Typhoon not swing role??? The link below suggest very otherwise.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...ole-capability

This is of course the tranch 2 Typhoon and is of course currently limited to one type of AGA weapon. Plenty of EPW2's have already been dropped by Tranch 1 aircraft 2 years ago by the 2 squadrons on the windy Lincolnshire cabbage patch with the bomb symbols on the aircraft to prove it (plus of course it wasn't just EPW2 that Typhoons guided in Libya, they did guide EPW4 off Tornados as well).

Sharky Watch LIVE
 

No aircraft being currently flown by any RN or RAF pilot is really going to prepare them for the quantum leap that JSF will bring. The swing/multi role aircraft being flown by the RN guys in the US are not much different than the ones being currently operated by the RAF. Don't forget there are plenty of RAF guys on exchange too.
Since nobody answered my earlier question I will give my own slant on things. Rightly or wrongly it is now (at least partially) a numbers game. The RAF can provide a lot more pilots than the RN for the JSF force. We're not just talking line pilots but Sqn leadership as well. The majority of the RN guys currently out in the US are unlikely to be put straight into the higher echelons of our first JSF Sqn. They will, however, have an awful lot of very useful deck experience and I hope to god that knowledge is utilised correctly (provided they actually come home and don't decide to stay).
Regardless of what I say above I am sufficiently out of the loop on these matters to not be able to state anything as being fact. I will however give my standard opinion on such matters. I am very proud of all of our armed forces. I would love to see Sqns (note plural which may be ambitious) of JSF operated in the best possible fashion by individuals of any cloth who are capable of operating them effectively. If that calls on RN experience of boat ops and RAF experience of air power then so be it. Hell you could throw in some army input if it helped. I just wish that we could all remember we're on the same side and stop whining about who knows best.
I accept that I am a hopeless idealist in that respect. Fact.
BV

Justanopinion

And I thought the RAF Buccaneer Maritime Strike Force did a pretty good job when the Navy last/previously binned their FJ Force in 1978!

Bloggs:ok:

Though a very effective platform within its limitations, Buccaneer Maritime Strike was a misnomer. Land based system when in the hands of the RAF, so Littoral Strike would have been more accurate. True Maritime Strike requires a floating platform to deploy the capability out of reach of fixed land bases. Therefore must be dark blue led.

Genstabler,

Bo**ocks! ASuW (Maritime Strike) operations are equally effective from land or sea but you have to have a platform to do it; the Navy has not since 1978! The RAF Buccaneers did exactly the same role as the FAA Buccaneers and often worked in concert with 809 when both (12 Sqn) were based at Honington. I have (simulated) attacked more NATO warships in a 4-year tour on 12 (Maritime Attack) Squadron than I care to remember (actually I remember them all because it was such great fun)! I recall very few missions that were against littoral targets!

So to say that it has to be dark blue led is hoop, frankly!

Bloggs :mad:

PS. Give me a limitation of the Buccaneer, please?

JFH
 

Engines,

Check your PMs

ExMudmover

But how many ships could you not attack because they were beyond the range of a shore based system? The limitation of the Buccaneer when operated by the RAF was that it was a land based system. I rest my case.

Genstabler,

Bo**ocks! I have attacked ships in mid-Atlantic with the use of AAR! Indeed, I have crossed the Atlantic in a Buccaneer without AAR!

I rest my case.

Bloggs:ugh:

PS. Another limitation please!

Crossed the Atlantic without refuelling did you? Well you have really put me in my place!
But wait a mo. if you operated such a fantasticly capable maritime strike platform, why weren't you tasked with attacking the Belgrano?

So did I but as you well know, the RN didn't bin its FJ Force, including maritime strike, by choice. This crassness resulted from the Government's cancellation of the planned replacement CTOL carriers (CVA-01) in 1966 because the RAF guaranteed it could provide 24-hour global air cover, a promise impossible to fulfil even back then.

Irrespective of the UK's premature pull-back from East of Suez, this still left the F.I. beyond any useful RAF FJ reach and the rest is history. Thankfully, the RN had the cobbled-together ASW carriers and a handful of SHAR but their lack of critical AEW and AAR led directly to most, if not all, of the casualties sustained by the Task Force.

As the ball appears to be back in the RAF's court pending the arrival of the QE class carriers, what does its current Maritime Strike Force comprise and how quickly could it react to an urgent requirement or sudden window of opportunity hundreds/thousands of miles from its land base?

Genstabler,

Because to attack the Belgrano in the South Atlantic, even using AAR from Ascension, was a bit further than crossing the Atlantic by the Great Circle route! Moreover, the launch to strike time from Ascension would have been poor and might have let the boat escape - better to use HMS Conqueror who had been tracking her for some time and required just 3 torpedoes to do the deed!

Actually, the longest route planned without AAR for a RAF Buccaneer was from Hickom AFB in Hawaii to McLelland AFB in California 2300nm with a full fuel load of 23,000lbs! It was certainly doable but the plan never came to fruition!

