AAC King Air / BN Defender 4000 order

[richatom]

I read on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Air_Corps_%28United_Kingdom%29) (so it must be true!) that the AAC ordered four King Air 350s in July 2007. I also read somewhere else (I think on Hansard) that the AAC were going to order four more Defender 4000s around the same time. Did both orders go ahead? Or were the King Airs ordered instead of the Defenders?

If they do go for King Airs, will they actually be flown by AAC, or will the RAF take them over given that they already operate King Airs?

[vortexadminman]

Yeah but who they gonna get to fly erm, quick fix pilots.com

[scarecrow450]

Kingairs are in UK for fitting out, rumour they will operated from Waddo, poss blue suits will fly them.:ok:

[Geezers of Nazareth]

'Fitting out' of (some) stuff being done at Blackbushe. Well, one of 'em is there, at least.

[HaveQuick2]

"'Fitting out' of (some) stuff being done at Blackbushe. Well, one of 'em is there, at least."

Not correct. The one at Blackbushe is a B200GT for SERCO/45 Sqn at Cranwell (the first of 2 new ones).

The ones at Hawarden are the four B300s that the original poster alludes to. These are more like USArmy Guardrail types than the multi-engined trainers operated from Cranwell.

There are 2 distinctly different orders/requirements.

[richatom]

Do you know if the Guardrail types will be operated by AAC or RAF?

I read that the B350 Guardrails are for an army role (presumably 651 sqn, alongside the Defenders). However, I can imagine the RAF might argue that the B350s are a bit big and heavy for AAC, and may argue that they are better suited to operating them, given that they already have plenty of B200s.

I also read about a year ago on Arrse that there was a plan to transfer the RAF Northolt Islanders to 651 Sqn, in return for ceding the Kingairs to RAF control. It would seem to be a fairly sensible plan.

[MaroonMan4]

Here we go again.....

So before we waste too much time .......Jointery is not going to happen I tell you, we must all think single service and colours of suits because that is the true measure of a capability (isn't it?) and because it is fixed wing, the AAC have no right (or ability) to expand a capability or skill just as the other 2 Services shouldn't look to do UAVs, Satellites or whatever the new military direction is.

Now if I am missing something and Teenie Weenies are not in a position to operate this capability (whether in and out of Northolt or in the 'Gan') then please enlighten me - I am all ears.

Remember all us 'blue suiters' that said the Army Air Corps couldn't operate Apache, remember that headline in RAF news just prior to the first AH deployment (CH47 making Afghanistan safe for the Apache!) that backfired when the Apache and AAC crews did deliver in spades (and has subsequently saved/protected many a CH47 I believe) and made us all in blue look real single service 'knobs' up our own 'bravados'?

What we should be saying is - great,new capability long over due and something that the guys on the frontline want here and now - how can we help, do we have something from our years of ISR experience to assist you guys get it into service.

Rather than, 'it should be mine and I want to fly it'. I have no love or loyalty to the AAC, but before shooting from the hip we should maybe get our argument/facts in place first - otherwise when we really do want to raise a red flag and say 'hang on fellas' you guys might not be the best people for this job etc then people will maybe listen rather than the all too common 'computer says no' approach.

[KENNYR]

Army Air Corps fixed wing pilots are more than capable of flying fixed wing aircraft under all circumstances and in any theatre. Beavers were used extensively in the airways of many countries as are the Islanders.

I will never understand the mentality of some of you who think that all Army pilots are thick grunts who can only speak in 1 syllable words. Please, RAF, get over yourselves !!!!

[richatom]

Kenny, I don't think the issue is whether or not AAC pilots could fly the KingAirs - of course they could, when trained to do so. I think the issue is more whether it is financially sensible to use AAC or RAF pilots in the role.

It is a fair bit of extra training to learn to fly a two-pilot Airways aircraft like the KingAir. In the AAC the KingAir 350 would be a career sidestep out of RW - indeed plank flying has sometimes been regarded as part of "resettlement" in AAC. Also, given the apparent shortage of AAC Apache pilots I would think the AAC would be reluctant to exacerbate the problem by streaming twenty or so of their pilots into a longish KingAir training progam. In the RAF, however, the Guardrail would just be part of the multi-engine career path, so the investment in training would be amortised over a longer career path, and they already have a pool of trained multi-engine pilots to pick from.

