Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The reasons are outlined in a Warships IFR of April 2018. The piece is written by Graham Edmonds “How to Avoid a Clash of Cultures and Operational Needs Hampering UK Carriers”
As background info I understand the plan is to standup 2 x FAA Sqdns and 2 RAF.
I’m unable to link however in summary:
Pilot currency in operating from carriers is vital and were RAF Sqdns not to routinely embark major deficiencies will occur because currency requires not only operational flying from the carrier but also equal time in a simulator.
In the Joint Force Harrier time statistics show that RAF embarkation time in carriers were low.
This not only effects pilots but ground crews also.
The on watch off watch embarkation plan between the four squadrons raises further operational and administrative differences, flying from sea operates from a different set of rules. There are no diversion airfields, the airfield/carrier is not in the same place from take off to landing and the scenery is unrelentingly unchanging.
Harmony rules differ between the services. RN personnel can be separated from home for up to 9 months, the RAF from between 3 & 4 months.
A question in the House of Lords enquired if Harmony rules for RAF persons serving in the new squadrons will be brought into line with the RN, answer, RAF Harmony rules will apply.
This lack of joint ness means that in a carrier deployment of 9months the embarked RAF chaps could be changed mid deployment at least once even twice.
This undermines the maintenance of operational capability, in the Harrier days RAF pilots on 3 month detachments rarely achieved a night flyingcapability, in the final years of the last Ark Royal’s strike carrier deployments the number of RAF pilots who qualified for Full Weather operations was very low if not nil.

Under these rules a surge to three embarked squadrons and then to be fully qualified is almost impossible without lengthy qualifying periods beyond the present administrative rules.

The shortcomings become readily apparent when the facts are laid bare.

Easy fix
Ban moustaches on warships.

The UK have such a long history of aviation at sea and the ships to carry them,that it's difficult to believe that these obvious lessons have not being learnt, and that this major capital investment of QE11 class aircraft carriers and F35B aircraft will be restricted by such tribal nonsense.
Give the Navy its planes, pilots and maintainers and let them excel at what they do best.
Protect the task force and project at distance the will of the government on an international stage.

No disrespect to the RAF they have other roles to perform.

Regards S
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Easy fix
Ban moustaches on warships.

The UK have such a long history of aviation at sea and the ships to carry them,that it's difficult to believe that these obvious lessons have not being learnt, and that this major capital investment of QE11 class aircraft carriers and F35B aircraft will be restricted by such tribal nonsense.
Give the Navy its planes, pilots and maintainers and let them excel at what they do best.
Protect the task force and project at distance the will of the government on an international stage.

No disrespect to the RAF they have other roles to perform.

Regards S

Unfortunately RN hasn’t got that many pilots that I’m aware of that could sustain the RN FAA ACF, don’t forget that 138 aircraft buy was. It all at once that was over the life of the program.

What would the breakdown be if they were once again seperate like the US, joint force is budget driven not operational driven.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Easy fix
Ban moustaches on warships.

The UK have such a long history of aviation at sea and the ships to carry them,that it's difficult to believe that these obvious lessons have not being learnt, and that this major capital investment of QE11 class aircraft carriers and F35B aircraft will be restricted by such tribal nonsense.
Give the Navy its planes, pilots and maintainers and let them excel at what they do best.
Protect the task force and project at distance the will of the government on an international stage.

No disrespect to the RAF they have other roles to perform.

Regards S
I’m sure the men/women of the Lightning force will work it out... the force is very committed to making both IOC’s (land and maritime), although they are having some teething problems at present.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Unfortunately RN hasn’t got that many pilots that I’m aware of that could sustain the RN FAA ACF, don’t forget that 138 aircraft buy was. It all at once that was over the life of the program.

