JagRigger Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 74 would be a great PR tool, but my money is on 19 & 23 purely on the basis of lowest first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 74 would be a great PR tool, but my money is on 19 & 23 purely on the basis of lowest first. Like that catz man keep it simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) As the F-35 is being ordered primarily as a naval asset for carrier borne duty I feel that there should be at least two 800 series Fleet Air Arm units flying the type with the RAF operating the third operational unit plus the OCU. That would allow one naval squadron per carrier with the RAF unit as a floating (no pun intended!) reserve if needed which could concentrate mainly on its land based interdictor role. That way `light blue' personnel don`t have to serve at sea for long periods unless needed and the carriers retain some teeth. When one carrier is under maintenance the other naval F-35 sqn could split its time between backing up the existing carrier and land based ops.. I agree that 9 Sqn is a good idea for one of the Tiffie units and 12 or XV Sqn would seem like a decent proposition for the other extra unit with the other Tornado units becoming drone squadrons. The original idea for the Nimrod would appear to be the best option for the new P-8 too,.....just a pity that the original idea upon formation of the RAF from the RFC & RNAS that ex RFC & RNAS squadrons should have equal seniority with the RNAS units being prefixed with a 2 (ie 1 Sqn RNAS becomes 201 Sqn RAF) doesn`t appear to have been adhered to. It would be nice to have at least one ex RNAS unit represented in the modern day RAF for historical reasons (I believe that 207 ® Sqn on Hawk T.1`s was to have been disbanded but has been granted a temporary extension, so is by no means `safe'?). Great views being shared by everybody and you speak a great deal of sense on RAF matters XV107, Cheers Tony. PS- I know that 54 Sqn is currently a reserve unit at Waddington but where would it stand when it comes to being a Typhoon unit? Is the case of this old fighter unit harmed by its current reserve status? Edited November 25, 2015 by tonyot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 There is a big hole in this great plan, or more than one. The training of enough pilots I have already written about and will not repeat. However there is another very close, linked by the very aircraft used, hole in the whole program which is not balanced. 100 Squadron have been flying Hawks since the early 1990's, they were for the most part built in the 1970's. Whilst I know they are to some degree like Triggers broom ( I have never had a new one in 20 years, I have had 10 new handles, and 6 new heads though) The Red Arrows are flying aircraft of the same vintage. They represent the RAF across the world. There is a limit to how long they can go on and be safe. ( must not forget the Navy types who also still fly the MK1) Is there a sizable order for new Hawks planned? Nigel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Short answer, no. Between them, No.100 Squadron, RAFAT and 736 NAS operate about 40-45 Hawks, with a handful at Boscombe Down, and there are currently about a dozen still in use with No.4 FTS. In addition there are 60 or so in storage at Shawbury, so with good planning a rotation policy could be worked out to allow the present users to safely fly them for a good few years yet. The fly in the ointment is that on current planning the Hawk T.1 is due to be taken out of service in 2020, with current support contracts reflecting that. I fully expect No.100 Sqdn and 736 NAS to be disbanded and their roles to be taken over by civilian companies, while as for the Red Arrows, who knows? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kstater94 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Someone on one of my FB pages mentioned something about a squadron having a "sponsor" within the MOD to be re-established and that this was why the traditional convention of seniority has sometimes been overlooked. What exactly does that mean? Sponsor within the upper halls of the MOD...? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Someone on one of my FB pages mentioned something about a squadron having a "sponsor" within the MOD to be re-established and that this was why the traditional convention of seniority has sometimes been overlooked. What exactly does that mean? Sponsor within the upper halls of the MOD...? A high-ranking former member of the squadron in a position to influence the selection process, I shouldn't wonder. One of the Lightning Boys books has a bit where a pilot shuffles around the seniority cards to ensure a specific squadron is reactivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 T7 ,I have it on good authority that the t1/1a are good for a few years yet....but I believe life extension of the T2 is not quite so straightforward. Meanwhile we can bang on about aircrew but equally important are the maintainers and thinking about it enough spare parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Maintainers,.....easy,.....don`t the MoD just put it out to private bidders who then employ ex RAF/RN personnel.......great in the short term but who trains up the next generation of maintainers.......mmm!!! I agree that more aircrew and maintainers need to be recruited and trained,....pronto! Perhaps they will outsource pilot training to cover a 5 year surge in training,...maybe by adding this to the already privatised training contract which is due to start soon? But then the defence review does seem to be very `kit' orientated without concentrating much on the personnel. Tony PS- Great point about the Red Arrows,.........it will have to be a British type,......maybe an extra order for Hawk T.2`s without the extra gubbins is intended, maybe for an additional budget statement in 5 years or so? Edited November 25, 2015 by tonyot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Have proposed this before. To include as many retired RAF squadrons as possible it would not be difficult to allocated each C-17, Voyager, Atlas, Sentry and the new P-8 a squadron number plate. The VC-10C1 all carried names of Victoria Cross holders and it could work the same way. I simple badge below the cockpit window and maybe some kind of data sheet inside the cabin to inform the passengers of the history of the chosen squadron. Paul Interesting proposal……With the ever dwindling number of Squadrons/Units in the RAF/FAA ORBAT, I have also long advocated that we adopt a system similar to that in France. My proposal would see the most senior Squadron number plates retained with the more 'junior' Squadrons as Flights within a Squadron, so, for example we could have No 1 Squadron (Typhoon) with 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 Flights under it. Aircraft would carry the 'primary' Squadron Badge on one side of the fin and the 'secondary' Flight badge on the other. The Squadron and its air/groundcrew could then maintain the heraldry and traditions of the units, within each of the Squadrons. This way, the Typhoon Wing, at say RAF Lossiemouth, could, in effect keep the history and traditions of at least eight squadrons going. The French and Italians have operated the system quite successfully for some time now, with allegiance to both the 'main' and 'secondary' units maintained with some healthy rivalry. