JHC Helicopter Support Wing? If & when!

[Diablo Rouge]

In crewroom conversation over impending cuts, which I suspect is commonplace in many crewrooms nowadays, the subject of ground support elements of JHC raised some interesting points of debate.

JHC recently moved from Wilton to Andover but nobody appears to know why. Is anybody able to shed some logical light on that one?

TSW (Refuellers) were discussed, and as follow up, this is gleaned from the MOD website:
They are a highly specialised unit within the Joint Helicopter Command, providing first- and second-line fuel support to battlefield helicopters across all three Services and are unique in their ability to receive, store, distribute and issue fuel to rotary aircraft in the field worldwide.

Yet they remain autonomous (Stafford based) to the other Ground Support elements of JHC. The RAF MAOT recently amalgamated with JHSU at Odiham but the Navy MAOT remain isolated at Yeovilton duplicating what the JHSU now do.

JADTEU are at Brize under the watchfull eye of the AWC and whilst I can understand that, I cannot understand why the JADTEU Training Wing is there at all as they only duplicate what JHSU Training Wing are teaching.

Surely the time has come for 'The highly specialised unit' within JHC to be a co-located Tri-Service 'Wing' in accordance with the ethos of jointery, and under the command of an SO3 on rotation between the interested stakeholders of JHC. I appreciate that no money is in the pot and that relocation costs money, but there are MOD Airfield estates mid way between Thames Valley (Benson & Odiham) and Middle Wallop and Yeovilton such as Colerne and Hullavington in which such a Wing could be established optimising the service provided to Army, Navy and Air Force, and in the long run saving a fortune. Indeed if someone had foresight beyond their own tiny area of responsibility, it could have included JHC HQ putting HQ on an airfield which must be a better idea than moving from town to town.

So colocate all ground support of JHC under an SO3. Wiltshire / Gloucestershire is equi distant between users and convenient for SPTA for exercises and Marchwood Docks for deployment. Close the RAF element of Stafford, and give Odiham a vacant hangar for additional Chinook. Actually doing jointery instead of just talking about it. Or is this all already history in a file labled Belvedere? What beyond individual service politics has prevented such a plan already being in place? TSW already has an SO3, meaning a new post would not be required and the Command Chain required is already in place although it could be trimmed and therefore save more money.

[vecvechookattack]

Couldn't agree more - especially with regard to TSW.... What on earth do they do? Would we miss them?

[Dundiggin']

Stafford's a good refuel location - I know the Pumas would miss it...

[Gnd]

Pumas are going in SDSR so no problem!
Disperse the TSW into the AAC and their Groundcrew can do it all (they are mostly in the same places), the chockheads are already going to be alongside them wildcat boys in VL.

[vecvechookattack]

the chockheads are already going to be alongside them wildcat boys in VL.

Exactly....as is happening right now with the Lynx fleet

[minigundiplomat]

Moving TSW would cause the closure of Stafford HLS (Not the base, just the HLS). This is quite strategically placed and many have cause to thank their lucky stars for it's central position. Even the Chinook, which has pretty good legs has regularly used the site for fuel on Nat Stby callouts and en route across the Irish Sea.

As for being autonomous, I believe they also support the C130 fleet, and have supported JFH in the past. With the demise of the Harrier, then perhaps that is something that needs reviewing.

However, there is more than one rotary type, and all the posts so far seem to be from a Lynx perspective, whether RM or Army.

Finally, JHC has sucked up more an more assets over the last 10 years, which aren't always utilisied in an efficient manner. Why should TSW automatically be absorbed into the Army?

I do see some synergies with the REME/AAC FARP crews, but at present they are an RAF asset who provide excellent support to all 3 services.

Before slashing something that has worked for a number of years, just because it isn't truly purple, I suggest we all take a deep breath and calm down.

Agree with regard to MAOTS/JATEU.

Vec - If you don't know what TSW do, you are obviously some form of spanner. Who refuels you at Bastion?????????