I guess the AAC historically got away with operating the Islanders as they are a lighter and simpler aircraft, single-pilot aircraft, which was used mainly in a liaison and light-surveillance role, and there were only a couple of them until the Defenders came along.

It will be interesting to see who gets primacy over the KingAirs - my guess is that they will go to the RAF.

[Gnd]

Am I being thick here or are you all about 2 years behind the drag curve - its a fact already!

[Chicken Leg]

It's quite funny to read these arguments because as Gnd said, this decision was taken over a year ago! If you don't know the outcome, it's probably because you don't need to!! (Don't bite too hard, that bit was ironic!)

Let's not kid ourselves that the decision as to who was to operate the aircraft had anything to do with operational capability. It had nothing whatsoever to do with capability and everything to do with single service politics. The outcome gave a little of something to each of the two services who contested ownership and interestingly now, both parties are struggling to arrive at the position that the 'carve up' requires.

Still, days to do...........

[wg13_dummy]

It is a fair bit of extra training to learn to fly a two-pilot Airways aircraft like the KingAir.

What, like the Islander/Defender. An aircraft we use as a 'two pilot Airways aircraft'?


In the AAC the KingAir 350 would be a career sidestep out of RW - indeed plank flying has sometimes been regarded as part of "resettlement" in AAC.

Your perception is very out of date. That may have been the case a few years ago but we actually have ab initio FW guys now. Cripes, we probably have more fixed wing than the RAF now!


Also, given the apparent shortage of AAC Apache pilots I would think the AAC would be reluctant to exacerbate the problem by streaming twenty or so of their pilots into a longish KingAir training progam.

S'funny, we have no problems filling the slots for FW. In fact, when this project first came about, the AAC had blokes on King Air courses before the RAF was able to get their ****e in one pile. With Gazelle getting drawn down, we did actually have a few spare bods.


In the RAF, however, the Guardrail would just be part of the multi-engine career path, so the investment in training would be amortised over a longer career path, and they already have a pool of trained multi-engine pilots to pick from.

As fixed wing is a career path open to AAC pilots. Youre sounding awfully snobbish. I dont think you have any idea how the AAC works or how we operate FW. Have you forgotten we've been flying FW operationally for a good few years?

Maroonman4, absoloutley spot on. If only more were to think along your lines.


Chicken leg, check your PMs mate. :ok:

[Chicken Leg]

wg13_dummy's points are all accurate, but I was keen not to rise to the bait!

Without wanting to add to the willy waving, it is true that some parties have a very outdated view of what the AAC do and are capable of; particularly within the FW fraternity. I heard a story recently about an individual in a prominent training position who was making similar points to those above about how AAC pilots would struggle to cope with the complexity of the KA with all it's integrated avionics and glass panel. He was then shown around the Defender and quickly apologised for his earlier ignorance. It's fair to say that many people outside of the Corps still believe that the AAC are only capable of operating Gazelle type aircraft and anything more complicated is beyond their wit. I suppose it suits certain parties to continue to promote that view.

[will fly for food 06]

They were advertising in flight international for king air pilots to operate in the stan.

[Chicken Leg]

They were advertising in flight international for king air pilots to operate in the stan.

Who, the AAC? RAF? Surely not!

[Gnd]

How about this - AAC get all Harriers and they will give back the inferior types (FW), all the attack aircraft under one roof? Seems sensible as the AAC is the custodian of the AH rotary already.

[mutleyfour]

This is no longer about pilots or aircraft as bases seem to be the key driver here. What I mean is the collecting of as many aircraft as possible at our key bases should help keem them open. So our masters will continue to squabble over whom gets what, which shouldnt necessitate us lot at grass roots from needing to join in.

[helidriver]

I don't wish to try and put a stop to this lively debate but can you think about opsec. As someone who will be utilizing the capabilty of these aircraft from the ground I would like to advise pruners to stick to the airframe debate only. This is before it drifts into the inevitable about tasking and current operations etc.

