First Post!

[Sticks]

As an AH trainer, I agree with just about every letter of Front Seater's recent post on the thread regarding AAC pilot training. The AAC will fail with this aircraft if they carry on the way they are going.
As an FJ colleage said to me on a recent Cranwell course "If you are going to successfully fly and fight an aircraft of this complexity - then it has to be a full time job for the pilot selected".
In my three years in the training programme, I have seen too many young and talented officers restricted by, amongst other things, essay competitions and the requirements of fulfilling their next staff job; and I have also seen too many, equally talented SNCO pilots being dictated to by non- aircrew Sgt Majors "marching them up and down the square", figuratively speaking.
This aircraft, above all, requires aviation professionalism and the AAC, currently, isn't providing it.

[diginagain]

Oddly enough, Sticks, pretty much the same was said back when the Lynx/TOW replaced Scout/SS11. Sadly, career officers will have to compete with their colleagues from other arms when it come to promotion, and squaddies will maintain their tradition of ' marchin' hup an' dahn the square', as they have for generations.

The AH task will get done, though I agree, it could be done better. I would like to hope that our contributions on Pprune may make some further up the chain of command think a bit.

[Phoney Tony]

Simplistically speaking, the reasons you quote are why Trenchard moved specialists into a new service the, RAF.

I have seen other specialist 'Joint' areas that the Army has ruined, Scopwith Barracks, being one. (If you know you know).

I am sure you are proud to be in the Army, and rightly so, but the Army must learn to adjust it's outlook to accommodate new capabilities, which require new styles of leadership and management. If they do not they will be left behind.

In a wider arguement they must also understand that Joint does not mean we do it the Army way.

[Scotch Bonnet]

I do not disagree with the majority of what has been said but for what its worth here are some casual observations.

A health warning first, the Apache training program is complicated and has many component parts that are inextricably linked, its resource heavy and it is not an easy task to simplify the various facets and make valid criticisms/suggestions…..

The RAF recruits their FJ community from around 30 million able bodied UK civilians who could apply to fly. The AAC “specialist” aircrew cadre consists of a few DE Officers a few more LE Officers but mainly WO/SNCOs. So by definition the bulk of AAC DE Officers are not (aviation) specialists and as already mentioned have to adhere to the MS template that has been handed down over the years to all budding CGS’s, so they dip in and out of the system for some of their career and are not a guaranteed bum on a seat. Here lies a problem, the AAC only has about 200 (ish) “suitable” WO/SNCOs and a cupful of LE's to recruit their Apache aircrew from. Two questions, is this pool big enough? And does it have the people with the right qualities? Any aircrew out there will be able to answer those questions in a nano second, don’t get the wrong idea though, there are some very able people out there and those that have converted have all reached the required standard, but clearly the barrel is only so deep. To reinforce the point how many RAF puma mates are being re-treaded onto typhoon? Why not? Think a few years ahead, where are all the “suitable” recruits coming from? “Fixes” could include longer flying tours for DE’s (being looked at), direct entry college boys/girls as WO aircrew Apache and “Joint” aircrew. The issue about being a Soldier and having an understanding of the battle does not hold back the DE Officers who in essence have attended the Sandhurst indoctrination course (part of which is becoming joint) and a two year “civvy” flying course!

Think of the trainers, think about how many you need, then double it…seriously!

Analogies drawn against the backdrop of the introduction of Lynx etc. are not helpful, think Harrier.

Dilution by Staff workers of “the truth” is a criminal offence in my book, our leaders need the correct facts and figures so that realistic “plans” can be made, most of the icebergs that have hit the programme were foreseeable….Fact.

Money, money and more money, welcome to the Apache!

UOR’s, plan now, have them ready to go.

Perspective, although there are issues the Apache is still the only aircraft that can keep a smile on my face and whatever is said, the programme will be made to work.



:ok:

[CrabInCab]

You're quite correct Scotch, most Puma retreads go GR9! (well 2 of the last 3 anyway!)

:ok:

[Data-Lynx]

Scotch Bonnet. You proposed that we 'think Harrier'. Did you have this Afghan deployment (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=198331) for AH in mind?

[Scotch Bonnet]

Think Harrier only because the breadth of ordinance available the “complexity” of the airframe systems and its manoeuvrability. You couldn’t possibly put the Apache in the same stable as a Lynx with a TRS and some wire guided missiles….could you?

DL-No.