What would the breakdown be if they were once again seperate like the US, joint force is budget driven not operational driven.
They will have enough pilots to stand up two operational squadrons and commit to an OCU and various training streams, that’s the plan.
The RAF pilot stream for the 2x Land based maritime Lightning squadrons will be identical.
The hard part will be to get them all carrier qualified and continually current.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The reasons are outlined in a Warships IFR of April 2018. The piece is written by Graham Edmonds “How to Avoid a Clash of Cultures and Operational Needs Hampering UK Carriers”
As background info I understand the plan is to standup 2 x FAA Sqdns and 2 RAF.
I’m unable to link however in summary:
Pilot currency in operating from carriers is vital and were RAF Sqdns not to routinely embark major deficiencies will occur because currency requires not only operational flying from the carrier but also equal time in a simulator.
In the Joint Force Harrier time statistics show that RAF embarkation time in carriers were low.
This not only effects pilots but ground crews also.
The on watch off watch embarkation plan between the four squadrons raises further operational and administrative differences, flying from sea operates from a different set of rules. There are no diversion airfields, the airfield/carrier is not in the same place from take off to landing and the scenery is unrelentingly unchanging.
Harmony rules differ between the services. RN personnel can be separated from home for up to 9 months, the RAF from between 3 & 4 months.
A question in the House of Lords enquired if Harmony rules for RAF persons serving in the new squadrons will be brought into line with the RN, answer, RAF Harmony rules will apply.
This lack of joint ness means that in a carrier deployment of 9months the embarked RAF chaps could be changed mid deployment at least once even twice.
This undermines the maintenance of operational capability, in the Harrier days RAF pilots on 3 month detachments rarely achieved a night flyingcapability, in the final years of the last Ark Royal’s strike carrier deployments the number of RAF pilots who qualified for Full Weather operations was very low if not nil.

Under these rules a surge to three embarked squadrons and then to be fully qualified is almost impossible without lengthy qualifying periods beyond the present administrative rules.

The shortcomings become readily apparent when the facts are laid bare.

Probably worth recalling that the Harriers were largely committed to Afghanistan during much of that period. - which leaves you with a choice - do you demand the RAF park cabs on deck on ships well away from anything interesting while the rest of the UK is massively involved in a war of counter terrorism against a land locked country?

What (in those circumstances) was more important? Having pilots current in deck ops on a carrier or available to strike targets endangering troops in contact?


I think some of this will be fixed if the FAA expand with time to a fully established carrier based fast jet culture - for many decades, much of the FAA's structure has been filled out by RAF pilots in FAA jets or roles (and indeed, two of the highest scoring pilots in the FI were RAF)

Additionally, much of the support for the Harriers were RAF technicians - they'd done the courses, were familiar with the jets and could keep 'em flying.

If the FAA are funded to increase in sizes significantly, we may see a change - riight now, we're at that strange situation where the RAF underpin much of the day to to day flying ops of the FAA, and are complained at for it. I suspect the solution is to accept that the FAA and RAF will have to work hand in hand to provide for the security of the country, and from what I understand it, for currently serving RAF and FAA, this isn't total anathema.

It's a purple force, staffed with people who at the heart of it, wanted to serve their country - I suspect it'll work itself out.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Probably worth recalling that the Harriers were largely committed to Afghanistan during much of that period. - which leaves you with a choice - do you demand the RAF park cabs on deck on ships well away from anything interesting while the rest of the UK is massively involved in a war of counter terrorism against a land locked country?

What (in those circumstances) was more important? Having pilots current in deck ops on a carrier or available to strike targets endangering troops in contact?


I think some of this will be fixed if the FAA expand with time to a fully established carrier based fast jet culture - for many decades, much of the FAA's structure has been filled out by RAF pilots in FAA jets or roles (and indeed, two of the highest scoring pilots in the FI were RAF)

Additionally, much of the support for the Harriers were RAF technicians - they'd done the courses, were familiar with the jets and could keep 'em flying.

If the FAA are funded to increase in sizes significantly, we may see a change - riight now, we're at that strange situation where the RAF underpin much of the day to to day flying ops of the FAA, and are complained at for it. I suspect the solution is to accept that the FAA and RAF will have to work hand in hand to provide for the security of the country, and from what I understand it, for currently serving RAF and FAA, this isn't total anathema.

