Talk:Fleet Air Arm

Untitled

What does the first sentence mean :"of several navies"? Do you mean several countries' navies operate together or do the British refers to navies as the US refers to fleets? Rmhermen 16:54 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't write that, but what the writer means is that several navies around the world operate an air arm that is referred to as the Fleet Air Arm. I will edit the article to disambig that sentence. David Newton 19:30 16 Jun 2003 (BST)

Who ever wrote the bit about the catapults has it completely backwards. It was the ROYAL NAVY that introduced the "powerful catapults" - steam catapults, the USN adopted a British invention along with the angled flight deck and mirrored landing aid.

207.159.196.2 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The whoel history section there is a bit wonky, the Sea Vampire was the first carrier launched jet in 1948. GraemeLeggett 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Carriers

It says in the section called 'Fleet Air Arm' under history, that "By the end of the war the strength of the Fleet Air Arm was: 59 aircraft carriers, 3,700 aircraft, 72,000 officers and men and 56 air stations all over the world" I think I'm right in saying that the aircraft carriers are part of the surface fleet, and that the aircraft which operate from them are under the command of the FAA, in which case, the strength of the FAA shouln't include the aircraft carriers. Or was it organised differently during the war? Davepealing 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of "No." in squardon names

I believe that using the word "number" (often abbreviated to "No.") before the squadron name is an Air Force usage and the Navy simply uses the number for example, in the Air Force you might say No. 3 Squadron, but the Navy would say 815 Squadron. As an ex FAA (RAN) officer, I find the use of the "No." combined with the squadron number jarring.

Unless someone can show that the RN has adopted this usage, I will change the references to remove the offending word. I note that a quick review of a number of official web pages of the RN, do not use "No." when referrring to navy squadrons.Nick Thorne 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

NAS

This article and several others use the term NAS to mean Naval Air Squadron. It may be that this is correct usage in the RN, but to the best of my knowledge NAS usually means Naval Air Station that is a land based air field operated by Naval forces.Nick Thorne 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

badge and motto

any idea on either of these. a quick search throws up a winged anchor. GraemeLeggett 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you've requested it, I've added the winged badge image. QuentinUK (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming

When the FAA was returned to the RN in 1937, it was not officially named the Fleet Air Arm. It was not so named until 1953. I have spoken to an ex RN pilot in 1953, he recalls the year because he was a midshipman at the time when he interviewd by his local member of parliament and asked how long he had been a member of the FAA. His reply was "a month" because the name had only been officially changed that long. Prior to that it was either known as "Navaal Aviation" or the RNAS. Someone with access to official RN history may be able to supply accurate dates. Nick Thorne 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From my research, I'm fairly positive that Fleet Air Arm was the term used prior to the Inskip award, when Naval Aviation was under RAF control. Whilst the old term was still in existance, and more commonly used, the correct term during the period up to 1952 was the Air Branch. I have edited it to include this, although if someone feels the minutae of naming is somewhat superfluous, I wouldn't not object to it being removed.SteveCobden (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Mediterranean Front (1941), Alan Moorehead writes: "... Cunningham was soon appearing off Taranto with his fleet air arm to cripple nearly half a dozen enemy warships at anchor there." This doesn't show much, apart from that the term was used loosely (and in lower-case) during WWII to describe naval aircraft. Ericoides (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It was known as the Fleet Air Arm during the RAF period in the 1920s and 1930s. [1] MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Officially, the air component of the Royal Navy between 1918 and 1936 was known as the Royal Air Force Fleet Air Arm (FAA). When operational and administrative control of air assets was returned to the Royal Navy, the air component was named the Air Branch of the Royal Navy (ABRN). However, the use of "FAA" and "Fleet Air Arm" continued in wide use, and was so firmly installed in the popular imagination that, post-War, the Royal Navy returned official usage to Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm (FAA). It is worth noting that the Air Ministry—the political and governmental administration of the RAF, retained control of research, development, procurement, and manufacture of airframes, aero engines, and complete aircraft, as well as all weapons employed by aircraft. It required direct intervention by the War Cabinet to force the Air Ministry-RAF to place more modern naval aircraft—like the Barracuda and the Firefly—into series production.

Ranya (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Bucaneers?