[Tiger_mate]

JHC Airbase Hullavington gets my vote. No resident aircraft but a useable airfield from which every aspect of SH support could originate from. If 21 Signal Regt at Colerne still support JHC then they are already nearby at Colerne. Shawbury or a TSW det at Shawbury could provide Esso/Shells finest in the midlands. Such a base could have any section/unit/troop with 'Tactical' in its title located at one place.
Bottom line must be that duplicated effort is a waste of time and money, so agree fully with amalgamation of assets, and actually I believe that the helicopter element of JADTEU could easily be incorporated geographically if not by Command Chain. For that matter the airdrop boys would be closer to the trial drop locations freeing up 2 hangars at BZN for future brize.
That Hullavington was an RAF airfield and is now an Army base means that ownership would be balanced without legacy issues. Not sure who the present incumbants there are but the location is perfect for UK based tasking and conveniently close to BZN and Cirencester for deployment facilities. Thinking as I type; perhaps Cirencester is suitable. Therefore: Hullavington - Colerne - Cirencester are all possible locations. Suggest that Tactical Air Traffic Control provide ATC service as such a playpen for rotary mates would be like a jam jar for wasps.
So obviously a good idea, it will never happen. FWIW I have in the past been detached with 24 Bge and a lot of helicopters to Hullavington and recall it being a good base for SPTA Ops to be based at. Sometimes short term expense is a recipe for long term savings, and this suggestion has merit.
Ref TSW, in the past they have been worth their weight in gold, especially Op Banner. I for one would not like to see them disbanded although I do believe that relocation would be better for all. A permanent 24 hour refuel base at Hullavington and dets at Shawbury or Cosford would be perfect. 2010 is not the year for tradition or sentiment, and this is a logical outlook.

[Mr C Hinecap]

TSW are a niche capability and their leadership have in the past been their own worst enemy (FRPs instead of FARPs anyone?). They are also far superior to the AAC for aviation fuel handling and I say that as someone who has worked with both and I'm certainly no fanboy of TSW. JHC has moved to Andover - I presume the OP knows that HQ LF has also moved to Andover. Not a big secret that one - makes sense seeing as they are closing the old site.

[vecvechookattack]

Vec - If you don't know what TSW do, you are obviously some form of spanner. Who refuels you at Bastion?????????

The same people who conduct the rearming.... the same people who conduct the maintenance.... the engineers do it... or sometimes (and I know this may be a shock to some people) the Aircrew do it....its not hard...the Aircrew are qualified to Flight Service so why not let them do it....

[Tiger_mate]

Today the barracks of the site (east of the airfield) is used as the home of 9 Supply Regiment Royal Logistic Corps and it was renamed in 2003 Buckley Barracks after the VC winner John Buckley[2].

The airfield, West of the main barracks, is still referred to as "Hullavington" after its RAF origins. In 1992 and 1993, two Volunteer Gliding Schools moved in and to this date they still operate mirror circuits using the 'Viking' - a modified version of the civilian Grob Twin Astir II. These being 625VGS[3] and 621VGS[4]. Although the two VGS fly cadets, they are run by staff from the RAF VR/T, and as such, it still gets referred to as "RAF Hullavington" despite being officially decommissioned when the base was handed over to the Royal Logistic Corps in 2003. Each VGS has a different set of experienced flight staff and instructors, with many being former cadets themselves.

The two VGS operate conventional winch-launched gliders every Saturday and Sunday, and throughout courses which they both run in public holidays. Solo flights are very common with each VGS, and soaring is seen done by the instructors and graded pilots in the summer. Despite the two schools operating gliders solely, the airfield is NOT a public one, and is still considered military, operating two different radio frequencies ("Hullavington Radio" for 625VGS and "Western Radio" for 621VGS). Aircraft in the area should contact Lyneham before operating nearby the area of Hullavington. The aircraft very rarely operate outside of 1500ft, but occasionally on a good day they will soar up to 6000ft.

Throughout the week, the airfield is used by mainly the Army Air Corps and the Royal Air Force for parachute drop training, and by the 9th Supply Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps as storage space using the airfield's hangars.

[minigundiplomat]

The same people who conduct the rearming.... the same people who conduct the maintenance.... the engineers do it... or sometimes (and I know this may be a shock to some people) the Aircrew do it....its not hard...the Aircrew are qualified to Flight Service so why not let them do it....


Shut down you may be right. If you land on any of the spots, or even the P Ramp for a RRRF then I think you may be suprised as to who the fuel fairy at the side of your aircraft actually is.

Certainly the other spots used by the CH, SK and Merlin (amongst other coalition aircraft) were manned by TSW. They also managed the fuel farm you used to drive past.

