Traditionally I don’t think there have been any large flypast for Rayal weddings. As for the Reds, they’re still pre season training in Cyprus.:)

Sorry for re-booting this thread but I couldnt find a more recent one on the topic ? In the latest edition of the RAF News out today , No. 1269 , in an interview with Air Marshal Andy Pulford he quotes the A330-200 as the ‘Voyager’ in RAF service and the A400M the ‘Atlas’ . I think the Atlas name has been quoted before but it’s the first time I have seen Voyager associated with the new tanker fleet ?

Voyager KC.2 and KC.3 IIRC.

As for the A400M, Atlas is a little unfortunate; already it’s being touted as the “AtlasT” or “FAtlasS”.:o

Just another example of paying out vast sums for very little in return, all the while we cut out forces down…

…As of October 2010, AirTanker had already built hangars and support buildings, and started recruitment.

Expensive as it is, and seeing the rest of Brize desperately trying to get ready for the arrival of Lyneham, there’s no way the RAF/MoD/Defence Estates could have sorted the superb infrastructure for the FSTA that’s appeared at Brize themselves without massive delays, skimping on budgets, and embarrassing mistakes. IMHO we should have given them more cash and got them to build a new passenger terminal too.

Tornadoes can’t go to sea. I think that had to play a part in the RAF’s reasoning.

And of course, the fact that with a larger force it is far more able to sustain a reasonably large deployment (for today’s RAF standards) over a period of several years, can carry weaponry the other couldn’t, and the fact that Harriers have always had a small problem when (occasionally) the engine packs up (which I hasten to add over a certain sandy country famed for its narcotics production, which has become even nastier over the past year or two, could end up being extremely unpleasant for a pilot involved), would never have been considered…:)

Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but it sounds like the back seaters will still be trained as WSOs. They just won’t be called Navigators.

No, “Navigators” as such haven’t existed officially for several years now, and only the generic “RAF” rear crew brevet has been issued. WSO training is gone for good (plenty in the system too, whole fleets worth of Navs ex-Nimrod, soon to be the rest of the F3 force, with the C-130K and VC10 within 2-3 years), and I suspect WSOp training will decrease substantially for a time too, again partially with a large surplus from Kinloss.

The VC-10 was withdrawn on some strange H&S issues (no floor mounted emergency cabin lighting as per modern airliners), frankly it smacked of a cover that the RAF only wanted to use Tristars in the PAX role.

Sadly it was a post Haddon-Cave decision on the advice of lawyers – in the event of an incident someone would have to be accountable for the lack of things such as floor lighting, automatic slides, no GPWS etc. Nothing wrong with the aeroplane, or those that operate it, in fact the RAF would love to still be using them in the AT role (as shown before Christmas!).

Thankfully, A330 will be a breath of fresh air to the RAF AT fleet (admittedly quite an expensive one), with the brand new aircraft utilised as airliners should be (ie, flown as much as possible), and for things such as the south atlantic passenger run to the Falklands, no longer relying on various standards of civilian charter (ranging from the excellent to the potentially dangerous).

Well its good news for the airlines, a hundred young pilots trained at the tax payers purse!

Won’t be good for the former students wallets though. Even a brand new multi engine pilot out of 45(R) Sqn has a considerable outlay to make before he or she could be in possession of and ATPL!:)

Can’t see why we can’t just put these pilots onto a desk position for a year or so (as suggested by some of the trainees), reduce the intake of pilots in the future and feed these guys in again over lets say a two year period?! Rather then totally waste the time, money and training…also seems more fair to me!

Mmm, it all depends on how you look at it. I don’t know the ins and outs of how the “25%” have been decided, but I bet you their performance in flying training up to this point has been taken into account, but when you consider normal “chop rates” on courses (those not making the grade), and those who withdraw voluntarily from training, the balance is hopefully not too great to make up.

If you were to instead keep everybody “holding”, and effectively stop recruiting for a couple of years, you then risk not recruiting potentially better long term candidates in that time-frame. The other issue that some of them may find are the desk positions they think are there to be filled, are in quite a lot of cases probably being filled by front line operators who have suffered post SDSR.

Maybe a bit left field, but perhaps the US may even find a use for them themselves.:)