New RAF website...
 

A curious glance at the new RAF website.. www.raf.mod.uk.. has led me to believe that a few minor details are missing... no mention of (so far) 60, 78, 84 and 100 Sqns (90th this year BTW), plus a lot of other stuff that makes no sense... is RAF Leeming really still part of 11/18 Group..? Nice new site, shame about the detail...
SSAP

And PPRuNe has its own link on the RAF homepage !?!

Sure the Regt sqns won't be too chipper at their omission either.

27 Sqn isn't the OCF either....and hasn't been for years.

I would have thought a new web site would have been a great time to review all the information?

The Sentry AEW1
has 18 Aircrew
The Nimrod R1 and MR2 have 0 Aircrew

:ugh:

Not to worry chaps about the inaccuracies, you are now able to check those really important aspects of dress regs! Perhaps CAS could take some time and peruse............:ok:

ppf

They have got rid of a lot of information on each of the station pages... one noticeable one for me was the flying programme issued each week for Odiham which was very handy when you want to know where they are in the country each day for photography reasons.

Yup, bang up to date. Still lists the Air Weapons Ranges that transferred to Defence Estates last year.:\

Nimrod UAV
 

See Mr Point's found a few more oversights in the Nimrod UAV thread....

RAF web site
 

The breakdown of aircraft roles into Offensive, Defensive and Reconnaissance etc puzzles me too. Seems a bit old hat and doesn't IMHO reflect the realities of today. Air Defence of the UK is one of the key roles of the RAF blah blah..? Shurely shome mishtake..?
I await guidance.

A swift look at the MoD website suggests their level of literacy seems to reflect the nation-wide reduction in standards of education.

Having become bored with “Recconnaissance”, I tried “Squadrons” there to find that MoD apparently believes the Tornado GR4 to be the only type to qualify as a Fast Jet: -

“a fast jet squadron (i.e Tornado GR4)”

The MoD web masters would do well to use a word processing application which includes a spell checker so as to avoid the more obvious errors. If they really don’t know their exemplia gratia from their id est perhaps they should confine their activities to the English language in an effort to reduce the incidence of solecisms.

sp
 

Just went back for another look - on the Home page, against the Equipment heading, it points us towards "Today and Tommorrow"...
Ye gods..

And I've never seen a Cpl in the RAF look like the young lady on the front page.......

Please, all of you, get out more!:8

Just got in from a day in the garden - is that OK? Had to have a quick look at the sight and during a cursory glance I noticed that the picture of the VC10 is the one that trialled the grey scheme with THE BL**DY STUPID BLUE cheat line. It only ever appeared on one aircraft, a long time ago, and it didn't last that long!! On the training aircraft page we apparently have a "Tutor Griffin". Is that a step up from the broomstick at Hogwarts?

Yes, shame about the pansy blue vein paint scheme.

True to the blinkered Fast Jet-centric mentality, this is what it says under 'equipment':

Welcome to the technical information centre of the Royal Air Force. Here you will find details of all of the aircraft and weapons currently in use.

The RAF have recently introduced into operational service the world-class Typhoon. Alongside the aircraft come the next generation of air-to-air missiles, and a new range of air-to-ground precision guided weapons to give it even greater flexibility in terms of choice of weapon, delivery height and launch distance from target.

Further ahead, there will be a need to replace the Tornado and the Harrier, therefore, the RAF has become an active partner in the development of the new Joint Strike Fighter, which is due to enter service in 2012. The RAF is also considering future options which could include a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft.

No mention of the need to replace the RAF's ageing and overworked AT/AAR and RW assets. No mention anywhere of the A400M either....

Some very poor proof reading, incorrect captions and old library images. Not a very good site, it has to be said.

Still, on the bright side, it does mention that one of the Typhoon Sqns is 3 Sqn at RAF Cottesmore, and All three front-line Jaguar squadrons (Nos 6 and 41).

Looks like the database of information is as accurate as the JPA database.

BEagle - ''Some very poor proof reading, incorrect captions and old library images. Not a very good site, it has to be said.''

Did you expect anything else? The site was probably built by the lowest bidder and the result is utterly predictable. That's today's MoD all over.

Nice to see
 

How refreshing to see that there is a Sqn of RAF GR7 taking on a commitment on Op Herrick.
I just wonder what I was doing twice there last year flying my counter rotating banana :ugh: .....
I see that the website is to the image of our CAS' RAF, unless I missed something. BTW I am not taking anything away from the great job the Harriers are doing. It just shows that now we are in JHC we dont mean a lot to the RAF.

Missing Squadrons continued
 

Not sure if I should go into work tomorrow as it appears that my Sqn is not a part of the RAF anymore either.

Perhaps if the pages for Stns/Sqns were delegated out to individuals on units, rather than corporate comms or whoever is the current webmaster, then perhaps we might get something at least slightly more accurate.

Y_G

Beags/Maxburner - I spotted a dozen or more extremely basic spelling and grammatical errors on the RN's new site and was quick (perhaps too quick?) to email the site team to point them out. I got back a very gracious reply indicating that their site is indeed maintained by a contracted, non service player and not to blame them. A shame as the glaring errors (including the outstanding use of "inteligence") I noticed were largely present on the careers page...what a great first impression to give prospective yoof entrants.

Other than the Tutor Griffin (a mysterious prototype?) mentioned on the RAF's new site, I also noted that a lot of the aircraft links led to....nothing, actually. Come on folks, let's advertise and do it well.