It's a purple force, staffed with people who at the heart of it, wanted to serve their country - I suspect it'll work itself out.
The other thing to note is given it is a joint force they will all be operating under the same rules. And the F-35 will be significantly easier to operate around the boat than the various harrier variants.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
They will have enough pilots to stand up two operational squadrons and commit to an OCU and various training streams, that’s the plan.
The RAF pilot stream for the 2x Land based maritime Lightning squadrons will be identical.
The hard part will be to get them all carrier qualified and continually current.

Hi assail

I'm not disputing your views and yes I was aware that four Squadrons were going to be stood up. The point I was trying to make was if all aircraft for the carriers were placed under the RN and to the full capability for a strike carrier that the RN FAA ACF would have to increase substantially and they just do not have the man power or funding to accommodate the increase. depending on how many badges and Squadron size they want they will need 6 Squadrons an OCU plus attrition airframes just for the carriers.

For comparison the USMC plan is 340 F35B but have room for 180 aircraft onboard if all 9 LHD/A were used for sea control, that's 1.8 aircraft to current ships, using that as a guide 1.8x72=129.6 aircraft, maybe the UK should give them to the RMo_O
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hi assail

I'm not disputing your views and yes I was aware that four Squadrons were going to be stood up. The point I was trying to make was if all aircraft for the carriers were placed under the RN and to the full capability for a strike carrier that the RN FAA ACF would have to increase substantially and they just do not have the man power or funding to accommodate the increase. depending on how many badges and Squadron size they want they will need 6 Squadrons an OCU plus attrition airframes just for the carriers.

For comparison the USMC plan is 340 F35B but have room for 180 aircraft onboard if all 9 LHD/A were used for sea control, that's 1.8 aircraft to current ships, using that as a guide 1.8x72=129.6 aircraft, maybe the UK should give them to the RMo_O
Yep, but that involves the spending of money which HM UK govt is rather adverse in doing with regard to defence, so in reality your suggestion of increasing the FAA capacity ain't gonna fly. Secondly, RAF personnel most likely would resist transferring to the RN for a variety of reasons, the main one being that if they wanted to be in the RN they would've joined it rather than the RAF in the first place. Thirdly, the RN would get a tad upset if ex RAF personnel burned the wardroom piano as is a RAF, RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF custom and Fourthly, the RN do not as a rule quarter their deployed personnel in high class hotels which Air Force personnel are accustomed too :D:D:D.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Plus they'll lose a lot of RAF pilots who'll get lost trying to find the gyro stabilised pool table ..

It's *possible* that the FAA could find it easier to recruit and retain pilots and maintainers although I suspect part of the issue is that in the RN, flying fast jets has traditionally taken pilots out of the career progression cycle while they convert and, unlike the RAF, it's a lot harder to get a job that still involves flying above a certain level. The RAF will simply tend to be a more attractive force to join for a lot of reasons.

It'd be nice to wave the magic wand and get a fully FAA force afloat but even in the hey day of the Ark with Phantoms and Buccs, there were a lot of RAF pilots filling out the ranks (and Lt Cdr Ward makes repeated mention of that in his memoirs of the FI)
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The other thing to note is given it is a joint force they will all be operating under the same rules. And the F-35 will be significantly easier to operate around the boat than the various harrier variants.

Anecdotally, apparently the relevant regs for Maritime flying for the FAA/RN were about four inches thick, the RAF equivalent pubs stacked about ten times higher so getting some commonality will be interesting :)

I've heard both sides of the coin, having read a memoir by one of the GR pilots who flew from carriers in the FI conflict and loathed the RN rigidity of behaviour with pathological distaste, and then of course later stories abounding about the RAF guys sticking with the working time directives while the RN maintainers and handlers stopped when they fell over due to fatigue (presumably to be revived with a tot of rum in a mug of cocoa) The truth may lie some place in between and should be something that can be resolved - if the Army can get to sea in helicopters that were never intended to fly from ships then the RAF should do just fine.

But yeah, the F35B is by all accounts an awful lot easier to handle in all regimes (I'm told you can take both hands off the controls in the hover and not die for instance)

We'll see - personally, I'm just stoked to see carriers back at sea with what looks like a really good aircraft.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Yep, but that involves the spending of money which HM UK govt is rather adverse in doing with regard to defence, so in reality your suggestion of increasing the FAA capacity ain't gonna fly.
I'm not suggesting anything except that Joint ACF's are budget driven decisions not service centric capability decisions by HMG, and that the RN FAA would need to be the rough equivalent in size to the RAAF if they were to have sufficient aircraft for both QEC carriers an OCU and attrition airframes, and with the last time the RN was in that position was in the 1960's with Phantoms and Buccaneers.

