent a negligible amount of money anyway ... these OTFs do not need ANY justification, as their existence already does that.

On a slightly different note, I know of a service sponsored 'Leadership Development' exercise taking place soon - individual cost for 7 nts skiing abroad is £80 (and it's duty - ie weekdays away from the office while colleagues cover the already undermanned sections) ...

I'm sure you could all point me in the direction of a holiday firm that will give me the equivalent deal for less than £750? But hey, all those going will develop their leadership skills, so that's all ok, but god-forbid that our pilots get to practice overseas training and civilian IFR procedures at an unfamiliar airfield.

Sooms, you prove my point entirely, thank you. We prepare now, not panic when the need arises (I would like to believe that!) - just because the pilots enjoyed themselves (at their own expense) while they were away is, again, irrelevant to the justification for the flight.

It's hard to believe we share the same flying training system and yet can be so different ...

Re 'mugs out of the general public' ..? I refer you to your previous comment of 83 ships/boats (whatever you call them) !!! And since the end of the empire, there's surely NO need to sail those ships to places like the USA, Hong Kong, Dubai or even run aground in Australia - we must have the best guarded islands in the world with 83 of the finest warships guarding our shores?


83 ?!!!

Couldn't agree more. Yes, it's nice to go somewhere different for a change - it's also damn handy to have an understanding of what it takes to get some of HRH's toys from A to C when B doesn't do things the same way we do.
Southside, do you think we're born with that knowledge? Or is it something you feel we should cuff when foreign policy fails and we need to get to C about 48 Hrs ago?

Don't really want to get involved, but can't resist ---

All this talk of OLF. When with pointy and triangular things at HQ 1Gp in the 1980's these things were called 'rangers', which then became OLFs. Same thing, different title- old git some 25/30 years ago. Point is that once per year, each crew (or pilot) was allowed to fly away to a NATO base to gain interoberabilty experience; usually Thu - Mon. Preferably this meant low level in-theatre, hopefully with a bit of DACT. If it did, and even if didn't, then the chaps had a bit of time to themselves after some lenghty time away from 'home' on frequent two/four week exercises. Sounds tough, but I guess not anywhere near as tough as today. Sorry, but groundcrew didn't have the same opporunity - unless the jet went U/S.

Whatever, it gave young bloods the opportunity to plan and lead oversea deployments, and old bloods the chance to sit back and 'follow'. And, dare I say it, fill the bomb bay with ripe green peppers, vino, prawns etc on the return leg.

They gave a good training return at low cost - accomodation was either on-base, or at a hotel (and meals) that were at fixed rate allowances. Same today I think, ie you pay for the extras.

Bloody good for morale, bloody good for experience, great fun, bad for the liver, and so teribbly,terribly wrong today. Sad.

Some Facts
 

OK, I can resist no longer.
I am 'very well versed' in facts about the Jaguar, the Sqn concerned, and Higher Command policy on OTFs. Thus, in case we're concerned about facts rather than just venting our spleens, I offer the truths that I know:
1. OTFs are mandated by HQ 1 Gp. So presumably, the fact that one was conducted cannot be an error in leadership at Sqn level.
2. Jackonicko's information on the Jaguar is all correct. I can't remember your name, but yes, it does have ETAPs and EFRCs. Moreover if you have an emergency, it will tell you where your nearest suitable is, the runway orientation, the runway length, all relevant frequencies, steer you to it, put a cue to it in the helmet mounted sight, tell you when you're going to get there.....and then display the ETAP for your approach. You can even load pictures of scantily clad (insert species of your choice for political correctness). Oh, and that lot is 2 presses on the TV screen and 2 on the HOTAS. Oh, and the TV's big, big, big, and it doesn't reflect the sunlight.
3. The Jaguar had force elements declared at readiness. It stands by to deploy anywhere its asked at quite short notice, and fully retains its combat capability. It also has enough life left in it to do it. And the people who operate it WANT to be on ops with the other mates who are.
4. Most of the stuff that's not on it that make people think makes it less capable is ready to be installed under UOR. All the paperwork/TDP/maths/software etc has been done. Oh, yes, and I'm not sure, but isn't it the only bomber to have successfully operated with ASRAAM connected to its HMS?
5. I learn alot when I go on OTF. It helps me deploy to war (and to foreign exercises) better. Especially at short notice.
6. The vast majority of skill and experience gained on an OTF is not type specific. The skills and experience (and especially the ability to not get maxed out by the foreign differences and then have a flight safety event) are transferrable to other types that these boys will go on to fly.
7. Nobody on this OTF took the pi$$ in any way, shape or form. Whether it was in the air, allowing the JPs to lead, because they'll be the middle managers on the next op, or at least if no op comes up, the worldwide peacetime deployments that the Jag will still conduct; or whether it was on the ground, where they were stood down, and chose to spend their own money in a certain way.
8. I agree that there is alot of wastage in the forces, but the OTF has a direct bearing on operational output. Fact. AOC 1 Gp says so in ordering us to do it, achieve the stat, and report back why if we don't. I don't think we have to justify what we do during UK based stand-down, so what's different here?
2 more things:
Is any of what I have written wrong?
Are we fighting amongst ourselves, rather with the rubbish newspaper that published incorrect information that potentially discredits ALL of us? Including you, Southside, unless you don't have HM the Queen's Crown somewhere on your uniform. Because Joe Public doesn't know light blue from dark blue from 41 Sqn from 846 Sqn from 4 Regt.
And to the senior men:
I'm begging you, PLEASE don't capitulate, based on the bolleaux that a pr@t from the Sun writes. We're Her Majesty's finest, stick it to them! (Sorry, that was a bit of emotion, I guess I'll be waiting ANOTHER couple of years for ACSC now!)
Blimey! I don't usually talk that much.....
Thankyou
Underpowered

Totally agree with underpowered on the OTF side of things (even with the Jag stuff too!)
If the OTF to Aviano was anything like the one that we did not too long ago...
A. We took off from a military airfield and landed at another NATO airfield. Cost? Nil, other than what it costs to run the jets.
B. Accommodation was provided at Aviano, but the boys decided to pay for a hotel in Cortina out of their own pockets and have some snowtime over the weekend. Cost to the taxpayer? Nil.
C. The JPs were given the responsibility to organise and lead the whole shebang, and this provided them with experience that they couldn't get in the UK. Value? Lots. Cost? Nil.

Unfortunately, letting the truth out doesn't make a good story. :hmm:

Gutter Press
 

Would be nice if the people of our press put as much effort into waking the present government up to the fact that RAF aircraft are deployed into war zones unequipped to do the job properly. ie Tornado aircraftin Iraq unable to drop munitions as they have the wrong ones, or aircraft flying with less than adequate protection against enemy fire ?loss of C-130 and crew springs to mind, these are far more costly and a waste of time than moaning about an overseas flight that at least will not cause loss of life to the crew or the loss of millions of pounds worth of aircraft due to enemy action.
Maybe that the editors od owners are after a knighthood for leaving the PM in peace over important stuff ?

OTF or Continental Navigation training is a valuable and necessary aspect to our flying training.







Staying in Hotels for the weekend and spending the tax payers money on Skiing is not valuable nor necessary.

Which bit of

"the boys decided to pay for a hotel in Cortina out of their own pockets and have some snowtime over the weekend. Cost to the taxpayer? Nil."

did you find impenetrable Southside?

Turkey.