| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 2023 (24-Apr-2008 03:44:28) |
hulahoop7 wrote: Make that 108. For every pilot in a squadron, you need one in training, training others, at a school or on some other duty away from the squadron. |
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 894 (24-Apr-2008 05:43:45) |
Twice as many? Seems a bit excessive, although I absolutely agree that you need more pilots than just those you have on the frontline in order to run training
and rotate through other postings. WRT to JFH, note that it says there are 48 pilots within JFH. That means that
non-flying postings outside of JFH aren't included within that total (and there'll be a few knocking around). From that total of 48 need to come the
front line flyers for the 30 Harrier in operational squadrons, and the blokes to fly as instructors with 20(R) squadron. Whether the non-flying postings within
the force are included in the total of 48 is unclear. So like I said wabpilot, it really could be far worse.
|
||
|
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1761 (24-Apr-2008 13:56:43) |
Jimlad1 wrote: The only people who ever thought it would were are in the British Parliament house and I doubt very many of them are well versed in military affairs. Its really the old retail cost cutting trick. If aircraft is capable of doing this job and doing that job, we can it do both jobs and have a half as many. They never seem to realize that that aircraft can't be at two different places at one time. |
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 895 (25-Apr-2008 08:38:11) |
The bit I don't understand is why Tornado aren't being deployed to Afghanistan... at all... Sure, they need a better runway than Harrier, but there are
good strips around (e.g. Kabul, Kandahar and Bagram off the top of my head), and the Tornado can actually make far faster transits. And they have a back
seater, which would have to be quite helpful in a congested environment.
If the Tornado force were put into the pot for 'ghan duties, then suddenly the pool of available squadrons triples. And the number of airframes goes up even more.
Last Edited By: Jim WH
25-Apr-2008 08:41:02.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Colin Mc |
|||
|
Posts: 599 (25-Apr-2008 13:48:25) |
A couple of quotes from the 2004 Defence Review which sheds light on the pilot/plane ratio:
"....we will need the ability to deploy up to 16 air defence fighters within the air expeditionary task group. When standing quick reaction alert tasks are taken into account this translates into a front line force of 55 crews" "We judge that, as a result of these and other improvements, an air expeditionary task group capable of deploying up to 64 offensive fast jets will enable the full range of small, medium and large scale contingent operations to be conducted. Under these revised requirements the offensive force will require around 170 front line crews" There are four aircraft on the QRA which gives 20 AD aircraft for 55 crews, so the ratio seems to be 2.5/2.6 pilots per aircraft. Presumably this will be much the same for F35. |
||
|
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3472 (26-Apr-2008 00:01:58) |
Interesting what numbers tell you.
16 Air Defence fighters is half of 32 and 32 is the number the RN thought it needed for Tactical air unit in 1962. Curious one that since AMRAAM gives a AD fighter the ability of a flight of four AD fighters of the 60's at least. You'd expect the number to have reduced to a quarter the 1962 size to just 8 fighters. However 4 AD fighters on QRA is not that dissimilar to the RNs thoughts on a flight of 4 for a standing CAP. Also of note is the number 64, as the RN thought that was what it needed for offensive operations in its TAU (or should we call it TAG which is prefered now?, strangly I prefer TAG but perhaps thats American influence?) Even more interesting is the pilot numbers 16 AD Fighters = 55 crews, are these twin seaters, does that mean 110 people? 64 Offensive jets = 170 crews This is rather suggestive that theres been little basic change in missions per day and availability since 1962 and that if there has been such savings they've all been eaten up in increasing mission numbers/profiles. |
||
|
wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 2026 (27-Apr-2008 18:55:49) |
Jim WH wrote: Yeah, twice as many. The typical VF has a TO&E calling for 18 aviators. (Our VF usually has 12 aircraft.) Those 18 aviators are on overlapping three
year tours. (Again, this is typical and there are deviations from the norm.) Thus for each aviator in the squadron one must be available to replace him or her.
