UK Armed Forces Aircraft Numbers

78 thoughts on “UK Armed Forces Aircraft Numbers”

1. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 5:02 pm

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x68QxBUiIAw

   There you go James. Now doesn’t that look like fun! Parachuting, blazing around on machine gun bristling Land rovers, firing mortars at stuff. They even have snipers now it would seem.

   In all seriousness, I remember reading somewhere that their training course had been extended out to 32-34 weeks? If they cant crank out decent soldiers in that time then bloody hell. Not sure if they do their phase one with the army or if it’s all self contained? If not with the army then that seems very odd to me, very odd.
2. Challenger June 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm

   @Chris B

   Sounds like anything-involving air shows or other displays are a nice place to be!

   @Everyone

   I’m really not an expert or at all involved in the military, but I agree with most of the points here. Id much rather hang on-to the RAF regiment than have potentially good quality infantry units stuck doing that sort of stuff instead.

   However perhaps the RAF regiment is at the same time a bit too bloated and under worked in its present form. It shouldn’t regard itself or been seen by anyone else as an infantry set-up. Without too much disrespect they are a bit like glorified security guards. They have a part to play, but shouldn’t be seen for anything more than they are.
3. Brian Black June 13, 2012 at 5:12 pm

   I bet family has a lot to do with people joining the RAF Regt. Apart from one granddad in the Royal Navy all my family were Army, and I ended up joining the Army too.
   If your dad was flying Phantoms, and granddad was flying Spitfires, would you really give up your desire to follow them into the RAF just because the guy in the recruiting office said “that 15 minutes you spent in the street, pushing the door that says pull, means that we won’t let you drive a Typhoon, lad”?
   If the RAF has no problem filling the slots, lets keep the Regt.
4. topman June 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm

   @ chris b i think that covers basic and trade training together. No it isn’t with the army.
5. Brian Black June 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm

   There were nine Hawks flying up the Mall for the Queen’s bash the other week, Chris.B.
6. topman June 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm

   @ bb that’s the flyover stuff there is a stand in pilot or in this case 2 if needed. it’s different for the aerobatics a stand in pilot couldn’t do it. More training needed for each position also why they go out to akrotiri loads better weather to train in.
7. James June 13, 2012 at 6:40 pm

   @ Chris B,

   they lost me with the risible claim of being “world leaders in air-minded*** soldiering”. That claim fails on 3 counts at least: the RAF Regiment are not world leading in anything at all, they are not air-minded, and they are not soldiers.

   I’m not sure on their training – that sort of length sounds like it should be both basic and specialised training. I don’t believe they do it with the Army, probably for fear of losing their better recruits to the Army once they realise they’d made the wrong choice, and because their normal recruits would get binned for being fat dumb and useless.

   *** What does that mean? Is it a spastic attempt to try to take some of 16 AA Bde’s kudos, while not actually technically claiming to be AA? Sounds like the marketing department has had too much caffeine.
8. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 6:43 pm

   Yeah, apparently that was a pair of ex-Reds that made up the numbers. For the display season they’ll only run with 7.

   re; RAF Reg,

   I suspect they’re not quite as bad as is made out. Don’t forget they’ve been deployed to Afghanistan and have been outside the wire. Suffered a few casualties. As I understand their role is more pro-active than a security guard, so actively pushing out the patrol perimeter to keep the bad boys away as far away from the field as possible.

   And if the numbers are there, might as well get the most out of them. So set up a CSAR unit for a start. Wonder how they’d get on in their old role of seizing airfields? Just browsing their history, seems they also did good work in the middle east way back, serving as the ground component for many far flung bases around the empire and actually were sent out at times to actively go and shoot up some insurgents etc.

