617 to be first F-35 Sqn
 

Outstanding news - should we now call the dog Dave?

"between 12 and 16 aircraft" - the sqn aircraft numbers appear to be on a worryingly similar trajectory to the MRA4....Hope there will be some left by the time it appears at Marham - will be a nice job for some new pilots currently at UAS (or holding).

What the article doesn't say is that 617 will be disbanded after their return from Herrick next year & 'stand up' (horrible expression, see 'Naff Mil phraseology' thread) in 2016 with JSF. This will be their third disabndment having done so in 1955 & after the withdrawl of the Vulcan in 1981.

I'm sure the 700 or so UAS students are all very excited for the boundless opportunities (at sea) open to 5 or 6 of them.

Dambusters To Be Next Lightning II Squadron 18072013 18 Jul 2013
Dambusters To Be Next Lightning II Squadron

the second squadron will be called "Sharkey's Own"

Do I smell very carefully chosen words. Will operate from land or the carriers. If we keep saying it enough we will forget that we bought this thing specifically for operations from the sea base.

Land ops would seem to be somewhat implicit wouldn't you say?

Where's that Ward chap when you need him?;)

I have never seen the official 617 Sqn crest before as the chaps always seemed to wear the red on black 'Dambuster' badge. It's actually quite apposite as it shows a DPI (that might not make the JPTL these days;)) succumbing to Electronic Attack.

Bastardeux - come along, there are hundreds of jobs to do getting the turd barge around the world with a few Gen 5 jets on the top...or are we saying that only the drivers count?

http://dazzlin-dk.com/images/Airman/...rest617sqn.jpg

However, the badge implies that the aircraft should be Lightning III!

Why is this new fighter to be flown by an historic bomber squadron?

Surely there must be some real fighter squadron numbers available?

BEagle, is the F35 really a fighter? It would seem to me that it was designed as a bomb truck, to replace the A10s and F16s, in the great scheme of things as I understand it the USAF wanted the F22 as a fighter and the F35 as a tactical bomber, the USN as I understand it intends to use the F18s as fighters and the F35s as attack aircraft.
So it seems not unreasonable that 617 stands up as an F35 squadron.

Beags,

I couldn't agree more, 74 and 92 come immediately to mind.

801 NAS would be better, just like the last time the crustaceans were allowed to drink with the finest on a proper airfield :)

Let's not forget that this "development" also marks the end of the road for our gallant and highly skilled FJ backseat community be they good old style Nav's or the Wizzo's of today :(

Coff.

801 NAS will be the next F35 squadron

It would have been for the UK had this had happened in any numbers more than the few that the UK got for evaluation.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...gI-AE979-1.jpg

I'm with Sir, Beags on this one, the designation F** relates to Fighter aircraft. Without trying to give any type of lecture FB** is a Fighter Bomber. Bomber would therefore, and logically be B**. So, accepting that there are many, "laid up" fighter Squadrons, why have an aircraft with an F prefix serving on a squadron that has no history of Fighter operations. Now, if we are saying what's in a number ??????

Smudge :uhoh:

Fighter or Bomber ?
 

Well be it a fighter or a bomber designate letter I guess the decision on the first Sqn to operate it would be down to it going to the Bravest of the Brave . . . hence 617 ! :D

Hmmm.

If one were to choose the next squadron number. If it were a training or test squadron then 899 NAS might be more appropriate. If it were another front line unit then it would probably come down to a 800 NAS/ 801 NAS play off...just like the good old 'chequered death vs quiche eater' fights of old. (Actually flight safety hazards...but great fun!)

How about 809 NAS as an outsider? Particularly poignant given the phoenix emblem and the fact that it would mark the re-emergence of the FW Fleet Air Arm from not at all persecuted nomadic seed corn at the end of the perfectly understandable, logical, apolitical, purely financial, nothing whatsoever a sister service, petite, capability holiday.;)

Actually it reads worse than that, it says Carrier as in singular, not plural..