ArmchairGeneral

According to what pdf said, it won't be any big deal, since they've been doing it for a while now. I don't see why the JSF would be any different from Harriers, which are all RAF operated.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

wabpilot

Then you have no clue what it takes to train a pilot and crew. Anyone who assumes it is "no big deal" is a fool.

ArmchairGeneral

By "no big deal," I meant that the Brits won't have any trouble doing it, since they've been doing it off and on since the Falklands War. The Joint Force Harrier program probably provides the kind of training you were talking about.

dave angel

the Harriers, even before the retirement of SHAR, were all part of Joint Force Harrier - a light blue/dark blue command that was trained up to be fully usable on CVS, JFH has four Sqns, two RAF and two RN, but the crews themselves are all mixed-up - not least because the RN has proved incapable of providing two Sqn's worth of aircrew.

whenever JFH goes to sea it wouldn't be remotely surprising to find the embarked Sqn to be an RAF one with not a single RN pilot on strength. the Navy's performance in the JFH has been so dissapointing that i personally wouldn't be that surprised to see the whole Dave force owned and opperated by the RAF and sqn's embarking on the CVF in exactly the same way as they might go to Kandahar.

RAF ops from CVS and LHD are now so much part of routine life, both for Harrier and the SH force, that one could make a very coherant argument over whether 'Joint Force Dave' actually needs any RN involvement.

Carrier ops do need additional training, but lets not take this too far up the Navy's own arrse, in 1982 the RAF embarked two Sqns of Harrier GR3's onto HMS's Hermes and Invincible when there was no Joint Force Harrier, no joint training and only two of the pilots had ever landed on a carrier before the day they sailed for war. none of them were lost in shipboard accidents and they performed extremely well both in combat and in terms of getting the maximum sortie rate from those aircraft. the lesson both from 1982 and JFH is that while you do need to keep a steady supply of air and ground crew conversant with fixed wing ops from carriers, you do not need a dedicated 'Naval' element within your aviation force.

__________________
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

wabpilot

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about. Quit wasting bandwidth.

wabpilot

They were aboard for a short period of time and got lucky. Had one ship been hit by a missile those RAF passengers would have been both in the way and severely injured or dead. They probably would have contributed more to the sinking of the ship than any other factor but the CANA.

Wrong again. But, if that's the lesson you draw, I'm glad I'm not dependent on your for my defense. I sincerely hope your armed forces are not as incompetent as you.

rickusn

I hate to get invloved in this but Im a damn fool. So.

Transporting RAF/JFH Harrers on Invincible class carrirs is one thing.

The USN has along history of doing that with both USMC and USAF aircraft.

Operating RAF/JFH Harriers from the Invincible in an amphibious troop support attack role is one thing.

As the USN has done that with normally land-based USMC aircraft for a longggggggggg time.

Operating RAF/JFH Harriers in the other plethora of Royal Navy naval/maritime/combat scenarios, missions and roles is quite another thing.

Which I think is at least part of Wabpilots point.

The USN has succeeded in integrating an occassional USMC squadron in an air wing and plans on having a squadron in every wing but.....

The USN has been integrating a couple of its squadrons into the USMC land-based Unit Deployment Plan for Okinawa. Its been a challenge to say the least.

If anyone thinks that what the future holds is for RAF/JFH only aircraft to be deployed from carriers IMHO the Royal Navy may as well not even bother building new carriers.

A far better course would have been to build some type of large deck LHA/LHD or LHA(R) type ship.

Or maybe thats how these carriers will turn out.

More like the LHA(R) concept if dedicated Royal Navy squadrons are not in the future.

Shortsighted and risky IMHO but certainly within the realm of possibilities.

Although even more limited as the USMC is light years ahead of the RAF when it comes to consistent and sustained shipboard operational experience.

Even now the RAF chafes at having to supply aircraft for the Incincible class and recently when its come to a question of supporting either the RAFs land-based committments or supporting the Invincibles the Invincibles went without.

But of course if anyone can provide sufficient, concrete evidence of the RAFs unwavering committment to again consistently and sustainingly supporting the Royal Navy Im willing to reevaluate and change my relatively considered and educated opinion.

Ive seen none but only a few crumbs occasionally and grudgingly thrown to the Royal Navy more for PR purposes than anything of substance.

Again maybe Ive missed something.

Please enlighten me.

Thanks

Rick

pdf27

Being as it's being funded by the MoD why are you surprised?

__________________
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

rickusn

LOL Good point!!!! ROTFLMAO

Anyway I was looking at some old Royal navy Data I had saved which also contained pertinent info for this thread:

UKDS 2006 - Chapter 3 - Formations, vessels, aircraft and vehicles of the Armed Forces

In April 2000 Joint Force Harrier contained:

26 Sea Harrier FA2
4 Harrier T4/T8

45 Harrier GR
8 Harrier T10/12

In April 2006 Joint Force Harrier contained:

45 Harrier GR
7 Harrier T10/T12

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Dont try and tell me that the RAF is making up for the loss of 30 Sea Harriers by keeping its Harrier inventory basically unchanged.

Nor try to tell me that it kept more than a tiny fraction of the pilots and maintenance crews that flew and supported those 30 Sea Harriers.

Although it would be nice to know just how many RN personnel are still employed in JFH.

Maybe I shouldnt be so combative. As I did find this in another section.;

11. 801 Naval Air Sqn (FA2) disbanded 31 Mar 2006. The Royal Navy Sea Harrier was withdrawn from service.

12. 800 Naval Air Squadron was reformed with Harrier GR7/9 on 31 Mar 2006, and 801 Naval Air Squadron is due to be reformed with Harrier GR7/9 on 1 Oct 2006.