   Maybe we just need to re imagine the RAF Reg. Have them do basic with the army to start and consolidate, then move on to doing their specialist training with the experienced RAF trainers. I believe the management bollocks pharse for this would be “sweating your assets”.
9. topman June 13, 2012 at 6:56 pm

   @ chris b having them doing basic with the army would be the opposite of ‘sweating your assets’ the training unit is there anyway why not carry on using it to it’s capacity? Aside the fact basic training is always done in your respective service.
10. James June 13, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Chris B,

    yes, of course they go outside of the wire. That’s the problem. You have to give them a bit of turf to operate in or else there’ll be a complaint, but all that actually means is that the commander worries is that he’s got 25 square clicks of turf that are being looked after by Kevins and not professionals. If the HQ is also inside the wire, he’ll worry even more that the 25 square clicks of unsafe territory is right outside his base.
11. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    @ Topman,
    Surely if you’re running two course a year of around 20 odd weeks as the phase 2 training that would get the use out of the facilities? The point of making them do Phase One with the Army would be to hopefully ensure their basic soldering is on a par with the Army.

    @ James,
    Surely patrolling and defending 25 square miles would be right up the Regiments street? Surely they can’t be that incompetent?
12. James June 13, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    Chris B,

    I couldn’t possibly comment….

    What would be instructive would be a cost / soldier comparison between the RAG Regiment and the normal infantry. No 1 Squadron RAF Regiment turned up in Bosnia with absolutely every piece of Gucci infantry kit known to the British Army, all of them fully loaded with stuff that was only then trickling through to the infantry. Souped up body armour, everyone with advanced optics on the SA80s, twice the number of MGs, GPS per half section, two LRFs per “Flight”***, Goretex waterproofs. It just went on and on. Kit city. They were still fucking useless.

    *** If that’s the correct Kevin way to refer to a group of Keystone Kops that don’t actually doing any flying.
13. James June 13, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Thinking about it, there’s great sense in amalgamating the RAF Regiment and RAF Police, because all either do is guard stuff. You could include the RAF Movers as well, on the “Millwall FC” argument of getting all of the crap into one place. Then everyone would hate them, and they wouldn’t care.

    
14. topman June 13, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    @ chris b well not me it doesn’t make sense but i might well be wrong. Outside the online world they’re fine no it’s not really my area but i wouldn’t believe all you read online. They’re the unit the army love to hate. Anyway someone is surely by now about to call (i think there is just efi left) on raf reg buzz word bingo?
15. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    From what I’ve seen it seems to vary. Some people seem happy with them, some not.
16. Lord Jim June 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Historically the Army has grabbed even surplus RAF base it could get its hands on. The standard of quarters at RAF bases has always been far better than those on Army camps which in some cases are really terrible.

    The Arrows do go to Cyprus each year to train for the coming display season and get certified. They also carry out pilot selection at the same time. Being somewhere sunny means they get maximum flying time as well as have plenty of fun.

    Why are people knock the RAF Regt. They might not be in the samne league as the Para’s but so are many Army. I have known squaddies who would be the last person I would give a loaded weapon to. If the Regt’s training isn’t up to scratch then it needs a shake up to make sure they are actually up to the job. Their role has changed but even with extending the basic training I wouldn’t be surprised if it was still inadequate. Saying that I found out when going through Biggen Hill that the Regt was one of the few trades open to people who were colour blind!!
17. Lord Jim June 13, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Oops, need to slow down my typing and check before posting. Spelling alert.
18. Phil June 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    I did a competition once organised by the RAuxAF. Lots of reserve RAF Regiment units. They won 80% of the trophies! Its not like they spent most of their training year training for it or knew what the stands were going to be because their unit was providing the DS!
19. Phil June 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    I did a competition once organised by the RAuxAF. Lots of reserve RAF Regiment units. They won 80% of the trophies! Its not like they spent most of their training year training for it or knew what the stands were going to be because their unit was providing the DS!
20. Phil June 13, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    I also know someone who has just completed RAF basic training. Apparently during the 9 weeks they do 4 weeks with the Regiment to do all the more war like stuff.