No mention is made of these aircraft, used for low level strike. Adresia (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of aircraft used by the Fleet Arm (- refer List of aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm) are not mentioned as this is just an overview of the Fleet Air Arm. If you think that the Buccaneer was a significant milestone in the history of the Fleet Air Arm I dont think any body is going to object to you adding some information perhaps under Post-war history. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that the Royal Navy fleet Air Arm in under operation control of the RAF

I reads this and want to know if this is true. Please see reference [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This page needs lot work

in reviewing the content of this page, there is a lot of information, left out or not updated. Ships, Aircrafts, current number are all wrong. Please let me know if you need help in updating this pageJacob805 (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No reason why you cant correct the page yourself if it is wrong (saves us guessing what you think is wrong), please provide reliable references for anything you change. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone has time you know.Phd8511 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Formation date

In the infobox it shows the date of formation as 1937 should it be 1924? MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the Fleet Air Arm archive In 1937, The Naval Air Branch, later known as the Fleet Air Arm, was returned eventually to Admiralty control. [3] Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OK what confused me was the On 24 May 1939 the Fleet Air Arm was returned to Admiralty control the 1937 date is not mentioned outside of the infobox! Sorry another question if this the the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm do we have an article on the RAF Fleet Air Arm (1924-1937) version? MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen one but it would come under the RAF article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The return of all aircraft and flying personal intended for service at sea to the operational and administrative control of the Royal Navy, as the Air Branch of the Royal Navy (ABRN), was agreed between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty in 1936, with the agreement promulgated in 1937 by HM Government Order in Council. The process was complicated and directly impacted readiness of both services, so it was done in stages, with the final stage taking place during early 1939, and the process agreed completed in May of 1939.

One should be careful to separate floatplane aircraft and Flyingnoats from fixed-wheel aircraft. Floatplane aircraft and Flyingboats were early escapees from RAF control, and were not a part of the agreement reached in 1936. Ranya (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

792 NAS

I can't find any info of it still being active. If you can, then revert. If not, I removed it.Phd8511 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

848 Naval Air Squadron

@Hammersfan: and others, why is 848 Naval Air Squadron not listed in the Flying squadrons section of this article? Dreddmoto (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It was disbanded during December 2013 according to [4] and it is not listed as being active on the Royal Navy website Gavbadger (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gavbadger, thanks for the reply. That's strange because it's mentioned on the Royal Navy website here http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/fleet-air-arm/support-and-training/commando-helicopter-force-headquarters but, it does not say anything about being disbanded. Is it going to reform and then be returned to the list in this article? Dreddmoto (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they forgot to remove the squadron from the HQ article. I have found no mention of it being reformed. Gavbadger (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fleet Air Arm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100524041233/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/operations-and-support/fleet-air-arm/naval-air-squadrons/naval-strike-wing/ to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/fleet-air-arm/naval-air-squadrons/naval-strike-wing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Misleading content: angled decks

Currently, the article has

As jets became larger, more powerful and faster they required more space to take off and land. The US Navy simply built much larger carriers. The Royal Navy had a few large carriers built and completed after the end of the war but another solution was sought. This was partly overcome by the introduction of a Royal Navy idea to angle the flight deck away from the centre line so that the aircraft landing had a clear run away from the usual forward deck park.

This has three problems. The principal one is the statement that the angled flight deck was a "Royal Navy idea;" in fact it was a joint Anglo-American development arising both independently and from discussions between officers of the two navies; for example a headline from the time reads "WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 -- Plans to build angled or canted flight decks on United States and possibly British aircraft carriers were announced jointly today by United States and British naval officers." The first tests of concept were conducted in 1952 aboard USS Midway and HMS Triumph, unmodified carriers with their deck markings repainted at an angle; the first physical angled deck was lashed up aboard USS Antietam the following year, preceding a similar mod to HMS Centaur by several months.

The second problem is a rather smaller one, the assertion that the USN "simply built much larger carriers." In fact the US supercarriers were preceded by the wholesale conversion of the wartime Essex class.

The third issue is more a sin of omission: the amount of postwar money and effort expended on the failed "flexible deck" land-on-a-mattress concept.

There is no question that the RN deserves all the credit for two tremendous postwar innovations, the steam catapult and the mirror landing system. But assigning them sole credit for the angled deck is a claim too far. --Solicitr (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the name

I came to the article to find out if the Fleet in Fleet Air Arm is named after the place in Hampshire, or whether the name has a different origin. The article doesn't seem to offer any clarity. Olires (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's the Air Arm of the naval fleet, see eg Flight magazine 1924. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)