Which would suggest that somwhere around twenty(16)(4 probably less trainers) of the 52 Harriers should be operated by RN personnel.

Is this in fact the case?

rickusn

I found more:

Armed Forces - Royal Navy - n5a1 - Naval Aviation - Fleet Air Arm - Joint Force Harrier (JFH) - Joint Helicopter Command - New Carrier Borne Fixed Wing Aircraft

The JFH received its first upgraded Harrier GR 9 from BAE Systems' Warton facility in November 2005. Under the terms of a £500 million programme the avionics of some 60 x Harrier GR 7/7A will be upgraded to GR 9 standard and 11 x Harrier T 10 will be upgraded to T 12 standard.

From 1 April 2006 the JFH will consist of 4 x squadrons as follows:

800 Naval Air Squadron 9 x Harrier GR 7/7A Cottesmore
801 Naval Air Squadron 9 x Harrier GR 7/7A Cottesmore
1 Squadron RAF 9 x Harrier GR 9/9A Cottesmore
4 Squadron RAF 9 x Harrier GR 7/7A Cottesmore

All four squadrons should have 12 pilots and eventually all will operate the Harrier GR 9/9A and T 12.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

rickusn

Of course I also found this.:

Defence Internet | Defence News | Harriers touch down on HMS Illustrious

"Joint Harrier Force is made up of 3 Frontline Squadrons of GR7a/9 aircraft. One Squadron is predominately Royal Navy manned, while the other two are predominately Royal Air Force manned (I (One) and IV (Four) Squadrons). Pilots, engineers and other support staff 'cross pollinate' to spread the best practice and expertise of both services throughout JFH. "

But that contradicts with this:

Navy Matters | Harrier GR.9

"The first front-line Sea Harrier squadron (800 NAS) decommissioned (disbanded) on 31 March 2004 and reformed at RAF Cottesmore on 31 March 2006, initially equipped with ex-RAF 3 Squadron Harrier GR.7's, but will later get the Harrier GR.9. 899 NAS decommissioned on 23 March 2005 and was absorbed in to No 20(R) RAF squadron at RAF Wittering. The second and final front-line 801 NAS squadron disbanded on 31st March 2006, marking the end of the Sea Harrier in RN service after some 28 years. 801 NAS reformed on 1 October 2006 as a Harrier GR.9 squadron.

Re-equipped with the Harrier GR.7/9, 800 and 801 squadrons will have an authorised front-line strength of 9 aircraft - compared with their previous 7 Sea Harrier FA.2's. In the long term (post-2012) this strength may increase to 12 aircraft when they get the F-35 JSF - although there is considerable speculation (late 2006) that that they will remain at 9 and the RAF will instead get a JSF variant to fulfil a land based manned deep strike role (partial Tornado GR.4 replacement, formerly FOAS)."

ArmchairGeneral

Thanks for the input, Rick. Very interesting and thought provoking.

glyn

[quote=rickusn;393337]I hate to get invloved in this but Im a damn fool.

So am I.
The days when our Navy was much bigger and better than yours has long passed. Militarily Britain is in decline, America is the only superpower. I am astonished that 2 carriers are to be built for the RN as I expected them to be cut from the budget. Even so, running a military even at the reduced size of ours takes money. Well, we cut our coat depending on the cloth. Money is a finite resource. Every government department shouts and screams for more, and it's all too often that the MoD loses out. To try to compare the US Navy with its budget against ours is not helpful. You can go to war on your own if you have to. We can only go to war as part of NATO. The integration of RN & RAF pilots in the Harrier squadrons is an established fact. Of course they can operate from ships. We pioneered carriers in the first bloody place! How we operate from the vessels we have is up to our force commanders - it doesn't matter a damn what snide comments are passed by others as they will not be in possession of all the facts.

rickusn

"possession of all the facts."

Provide us with some then.

I to do it all the time to back up my opinions, conjectures, understanding etc.

"We pioneered carriers in the first bloody place! "

So what!?!?!?!?

"The integration of RN & RAF pilots in the Harrier squadrons is an established fact."

But is it working?

Is the RAF supporting it well? Not from what Ive been lead to understand.

And its a "fact" that operating from a carrier is far, far different than operating on land.

Maybe the JFH concept is the way to go.

And Ive asked for some documentation about it.

Provide some.

As for "comparing" I wasnt.

But only stating and relating some of the USN/USMC/USAF experience.

Of course as you have so accurately pointed out the Royal Navy was "first".

So your point is the vast USN experience means nothing even by those whove lived it like Wabpilot?

I read all the time about British "first" and "best in the world".

It strikes me as quite arrogant and is nothing new.

Admiral King was called an "anglophobe" because he took exception to British arrogance, smugness, thinly veiled contempt and insincere condescension.

He had serious issues to deal with after PH and the Royal Navy did little to consider his plights. But were oh so quick to criticise whenever he didnt cave into their every advice, wish and demand or do it fast enough.

They werent in "possesion" of all the facts either, nor like me did they ask for any and worse didnt care. How we ever remained allies sometimes amazes me.

Suppose I will be now too.

Even Eisenhower the consumate staff officer, diplomat and politician finally had had enough of it by late44/early 1945.

British attitudes were often overbearing and inconsiderate.

And expected the US to be oh so grateful to be subordinate to their so-called leadership.

It rubbed Americans the wrong way right from the start.

But of course the Americans are always at fault on everything with all other nations being "angels" and its only gotten worse.

Makes me sick.

LOL

And all of the above is the reason I should have stayed out of this.