    She was telling me some of their stories. They told the recruits that when they went to do their gunners course the bus stopped 5 miles from the barracks and they had to tab in suits and with their suitcases and ironing board and when they got there there were 54 of them and only 50 beds and they had to do press ups with the first four stopping being binned on the spot.

    Yeaaaah…
21. wf June 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    I don’t think it’s fair to slag off the RAF regt. But the attitude that “real men don’t want to guard airfields” is a tad misguided. After all, a squadron is basically a reinforced company group, and there are requirements for other such company groups elsewhere in the forces: force protection for RLC convoys, HQ protection, etc etc. Methinks rather than cannibalising battalions for said roles, we should formalise it by establishing permanent groups within existing regts.

    I cannot see the point of the RAF regt per se, not because they don’t have a role, but because since SHORAD was transferred the RA, there is no career progression for anyone there. They can never move beyond Wing Commander in the RAF because they cannot command an AEW and therefore rise within the RAF. Transfer them to Army regts.
22. Phil June 13, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    RAF Regiment get bashed because they have two chips on their shoulder compared everyone else’s one. They talk bollocks all day long (we were first into Iraq ad naseum) and as James said they cut about like ten men in more Gucci kit than even Royal can muster. And they stag on. Like it or not their main job is to stag on. Now often that can be dangerous, several of them have been hurt or killed stagging on, but its stagging on at the end of the day. Even the Guards get to stag on less when on operations, not more like the RAF Regiment.

    So they’re borish and they have a pump job, consequently, they get reamed.
23. James June 13, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    @ wf

    “But the attitude that “real men don’t want to guard airfields” is a tad misguided”

    I’m really hoping that you don’t believe the opposite.

    I’m not going to make any “real men” claims, but the idea that Royal, the infantry or cavalry or indeed the cadet corps would want to guard an airfield is laughable. And yet, some do actually sign onto the dotted line to do just that.

    God bless the RAF Regiment, they are needed, if not given any credit whatsoever. And quite rightly.
24. wf June 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    @James: I wouldn’t want to do it full time, but it’s a job that needs doing, just like RLC convoy escort. Hence, have company groups rotate around the task.
25. tsz52 June 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Brian Black: “NH90 or a development of AW149 could have provided a more capable battlefield support helicopter for the Army without going too outsized for the Navy’s frigates.”

    Not defending Wildcat or anything (and am aware of the revolving door dodgyness), but from reading about the problems that folks around the world are continuing to have with the NH90 (and NFH90), I think we did well to avoid that one. And any frigate variant of AW149 would need to be marinised: I looked into this a while ago and the power to weight margins really aren’t there for that, and Wildcat was a safer known-quantity investment (with some existing commonality).
26. Aussie Johnno June 14, 2012 at 2:07 am

    Topman, individual RAAF F-18A/B’s rackup around 220 hours a year. The F-18A/B’s were delivered with a 6000 hour life but against a spectrum that was unrealistic which meant a considerable amount extra work structural work early (stringer beefups, reprofiling etc). The fleet leaders would be over 5000 hours at the moment with the rest coming up on it. By public statements the original intention was to replace Hornets with F-35′s commencing 2016 but that has gone out the window with a start date now looking like 2018 at best. The RAAF is currently seeing if a little more can be squeesed out of the highest fatigue index aircraft or whether some more F-18F’s will be needed. But you have to give it to Boeing and US logistics, serviceability of what are basically old aircraft is still pretty good.
27. topman June 14, 2012 at 6:05 am

    @ aussie johnno thanks for that. That what i meant we have fewer aircraft in the forward fleet to avoid the problems the raaf are having now. It’s well known for replacements to be late, our use of aircraft when it happens means it’s less of a drama. Our equivalant would be tornado delivered with 4000 hrs then extended to 8000 now the plan is to go 12000. Our support set up is no doubt similar but with bae (deep joy!) instead.
28. John Hartley June 14, 2012 at 7:52 am

    The Lynx 3 prototype had a longer cabin/fuselage. Did any of that find its way to Wildcat?