Queen Elizabeth class carrier

Hilarious.

For the benefit of people who aren't offended by a differing opinion: the rotary squadrons of the FAA do exist on paper, and they are mostly staffed by RN personnel. However, due to the structuring of the joint forces, they cannot operate independently of the RAF. Consequently, the FAA can no longer be considered an independent service.

It is even worse for the 'FAA squadrons' of joint force lightning since they will be double badged as RAF squadrons and will have a significant number of RAF personnel. They are in effect RAF squadrons that will pretend to be FAA squadrons when embarked. On land, they will be RAF squadrons and will have the unit designations as such. This is part of the reason why these squadrons will not have unit markings.

So people presenting you with sites that contradict you is somehow an opinion rather than a fact that contradicts what you've been posting and I have to ask if you've actually got any references to back up what your saying?
 
So people presenting you with sites that contradict you is somehow an opinion rather than a fact that contradicts what you've been posting and I have to ask if you've actually got any references to back up what you're saying?

No one has posted any such information. Only a link to a glossy public facing Royal Navy site, which lists the squadrons that compose the FAA. Those squadron's and their aircraft do in fact exist. It is not my argument that they do not.
They very much do. However due to the way Joint Helicopter Command works, and how Joint Force Harrier used to work, and how Joint Force Lightning will work, the FAA cannot operate independently of RAF support structures. (Neither can Army Air Corps either, but since they operate several types that the RAF do not, they retain more independence than the FAA.)

This was done, not as some Goeringesque RAF masterplan to hoard all the precious precious aircraft for themselves, but rather as a pretty rational expedient by the MoD and Treasury to save money on otherwise duplicated support infrastructure. It is just that because the RAF had the most aircraft it was their support infrastructure that was consolidated on, and it was they who ended up having the most control over the various 'Joint Forces'. Aircraft are not the core focus for the other two services, and so to try and preserve their budgets in other areas they acquiesced.
I doubt that the service chiefs of the RAF are too unhappy with the extra budgetary clout and influence over the procurement decisions of the other services that this gives them. In fact, I suspect they realized the end results of this process before it began. Which is why they have been very much in favour of it.

The end result is that the Fleet Air Arm as it once was is no longer really a thing. What is left is rather a sort of return to the state of affairs before the naval aircraft were divested from the RAF in 1939.

The people, the machines and units are real. Rather it is the FAA itself which is now a revenant like shade. Here, but becoming more intangible with every passing day.



Quite honestly I'm astounded at how angry people are getting over what is really a very esoteric point of bureaucratic organisation.
 
No one has posted any such information. Only a link to a glossy public facing Royal Navy site, which lists the squadrons that compose the FAA. Those squadron's and their aircraft do in fact exist. It is not my argument that they do not.
They very much do. However due to the way Joint Helicopter Command works, and how Joint Force Harrier used to work, and how Joint Force Lightning will work, the FAA cannot operate independently of RAF support structures. (Neither can Army Air Corps either, but since they operate several types that the RAF do not, they retain more independence than the FAA.)

This was done, not as some Goeringesque RAF masterplan to hoard all the precious precious aircraft for themselves, but rather as a pretty rational expedient by the MoD and Treasury to save money on otherwise duplicated support infrastructure. It is just that because the RAF had the most aircraft it was their support infrastructure that was consolidated on, and it was they who ended up having the most control over the various 'Joint Forces'. Aircraft are not the core focus for the other two services, and so to try and preserve their budgets in other areas they acquiesced.
I doubt that the service chiefs of the RAF are too unhappy with the extra budgetary clout and influence over the procurement decisions of the other services that this gives them. In fact, I suspect they realized the end results of this process before it began. Which is why they have been very much in favour of it.

The end result is that the Fleet Air Arm as it once was is no longer really a thing. What is left is rather a sort of return to the state of affairs before the naval aircraft were divested from the RAF in 1939.

The people, the machines and units are real. Rather it is the FAA itself which is now a revenant like shade. Here, but becoming more intangible with every passing day.



Quite honestly I'm astounded at how angry people are getting over what is really a very esoteric point of bureaucratic organisation.

So your sidestepping that you haven't posted any information to back up your claims and further doesn't the link indicate that they are in fact operating independently in the crashes listed which also undermines your argument.
 
That isn't unusual on this day and age. The RAAFs Wedgetail AEW&C always has a couple of RAN operators from ship CICs. This just means that these are national assets and more than one service can share the load of supporting, operating and manning them.
 
So your sidestepping that you haven't posted any information to back up your claims and further doesn't the link indicate that they are in fact operating independently in the crashes listed which also undermines your argument.

How does it? It just lists the harriers lost when, wher, how, and by what units.

This comment makes me think you don't understand my arguement. So perhaps I have been poor in communicating it. Let me restate simply.

The FAA does not really exist as a proper naval air service. There are personnel, machine, squadrons and organizations marked as FAA, but logistical, bugetary and bureauratic dependance on RAF structures and orgnisations prevents them from fulfiling purely Royal Navy requirements and policies. The RAF has a large amount of influence over FAA operations, and this influence is only growing stronger.
They have little more notional independance from the RAF than the Cavalry or Royal Artillery have from the Army.

I have read this stuff in military blog articles over the past several years, I am not going to spend time and effort digging though the web, to win an internet debate. So feel free to disbelieve me if you wish.
(Another edit: little lie here, I did look something up. Double badging the squadrons seems to have been walked back on since a year or two ago when each carrier squadron was going to have both an RAF and RN unit designation. Now the carriers squadrons only have one, and are to be split evenly between RN and RAF names, but with a mix of personnel in both and of course using the same support infrastructure at the same RAF base.)

EDIT: I realise that this (weirdly heated) argument is getting less and less relevant to the topic so this is the last I shall say on the matter. If anyone wants to go further into this subject, look into the way the various past and present joint aircraft commands are structured and how several MOD sources have said the Lightnings are to be operated.
 
Last edited:
How does it? It just lists the harriers lost when, wher, how, and by what units.

This comment makes me think you don't understand my arguement. So perhaps I have been poor in communicating it. Let me restate simply.

No I understand it, you think the FAA only exists on paper. However many seem to disagree with this and seem to have regarded other peoples views as only opinion whilst essential only presenting an opinion yourself.
 
The obvious scope for inter operability for the last 100 years has been between the British and French navies if only the public and politicians could grow up and forget nationalism. They have similar or complementary needs and abilities and the sum total of resources would give them a joint and separate force of larger size, more economic of scale and a shorter cycle of modernisation. Not to mention having only 1/4 of your fleet in refit instead of half.

However both sides have displayed eternal childish squabbles over whose country and workers will get what bits and the result is that French taxes get spent like Louis XIV at Versailles and the British sulk and want to take their ball and go home.

There could have been 4 QE class carriers and matching fleets that could be called upon when needed as a single force or to keep 2 QEs on station anywhere for as long as needed without spending foreign currency and maintaining a strategic ship and aero industry not to mention similar results for the RAF and the aero industry. Hundreds of thousands of French and British seem to cope quite adequately living and working in each other's country and (language aside) their cultures are closer than with, say, the USA.
 
BTW: For anyone who wants to see the difference between playing the ball and playing the man-

Compare this post to the one that got Admiral Beez tossed. Both expressed the same point, only one didn't include needless personalization.
Well said Mod. MancFrank was a model of restraint in his reply. I'll follow his example. In hindsight I should called out the nonsense without getting personal.
 
Last edited:
Top