But if you read the post in context with Assails post in regards to an interview in IFR I agree with him that aircraft for the RN carriers should be under RN FAA control. In the circumstance that the UK find them selves in a joint force ACF makes sense but if they cap the F35B buy to 48 then those should come under the FAA ownership, before JFH became the norm their were approx. 40 odd Harriers in FAA inventory with 2x operational Squadrons to service 3 Invincible class carriers


Secondly, RAF personnel most likely would resist transferring to the RN for a variety of reasons, the main one being that if they wanted to be in the RN they would've joined it rather than the RAF in the first place.
yep agree with that its a personal decision on which service they find more appealing,
HMG should do a deal with the makers of Top Gun II put it on a Queen Elizabeth carrier and hopefully they will replicate the recruitment as the original did for the USN
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Interesting discussion, I'm unfamiliar with current RN/RAF rules for deployment and how both intend to operate from CVFs. In broad terms however the F-35B is easy to fly on land and sea I hope is clear. Being current in all aspects day/night should be equally easy, especially when the new HMDS III with OLED becomes available to get rid of the 'green glow' issues. NOT ONLY that but when JPALS is installed and qualified the F-35B pilot will be able to Automatically VL onboard (similarly an F-35C pilot on CVNs will do same). From limited public comments from the Joint Force Folk it seems that the RN/RAF are really keen to get on well and as some say here 'they will work it out'. What has worried me are the RAF ne'er do wells NOT in the JF who will attempt to do the RAF thing to white ant the JF from outside. Probably there are a few in RN with similar intent (Ward being one). I reckon young folk today will probably get on well enough in the JF because they won't have the past baggage. I worry about the OLDies outside the JF though. :)
23 Oct 2018: "There are currently 26 pilots qualified to fly the F-35 Lightning aircraft, 15 Royal Air Force and 11 Royal Navy" Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft:Written question - HL10499
 
Last edited:

SpazSinbad

Active Member
ngatimozart said: ↑ "Secondly, RAF personnel most likely would resist transferring to the RN for a variety of reasons, the main one being that if they wanted to be in the RN they would've joined it rather than the RAF in the first place."
Who knows what resistance there would be ONCE the RAF chappies get a taste of F-35B ops from a CVF. The LIGHT WILL GO ON. :) TOPGUN II be damned - what have they got to do with it? A public anecdote about an RAN Pilot topping his flying course - WITH THE RAAF as is the normal procedure - was offered to fly RAAF FAST MOVERs instead of RAN Helos in 2008. So he jumped ship. This was some time back now whilst probably this sort of thing has been BANNED because WHAT IS THE POINT? One joins and one stays for duration of sign on then perhaps one may move service. I dunno. 14 Jul 2010 http://www.navy.gov.au/Navy_pilot_dux_of_Air_Force_course [not there now so I'll attach a PDF page of story]
 

Attachments

t68

Well-Known Member
Top Gun turned out to be the best recruitment tool for the USN at the time when it was released

When Top Gun was released in 1986, the military received over 20,000 entrants and a high proportion of those were in the Navy. The film seemed to have created such a huge drive for the military that recruiters would set up recruiting in theatre lobbies.
Top Gun 2 and the future of military recruitment
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm not suggesting anything except that Joint ACF's are budget driven decisions not service centric capability decisions by HMG, and that the RN FAA would need to be the rough equivalent in size to the RAAF if they were to have sufficient aircraft for both QEC carriers an OCU and attrition airframes, and with the last time the RN was in that position was in the 1960's with Phantoms and Buccaneers.

