RAF Posieden squadrons named

[Meatbox8]

Two number plates that are going back in to circulation, 120 and 201.  As the article says, 120 was the highest scoring anti-submarine Coastal Command squadron and 201 being one of the oldest units in RAF history via 1 Naval, RNAS.  Good choices in my view.

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-p-8-poseidon-squadrons-named-based-scotland/

 

P.S.  Is that a photo-shopped pic of a P-8 in RAF markings?

[Meatbox8]

I meant to add, both ex-Shackleton and Nimrod squadrons too, of course.

[junglierating]

Hmm I assume the pic is Photo shopped?

American weapons eh? Not so sure about that sounds like more expense to me ... US.foreign military sales not cheap still at least the UK will get a some sort of capability back....far too many gaps ...but I'd better shut it before I get on my soapbox

[Aeronut]

Weapons integration isn't as simple as hanging your own on the bomb slip. These days it's all about the mission system software and then you'll need to carry out carriage, release and jettison, all before you get to drop your bomb / fire your missile. Then you need to train the crews how to use them......... If it all sounds like a job creation scheme, you'll be right.

 

[Max Headroom]

Up to 32 aircraft?

 

BTW that looks like bad photoshopping. Given the delivery schedule for ours, I'm guessing that whatever exists of them are small parts on a shelf somewhere.

 

Trevor

[Head in the clouds.]

There are not enough airframes being brought to equip 1 squadron so why 2 standing up, what a laugh. The cynical in me will say that on paper we it will look like 2 squadrons of 12 aircraft...wow!

I really need that chill pill.

Seriously though, what is the purpose of two squadrons for such a small number of airframes, and if one is an OCU surely it would be more cost effective to train in the US as the Germans did with their Phantoms.

[XV107]

It's to do with the number of personnel, not airframes.

 

A single squadron of P-8s  would deliver one of the largest squadrons (aircrew-wise) in the history of the post-war RAF (and, indeed, the history of the RAF since 1918, bar some of the bomber squadrons from about 1943 onwards).

 

As alluded to in another thread, the planned laydown for the Nimrod MRA4 saw three squadrons - one as an OCU (which would've been 42 Sqn) and 120 and 201. This has been translated across to the P-8 force. Although there is an element of opening up a second MPA command slot - which is a decent idea, so as to ensure that you have a fair number of senior officers with a kipper fleet background, and to reduce the risk of your brightest and best PVR'ing because they reckon that they won't get a command slot if there's only one squadron and the see themselves as standing no chance of being boarded ahead of two of their peers.

 

Given the planned number of crews (I'm not sure if that is in the public domain yet), a two squadron force in fact makes sense beyond public relations; a three squadron force - with an OCU with a small cadre of instructing staff making use of available airframes as required plus the two squadrons covering the intended taskings - can also be justified.

[Head in the clouds.]

Thanks XV107, I now know and it makes sense.

[Meatbox8]

16 hours ago, XV107 said:

It's to do with the number of personnel, not airframes.

 

A single squadron of P-8s  would deliver one of the largest squadrons (aircrew-wise) in the history of the post-war RAF (and, indeed, the history of the RAF since 1918, bar some of the bomber squadrons from about 1943 onwards).

 

As alluded to in another thread, the planned laydown for the Nimrod MRA4 saw three squadrons - one as an OCU (which would've been 42 Sqn) and 120 and 201. This has been translated across to the P-8 force. Although there is an element of opening up a second MPA command slot - which is a decent idea, so as to ensure that you have a fair number of senior officers with a kipper fleet background, and to reduce the risk of your brightest and best PVR'ing because they reckon that they won't get a command slot if there's only one squadron and the see themselves as standing no chance of being boarded ahead of two of their peers.

 

Given the planned number of crews (I'm not sure if that is in the public domain yet), a two squadron force in fact makes sense beyond public relations; a three squadron force - with an OCU with a small cadre of instructing staff making use of available airframes as required plus the two squadrons covering the intended taskings - can also be justified.

Presumably the OCU would do most of its training synthetically?

[XV107]

A fair amount. If it forms (there is a debate as to whether it's required) it would be for the instructors; the question of how the instruction/conversion to type is done is the source of the discussion as to whether a third numberplate will be required...

[Meatbox8]

On 14/07/2017 at 2:15 PM, XV107 said:

A fair amount. If it forms (there is a debate as to whether it's required) it would be for the instructors; the question of how the instruction/conversion to type is done is the source of the discussion as to whether a third numberplate will be required...

Just been reading on UK Defence Journal that two RAF aircrew have recently achieved 1000 hours on type.  It would seem logical, to me at least, that rather than having a dedicated OCU it would be easier and cheaper to continue embedding crew with the USN.  Interested to read your thoughts on that.  I was stunned to read that a P-8 UK only crew won the USN's Anti-submarine warfare competition as far back as 2014.  Congrats to the crew but I hadn't realised that the RAF had been THAT embedded!