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Best ask the SNP defence minister....... Peter Current plan, according to the press, sees the P-8As likely to be operating from Lossiemouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 PS- Great point about the Red Arrows,.........it will have to be a British type,......maybe an extra order for Hawk T.2`s without the extra gubbins is intended, maybe for an additional budget statement in 5 years or so? I think that BAE Systems and the MoD will come to some form of leasing agreement for new Hawks, with the aircraft owned by BAE and maintained and flown by the RAF. There's no way that the RAF will ever pay outright for new aircraft for the Reds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotthldr Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 The F-35 superbase was always going to be Marham, not sure of what becomes of Lossie post Tornado in 2019. Lossie is now a main operating base for the Typhoon, so Tornado retirement isn't going to affect it. 15R will be moving to Marham sooner than expected to free space up for P8 and more than likely another Typhoon Sqn going into the Northern HAS dispersal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) I think what we are discovering through our collective understand of HM Forces is that the plan offered earlier in the week has little meat on the bones that have been thrown to the RAF / FAA. They mention the teeth but we all know there has to be some support. Civilan contracts will not hack all the situations presented here. I note reading the reivew the RAF and Royal Navy are going to manage all this kit with just 700 more fine men and women. On the upside I know the RAF are running a cracking apprentice program for 16 year olds. Great for the younger generation and giving them a chance to make something of their life. Nigel Edited November 25, 2015 by Nigel Foster60 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Interesting proposal……With the ever dwindling number of Squadrons/Units in the RAF/FAA ORBAT, I have also long advocated that we adopt a system similar to that in France. My proposal would see the most senior Squadron number plates retained with the more 'junior' Squadrons as Flights within a Squadron, so, for example we could have No 1 Squadron (Typhoon) with 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 Flights under it. Aircraft would carry the 'primary' Squadron Badge on one side of the fin and the 'secondary' Flight badge on the other. The Squadron and its air/groundcrew could then maintain the heraldry and traditions of the units, within each of the Squadrons. This way, the Typhoon Wing, at say RAF Lossiemouth, could, in effect keep the history and traditions of at least eight squadrons going. The French and Italians have operated the system quite successfully for some time now, with allegiance to both the 'main' and 'secondary' units maintained with some healthy rivalry. Just a thought. Didn`t the RAF try a similar system during the 1950`s or 60`s using split numbers which were supposed to keep the ethos of both units alive but it just died a death? I agree that it sounds like a great idea on paper and would like to see it work as it appears to do in France and Italy but I just cannot see it working in the UK,..........even full squadron`s within the Tornado Wing appear to have lost their identity (hardly any aircraft carrying sqn markings at least) due to centralised servicing etc and when deployments are made it is generally a composite force drawn from the entire Wing. It would seem weird to `hold a torch' for your parent unit and the individual unit in equal measure,.....maybe it is a British tribal thing? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 One of the great strengths of the British military is, was and always will be the tribal system. Loyalty to the Ship, Battalion, Squadron has ushally being paramount, normally the next loyalty is to the next highest unit. People mess with it at their peril. Nigel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Tony - yes, the RAF did attempt this in the 1950s, through the linked squadron scheme. Thus you had 45/33 Squadron (and others), where an extant squadron was linked with a recently-disbanded one. The problem was that the members of the extant squadron felt no affiliation with the number after the '/' and it became clear that the scheme added nothing to heritage, ethos or the maintenance of squadron tradition, and the scheme was quietly dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 These days with the pooling of airframes and ground crew at station level and the use of combined/composite units on operations and even exercises is the Squadron tradition slowly dying? Oooh, that's a controversial one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascoteer Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 T7 In terms of Sqn cohesion WRT Groundcrew then yes I would say so. In terms of Sqn cohesion WRT Aircrew then no, absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 We are very lucky to have five service instructors from RAF Leeming on our unit (all ground trades). They all seem to have Squadron loyalty to their regular Squadrons. Let alone the jesting between trades. Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Just a small clarification, the Italian Air Force follows a system that is actually more similar to the USAF one: a Stormo is the equivalent of a wing and is composed of one or more Gruppi (groups). Each of these today fields 12-16 aircrafts and is therefore the rough equivalent of an RAF Squadron. Each Gruppo is then split in a number of Squadriglie (today the equivalent of a flight, larger in the past). Now the Squadriglie were originally the units of the Army air component in WW1 and until 1923, when the Air Force became independent. From then on the structure has not really changed, although there have been independents Gruppi and even Squadriglie (this is still possible today). A Squadriglia can be attached to a Stormo without being part of a Gruppo, this is for example the case of the liaison flights. It's not really correct to say that a unit carries the heritage of previously separate unit, as these units have always been separated in the same way. The main distinction is by Gruppi and this is where most of the traditions are carried on. Not too different from the way things are in the RAF from this point of view. Edited November 25, 2015 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Nigel I agree.muck about with the proven system at your peril. Navy tried with topmast. Oops fail Mind you it helps to have manpower in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now