Cheers

H

[wg13_dummy]

I don't wish to try and put a stop to this lively debate but can you think about opsec. As someone who will be utilizing the capabilty of these aircraft from the ground I would like to advise pruners to stick to the airframe debate only. This is before it drifts into the inevitable about tasking and current operations etc.

Cheers

H

How very important you are, helidriver (well, in your own NAAFI break anyway).

No one has breeched opsec and I'm pretty sure those that are in the know, will not. Those that are not, will merely guess or speculate.

Do you really think it will drift into 'the inevitable' about tasking and current ops? Other threads dont so why should this one? One good thing about the mil forum is that those that may have opsec sensitive info do not post it on here. It polices itself. You barging in offering 'advice' appears to be nothing more than 'look at me, I know something important and I'm letting you all know I know something important'.

The only information that has been posted on here is what is publicly available on the wiki. A fact that the thread starter pointed out in his initial post. No one has confirmed or denied.....apart from you really.

[NURSE]

Hear we go again the AAc couldn't possibly operate any for of aerial vehicle!

[TheInquisitor]

When the Army stops thinking that "Joint" is spelled "A.R.M.Y.", is when the RAF will start giving them latitude in the FW pissing-contest. Single-service politics goes both ways, gentlemen.

[helidriver]

wg13dummy,

No one has breeched opsec and I'm pretty sure those that are in the know, will not. Those that are not, will merely guess or speculate.

They already have, I'm just introducing some damage limitation.

Do you really think it will drift into 'the inevitable' about tasking and current ops? Other threads dont so why should this one? One good thing about the mil forum is that those that may have opsec sensitive info do not post it on here. It polices itself. You barging in offering 'advice' appears to be nothing more than 'look at me, I know something important and I'm letting you all know I know something important'.

Yes it will. mutleyfour raised the point about it not being about pilots or aircraft and basing was a key driver in the program. This leads to the next debate about tasking and capability because they actually drive the basing issue in this case. The fact there is already opsec sensitive stuff on this thread means your self-policing policy has already failed! Oh and by the way, this is not about me and you should know better.

The only information that has been posted on here is what is publicly available on the wiki. A fact that the thread starter pointed out in his initial post. No one has confirmed or denied.....apart from you really.



Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Therefore, it is in essence another forum. It has not been approved by the MOD and, as such, this information in particular is most definitely not in the official public domain. In fact, if you Google this topic you will only find reference to this thread, so lets start acting mature and sensible. There is nothing wrong with the airframe debate but I can see where it is going if you can't.

Happy for lively debate, not happy I'm being referred to as a self-licking lollipop!

h

[mutleyfour]

H

I agree that we all need to be aware of Comsec but I also agree with Wg that so far nothing dodgy has been said.

With regard to my personal comment about basing I need to point out that it is applicable to all aircraft and ground components in support of air and not just Kingair. Every Station Commander is fighting to build the portfolio of their base as much as possible and hence the twoing and fro-in.

Of course this is just my own personal view on the subject and does not represent the views of the UK MoD. :} :ok:

[Magic Mushroom]

wg13, mutley,

I agree with helidriver on this. Too much has been implied already that is not on Wiki.

Regards,
MM

[barnstormer1968]

I agree that there are things being given away or implied here, that are not on Wikipedia.

It was implied that one poster was very important in his own NAAFI break. I for one can find no reference to this on wikipedia.
So my question is: Is that a rumour (on a rumour network!), or does it breach a secret (I wont re-mention any military type words, in case they give anything away too).

I too didn't want to bite here, but I've just bitten the tongue firmly embedded in my cheek:E

Barnstormer1968

[XV277]

wg13, mutley,

I agree with helidriver on this. Too much has been implied already that is not on Wiki.


Some examples:

(i) mention of a Squadron/airframe whose use is not confirmed on any official MOD site
(ii) mention of a location which has not been confirmed by the MOD

The only official confirmation of the Beech aircraft was from the MOD in April

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/28/221069/uk-reveals-delivery-schedule-for-king-air-surveillance.html

The MoD will not release further details of the aircraft's intended use or operator -