But if you read the post in context with Assails post in regards to an interview in IFR I agree with him that aircraft for the RN carriers should be under RN FAA control. In the circumstance that the UK find them selves in a joint force ACF makes sense but if they cap the F35B buy to 48 then those should come under the FAA ownership, before JFH became the norm their were approx. 40 odd Harriers in FAA inventory with 2x operational Squadrons to service 3 Invincible class carriers




yep agree with that its a personal decision on which service they find more appealing,
HMG should do a deal with the makers of Top Gun II put it on a Queen Elizabeth carrier and hopefully they will replicate the recruitment as the original did for the USN

They could actually go one further and offer to host a new docudrama aboard - the old Ark had a massively successful (in pomland) TV series with a theme song by Rod Stewart and everything.


Sailor (TV series) - Wikipedia


reboot that and we're good :)
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Top Gun turned out to be the best recruitment tool for the USN at the time when it was released
Top Gun 2 and the future of military recruitment
So an USN NavAv filum TOPGUN caused USN NavAv recruiting to go up? How does that affect the F-35Bs on CVF in UK with TOPGUN II? GEEKS may qualify - it seems not many gung-ho bods qualify these days. :)
"...Pilotless aircraft – At the moment, pilot shortages and air force recruitment are a pressing area of concern among defence commentators. However, the air force of the future may have significantly fewer pilots in comparison to today’s standards, let alone those of the 1980s. Initiatives to incorporate advanced technology into the air force gives us an indication of how aerial combat may look in the future. According to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) we will likely see extensive use unmanned combat vehicles, which are not only substantially cheaper, but will also completely negate the cost of human life. AFRL recently posted a concept video which depicts the air force in 2030. Among the various 3D renditions, a standout is a depiction of a human-piloted F-35 A Joint Strike Fighter flying in tight formation with six unmanned combat vehicles, referred to as “loyal wingmen”. In the video, the pilot sends the unmanned vehicles ahead to engage a target while the F-35 stays behind. Aviators having the ability to control masses of drones in tight formation will certainly lead to a re-examination of the aviation school of combat and the number of pilots that are needed on standby...." 13 Jun 2018 Top Gun 2 and the future of military recruitment
Air Force 2030 - Call to Action
 
Last edited:

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Some comedy gold comments from Ruth Smeeth about Wedgetail here:


Oral evidence - Departmental priorities post-NATO summit - 17 Oct 2018



Q29 Ruth Smeeth: Are you aware that Wedgetail is 15 years old and parts of it are already obsolete?

Gavin Williamson: From work that the Royal Air Force has done, it is very clear that it is not actually an obsolete platform; in fact, it’s—

Q30 Ruth Smeeth: Parts of it are obsolete.


I'll let you control -F your way to the discussion as it's an absolute facepalm of a challenge.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Some comedy gold comments from Ruth Smeeth about Wedgetail here:


Oral evidence - Departmental priorities post-NATO summit - 17 Oct 2018



Q29 Ruth Smeeth: Are you aware that Wedgetail is 15 years old and parts of it are already obsolete?

Gavin Williamson: From work that the Royal Air Force has done, it is very clear that it is not actually an obsolete platform; in fact, it’s—

Q30 Ruth Smeeth: Parts of it are obsolete.


I'll let you control -F your way to the discussion as it's an absolute facepalm of a challenge.
Some of those questions would test the sanity of Moses himself. How do we, in a parliamentary system, function at all when we give power to committees to question the work of defence professionals, and I’m sure it applies to every endeavour, not only defence, when members of those committees have no interest above partisan politics and pork barrelling.
Those officers being questioned must have be thinking they’ve been jettisoned into a Monty Python sketch but without the ability to speak their mind.
It reminds me of that old adage, “it’s better to say nothing and let them think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and let them know you’re one”.

We have’m here to.

 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Things could be worse. Our senators are appointed by the PM of the day and can serve until they reach the age of 75. I believe Australians can at least vote senators to office. BTW, many of ours would make the example above seem like a genius, consider who is appointing them currently.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Things could be worse. Our senators are appointed by the PM of the day and can serve until they reach the age of 75. I believe Australians can at least vote senators to office. BTW, many of ours would make the example above seem like a genius, consider who is appointing them currently.
When we had our Upper House it was the same, members appointed by the PM of the day. Then a PM had a cunning plan and convinced the Upper House to vote itself out of existence which it did about 70 years ago.
 
Top