Each aviator typically does alternating shore and squadron tours. Nuggets, first tour aviators, start in training. They require a certain number of instructors
who have had at least one tour in a front line squadron. (The USAF has a few slots for instructors who have not been through an operational squadron. Still,
that does not appreciably alter the numbers.)
|
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 897 (27-Apr-2008 23:30:28) |
Well Wabpilot, the allocation should be as follows:
-45 pilots in operational squadrons flying a total of 30 aircraft -45 pilots elsewhere Now, some of those 'elsewhere' pilots aren't going to be in JFH, they'll be banging around the rest of the RAF and RN, although some should be in JFH. It is unclear from the original posted information whether non-flying pilots within JFH are included in the total, but it is clear that students aren't (use of the words 'qualified Harrier pilots'). So, as I said, with 48 pilots, it could be far worse given what JFH have been doing and what else is going on in the FAA and RAF. |
||
|
Anthony58 |
|||
|
Posts: 2377 (28-Apr-2008 00:59:28) |
On the governments plan of 12 aircraft x 2 RAF Sqns and 9 aircraft x 2 RN FAA Sqns equate to 42 aircraft, we currently have the RAF Sqns and 1 x RN FAA Sqn and
48 pilots. So even at full complement of 42 operational aircraft, the UK will have a deficit of aircrew needed in a high intensive war fighting complement,
especially as only 19 Harrier pilots are qualified for night-time landing on deck.
At 36 operational aircraft we need 54 pilots for high intensive war fighting and sixty three for 42 operational aircraft plus additional pilots for training pilots, other training/career courses needs/non flying attachments including command/sickness and or accident cover and cover for premature retirement. There is no way that even an additional 54 pilots would be available. Around the mid eighties I read the RN FAA had 57 qualified Sea Harrier pilots to cover 8 aircraft x 3 Sqns (1 of which was the reserve sqn), which despite being in deficit, just about provided enough pilots. In today's environment how many pilots could be recruited or retained?
Last Edited By: Anthony58
28-Apr-2008 01:01:53.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 899 (28-Apr-2008 06:41:49) |
Anthony, I doubt there are actually 42 fully mission capable GR.9/9A available at present. Poor planning on the part of somebody, but that's the way it is
for the minute.
And the TOE for the squadrons is 2x9 aircraft RAF squadrons and 1x12 aircraft Naval Strike Wing (i.e. 30 aircraft in total). In the mid term that'll transition towards 4 squadrons of 9 aircraft each (i.e. 36 aircraft in total). Therefore, using the 1.5:1 ratio this implies a total of 54 pilots needed within the operational squadrons of JFH, and doubling that number (consistent with wabpilot's USN model) yield 108 qualified Harrier jockeys knocking around the RAF and FAA (not all in the JFH at any time). 48 pilots clearly is under establishment, but it's nowhere near as bad as it could be. Looking at the example of the FAA during the 1980's: 2x8 = 16 (aircraft within operational Sqn) 16x1.5 = 24 (pilots in operational Sqn) 24x2 = 48 (total pilots required to sustain front line force) ==> the FAA was properly manned! But I don't think anyone was disputing that there were problem Anthony, nor - for that matter - were they disputing that the situation in the FAA is pretty dire. These problems will need to be addressed, and if things haven't got better in a couple of years time (i.e. once all the GR.9/9A are avaiable, and once there has been enough time to regenerate post-Afghanistan,, and once the FAA has had some time to get it's shite in order), then I think we can justifiably start worrying. But for the moment, I stick with my origional contention: things could be far worse, there are now enough GR.9/9A and qualified pilots to deploy a full CVS air wing (effectively 12 Harrier and 18+ pilots) within JFH. That's still a good result when considering how over-committed JFH has been in the past 3 years, and given the other pressures on the group (No. 3 Sqn converting to Typhoon in 2006, the FAA hemorrhaging pilots following loosing SeaHarrier, competing with Typhoon for new pilots etc.). Of particular interest, I can't wait to see what happens to recruitment numbers for the FAA once CVF approaches launch. |
||