RAF Buccaneers did deploy to the Falklands with AAR after the conflict to prove that, if required, we were available to deter any further Argentinian aggression.

So not trying to put you in your place just trying to educate you!

Bloggs:)

Genstabler,
Since... ...why were the carrier based aircraft there not tasked with attacking the Belgrano?
[Rhetorical question!]

...why were the carrier based aircraft there not tasked with attacking the Belgrano?

Because the RN no longer had embarked aircraft with a maritime strike capability. Why? Because the more senior colleagues of Bloggs had persuaded the ignorant politicians that the Crabs could do it all from ashore.

Bloggs' first paragraph in his last post sums up very well why a RN embarked and controlled maritime strike capability is needed. Unfortunately the damage inflicted by their Airships will continue with the introduction of the new so-called carriers and the Micky mouse aircraft chosen for them by the Crabs.

Sharkey. My sympathy with you increases with every new post!

Now if we're going to be accurate here, that's another bit of disinformation.

1. The RN did not have a choice in the F4/Bucc/Gannet/Ark retirement in 1978. That choice had been removed in Mr Healey's 1966 review, where the "plan" appeared to involve this

http://www.modelblokez.org.au/bthpix...1/f111base.jpg

but in fact ended up with aircraft designed from the start to operate from aircraft carriers! You might say that the RAF ended up with such high-performance cabs because of the Navy.....I wouldn't make the same argument for the AEW radar on the Shack though!

2. Errrr, this little beast was OK, although granted not at the extended range possible with a naval aircraft designed for catapult launch.

http://i2.wp.com/basenaval.com/wp-co...size=450%2C230

and that missile system stayed in service till the mid-90s. Lynx & Sea Skua have a rather good record for sinking ships as well, although I'll happily admit that is vs small ships.

3. On one level yes, it's hoop. But on the more practical level where actions speak louder than words, as others have noted, the RAF has consistently argued for responsibility for Maritime air operations and once secured, divested itself of the ability to do them as quickly as it could. To the point where today in 2013, the RAF has no capability to attack maritime vessels mounting any sort of modern PDMS. In fact, you can sum up the attitude to maritime by the rather pitiful "Anti-shipping" entry on the RAF website...

RAF - Anti-Shipping

That's a long way from the ATP34 that I remember.

You may well suggest that the Navy ought to be providing that anti-shipping capability. But the unpalatable truth is that the Navy have in all cases given up that air capability at the behest of the RAF, only to the see the RAF then decide they don't need to do it and bin it shortly thereafter. Whether it's naivete or indifference in senior RN or active manoeuvring by senior RAF is largely irrelevant. It has been a consistent result and goes a long way to explaining why the Navy are so suspicious of the RAF and their motives.

Must be getting close to five pages now!

Marham and Lossiemouth - the homes of the Panavia Tornado Multi Role Combat Aircraft (to use its original name). :p ;)

Does that multi-role capability include air-to-air? Or is that another limitation that the Buccaneer shared?
I am only an innocent Pongo!

Don't go there Genstabler! The RAF Buccaneers were fitted with Sidewinder, which although limited in their performance gave the aircraft an air-to-air capability (were some fighter pilot stupid enough to drop into our Box formation at 100 feet either over sea or overland!)

Take my advice, as a Pongo, you really do need to undertake more research!

Not_a_boffin,

I know, I know and they didn't have much of a choice when the Government stole SHAR either and, as I stated earlier, it was a no-brainer when the RAF gave up Harrier instead of Tornado, which had a superior weapons delivery capability! I am sure we are all on the same side but, just like it was in the bar at Honington in the 70s, it's good to tweak the Navy's tail on occasions and PPRuNe allows it!!!

Bloggs:p

Wow! It was a fighter too! Thanks for educating me Bloggs. But tell me, as you maintain that the Buccaneer could fulfil every role and had no limitations, why isn't it still in service?

I really really don't know, Genstabler! Maybe it was because it was rotting in the main spar and had served its time with pride going out with a bang in Gulf War 1 where it took over self-designation of its own LGBs from the Tornado (which had called on the Buccaneer to designate for its LGBs) to allow the latter to take on other duties!

Don't get me wrong, I never said it was a fighter just that it had an air-to-air capability, which it had - a live Sidewinder firing is an exciting experience on Aberporth range but it was definitely not as good fun as the day I fired a MARTEL TV Missile which had a great deal more thrust and a far greater range (actually, thinking about it, during Trial MISTICO 2 in 1976, when we (and 809 Sqn) fired TV MARTELs on Aberporth, the last missile misbehaved, vanished vertically into cloud and just missed the port wing of an RAF F4 that was tasked with trying to gain a missile lock on the missile as part of the trial - so maybe the Buccaneer's air-to-air capability was greater than I gave it credit for!).

Bloggs:\

PS. How's the research going? Anything else I can help you with?

No thanks Bloggs! I think you have very effectively confirmed all of my preconceptions!