[XV107]

That was the whole point of Seedcorn - make sure that skills weren't lost amongst a cadre of Nimrod operators so that when the capability was reconstituted, we weren't starting from scratch. Despite large amounts of behind-the-scenes moaning from another service [clue: not the RN] about how MPA weren't needed and the funding should be going on other, much more relevant things [things which we are no longer doing and won't be for the foreseeable future}, rather than irrelevant stuff such as recognising we live on an island, the RAF, with support from 1st Sea Lord, was immovable, and won the argument...

 

The reason you'd have a dedicated OCU in the UK would be because of the cost of using the US system.  This may be perfectly OK, but it's the little things which add up over time to make the cost open to scrutiny; this isn't to say that staying in the US would be a bad thing necessarily, just that it's worth looking at.

 

The first question is how many instructors would you want embedded in the US system? We would almost certainly want to have some over there, with a permanent posting. They would need to be accommodated, with families, for a 3-year tour. What happens if life in the US then proves far more attractive than going to Lossie and your experienced people start to PVR, taking jobs with Boeing instead (yes, green card issues, etc, but...). 

 

Then the students would have to be posted; if the course is longer than a certain amount of time, allowances become an issue for the Treasury, and the OCU might end up as an accompanied posting (more cost) if it goes on long enough, even if only by [say] three days. We have enough issues with one of the staff courses taught in this country coming very close to tipping the students into being resident on the course (and entitled to housing, etc) rather than attending the course and living in the mess for its duration...

 

Then you have the question of whether the training, tactics and procedures (TTPs) that the USN follows are those which the RAF would wish to follow; if there are any variations, these have to be learned post-OCU. Again, this may not be a bad thing, but it is something which will be considered.  Likewise, if the OCU is at Lossiemouth, then you have the instructors available to form crews as required; if you have any instructors over in the US and a crew is (say) short of people because of illness and someone is needed to fill one of the seats, or more people are required because the Russians get a bit active and the aircraft are flying almost constantly, you can't just grab that instructor and put them onto an aircraft to go and fly a sortie...

 

Now, all of these things are 'to be considered'. There is a balance at work here. I don't know the details sufficiently to make any judgement call as to whether remaining under the auspices of the US training system makes more sense financially/operationally/both, or whether it would be better to establish an OCU over here in due course (note that establishing the OCU first isn't always the first step - 617 will form on the F-35 before 207 takes on the OCU role, of course). All of this will have to be considered over the coming months before a decision is made as to whether we have a national OCU, or whether we stay with the current model. I suspect that we will, in due course, form an OCU here in the UK; indeed, it may well be that one of 120 and 201 has an OCU capability to begin with and this then evolves into a separate unit (and a third, retention-friendly set of command opportunities...)

[Harley John]

Excellent, informative posts XV107, thanks for posting. The RN & RAF working together to ensure a much needed defence requirement is fulfilled? Novel thinking, whatever next?

[Meatbox8]

11 hours ago, XV107 said:

That was the whole point of Seedcorn - make sure that skills weren't lost amongst a cadre of Nimrod operators so that when the capability was reconstituted, we weren't starting from scratch. Despite large amounts of behind-the-scenes moaning from another service [clue: not the RN] about how MPA weren't needed and the funding should be going on other, much more relevant things [things which we are no longer doing and won't be for the foreseeable future}, rather than irrelevant stuff such as recognising we live on an island, the RAF, with support from 1st Sea Lord, was immovable, and won the argument...

 

The reason you'd have a dedicated OCU in the UK would be because of the cost of using the US system.  This may be perfectly OK, but it's the little things which add up over time to make the cost open to scrutiny; this isn't to say that staying in the US would be a bad thing necessarily, just that it's worth looking at.

 

The first question is how many instructors would you want embedded in the US system? We would almost certainly want to have some over there, with a permanent posting. They would need to be accommodated, with families, for a 3-year tour. What happens if life in the US then proves far more attractive than going to Lossie and your experienced people start to PVR, taking jobs with Boeing instead (yes, green card issues, etc, but...). 

 

Then the students would have to be posted; if the course is longer than a certain amount of time, allowances become an issue for the Treasury, and the OCU might end up as an accompanied posting (more cost) if it goes on long enough, even if only by [say] three days. We have enough issues with one of the staff courses taught in this country coming very close to tipping the students into being resident on the course (and entitled to housing, etc) rather than attending the course and living in the mess for its duration...

 

Then you have the question of whether the training, tactics and procedures (TTPs) that the USN follows are those which the RAF would wish to follow; if there are any variations, these have to be learned post-OCU. Again, this may not be a bad thing, but it is something which will be considered.  Likewise, if the OCU is at Lossiemouth, then you have the instructors available to form crews as required; if you have any instructors over in the US and a crew is (say) short of people because of illness and someone is needed to fill one of the seats, or more people are required because the Russians get a bit active and the aircraft are flying almost constantly, you can't just grab that instructor and put them onto an aircraft to go and fly a sortie...

