Talk:Fleet Air Arm

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Use of "No." in squardon names

message: 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)
thread_title: NAS

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

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

message: I reads this and want to know if this is true. Please see reference   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it true that the Royal Navy fleet Air Arm in under operation control of the RAF 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not everyone has time you know.Phd8511 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs lot work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  792 NAS 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  848 Naval Air Squadron 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fleet Air Arm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading content: angled decks 

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