 

Now, all of these things are 'to be considered'. There is a balance at work here. I don't know the details sufficiently to make any judgement call as to whether remaining under the auspices of the US training system makes more sense financially/operationally/both, or whether it would be better to establish an OCU over here in due course (note that establishing the OCU first isn't always the first step - 617 will form on the F-35 before 207 takes on the OCU role, of course). All of this will have to be considered over the coming months before a decision is made as to whether we have a national OCU, or whether we stay with the current model. I suspect that we will, in due course, form an OCU here in the UK; indeed, it may well be that one of 120 and 201 has an OCU capability to begin with and this then evolves into a separate unit (and a third, retention-friendly set of command opportunities...)

 

Thanks for all that info.  I can see why the situation in Afghanistan at the time might have been influencing a certain branch of the armed forces. Thank goodness the wider, strategic view prevailed.  We shall obviously have to wait and see about the OCU although I suppose it will be some time yet.  With this huge, and ongoing, capability gap was it ever considered to base some RN Merlins at Lossie? - or is that a crazy idea!?

Edited July 22, 2017 by Meatbox8

[Truro Model Builder]

1 hour ago, Meatbox8 said:

 

With this huge, and ongoing, capability gap was it ever considered to base some RN Merlins at Lossie? - or is that a crazy idea!?

 

It was never on the cards, though it could be argued that basing all of the RN's ASW helicopter force at the other end of the country from the SSBN home base is a crazy idea.

 

By the way, here is a very interesting article on the pros and cons of procuring the P-8 for the RAF in the latest Air Forces Monthly.

[magwitch]

On 22/07/2017 at 10:16 PM, T7 Models said:

 

By the way, here is a very interesting article on the pros and cons of procuring the P-8 for the RAF in the latest Air Forces Monthly.

 

The 'con' argument in that article wasn't very compelling...

[Roland Pulfrew]

On 7/22/2017 at 3:16 PM, T7 Models said:

By the way, here is a very interesting article on the pros and cons of procuring the P-8 for the RAF in the latest Air Forces Monthly.

The 'con' argument is factually incorrect and full of supposition, lots of industry hearsay and sour grapes because their product didn't cut the mustard.

[XV107]

Indeed - I was rather disappointed to see that it was under Jon Lake's by-line: far from his best work, to put it mildly...

 

I got the impression (and this may just be me) that this was one of those instances where AFM has what seems to be a good idea (let's debate whether the P-8 is the right answer, even though anyone with any vague insight into the project is going to say 'OK, so that's 1½ pages of the next edition sorted if you use a smaller font than normal, what else will you put in?'), and then asked Lake if he'd be game enough to put together an argument. He duly did so, found some bits and pieces about the P-8 which made him think that maybe there was an argument... and then made the fatal error of asking helpful PPruners to help, which they did (as Roland knows...)  - but in the 'watch an array of Kipper fleet types explain why all his reservations are grossly unfounded' sort of helpful manner.

 

End result, slightly deflated Lake still has article to write, makes brave fist of it which will get the less-well-informed thinking 'Mmmm, interesting' while those who have done a bit of Kipper fleet work/sat in briefings about it/shared a beer or two¹ with Seedcorn chaps back over here on courses think 'Oh dear.'

 

¹ This may not be an exact tally...

[junglierating]

was it ever considered to base some RN Merlins at Lossie? - or is that a crazy idea!?

 

 

Not as crazy as having ASW Sea kings at the Scottish air station.....personal got lost for years up there!

Edited August 15, 2017 by junglierating

[Wafu]

I was always under the impression 819 was there to cover the Clyde? The two times we detached to 819, the ballon went up that a naughty red boat was on the West Coast of Scotland. 

Ripple 4 anyone?

[Max Headroom]

3 hours ago, junglierating said:

was it ever considered to base some RN Merlins at Lossie? - or is that a crazy idea!?

Range/speed?

 

Hopefully, the RAF will end up with more than this initial order? That way we could have one unit in Scotland and the other down in Cornwall? 

 

Trevor

[junglierating]

Yep range speed is a problem but its all that is available atm.

819 were there to sweep the clyde approaches prior to arrival or departure of a bomber

[Des]

2 hours ago, junglierating said:

Yep range speed is a problem but its all that is available atm.

819 were there to sweep the clyde approaches prior to arrival or departure of a bomber

ASW Merlins still deploy to Prestwick as and when required and from a briefing given at HMS Gannet SAR Flight not long before it was disbanded it was mentioned that the Navy lease still had a few years to run and that there would be a continuing but reduced presence up until it did at the very least 'in support of HM Naval Base Clyde' and various exercises.