[Diablo Rouge]

2010 is not the year for tradition or sentiment

Any guess' for how many times we will hear that before 2011.

I presume the OP knows that HQ LF has also moved to Andover
I didnt know that, and whilst it makes sense, it still would have been better for JHC to remember that they are an aviation asset which is best done when seeing aeroplanes all day. Is the infrastructure at Andover new build or a bodge, or in other words: Permanent?

[Faithless]

JHC recently moved from Wilton to Andover but nobody appears to know why. Is anybody able to shed some logical light on that one?

All Commands i.e Infantry, Engineers etc etc are all going to be housed in the same location. Thus all able to fuction as one....After all JHC's main purpose is to provide suppoet the the Army isn't it.

To me it makes sence that all HQ's are on one base. Just like all IPT's are to be housed in Abbey Wood....It gets my vote.:ok:

Standing by for incoming. :ouch:

[Rigga]

"All Commands i.e Infantry, Engineers etc etc are all going to be housed in the same location. Thus all able to fuction as one....After all JHC's main purpose is to provide suppoet the the Army isn't it.

To me it makes sence that all HQ's are on one base. Just like all IPT's are to be housed in Abbey Wood....It gets my vote.

Standing by for incoming."


I have no doubt this will be followed, in a few years, by a full integration of all military Rotorcraft aircrews into one centre and under one system, lets call it "Army"...

[Diablo Rouge]

I have no doubt this will be followed, in a few years, by a full integration of all military Rotorcraft aircrews into one centre and under one system, lets call it "Army"...

I think that the Canadians set the precident on that theory; and it proved a disaster. However that should not prevent jointery from being a success. DHFS proves that if individual identity is allowed to remain, even with 'purple' corporate identity, jointery can work.

JHC did not have to be embedded with Army Commands, and that it has potentially sends the wrong signals. It would be better on a purple ethos airfield as has been suggested above.

Rigga may as well have gone as far as anticipating 'UK Defence Force Plc' and for all our sakes I hope that idea never sees the light of day. No doubting it could though, but then we would have to stop pretending we were important on the world stage.

[Something witty]

There may be some good reasons for combining everything at one location but I suggest that doing so merely for the sake of being 'Joint' is foolish. I echo too other people's responses about the utility of Stafford HLS.

In particular, I would defend against CHF's MAOT being removed from Yeovilton.

1. We use MAOT on three nights of the week every week in order to enable us (all 4 squadrons) to conduct night loads and circuits at remote sites in the local area. I suggest that this alone is reason enough to retain RN/RM MAOT at Yeovilton.

2. The vast majority of those in MAOT are otherwise based at Yeovilton as Aircrewman etc - in these increasingly stretched times I suggest that anything that assists in retaining experience and knowledge is paramount. Moving people away for no significant gain (save 'Jointery' and a promotion) is counterproductive.

3. We are talking about a handful of blokes and a couple of LR - pray tell just how much that is really going to save financially vs the reduction in assistance to our 4 very over-stretched squadrons in conducting night flying? :ugh:

4. I assume that other units in JHC use their MAOTs in a similar way, I suggest therefore that they remain in place too.

SW

[Two's in]

I think that the Canadians set the precident on that theory; and it proved a disaster

Most people would agree with that, but it's worth noting that the US Army has its own rotary heavy lift capability with CH-47. That said, the US Navy, Marines and Air Force all retain and control their own rotary assets for arm specific missions, so if "all rotary under one roof" isn't the obvious solution for the DoD, there's no reason why it would be for the MoD.

Maybe the answer is a more mission driven structure where the 'customers" get to control their support assets - but hey, isn't that what JHC was supposed to do? The single most notable achievment of JHC seems to have been to stop a bunch of under-employed staff types loitering aimlessly about the corridors of real power (Abbey Wood) by letting them do their shopping in that nice Waitrose in Salisbury instead for a few years.

[vecvechookattack]

Those are all valid points from Something witty but they reflect the tasks that we undertake today. In the future we will have no Royal Marines ... In the future we will have no Amphibious capability....in the future we will have withdrawn from the sandpit(s). Therefore, why would we need individual MAOT's?

[minigundiplomat]

Vec,

you, and a few others are a little guilty of jumping the gun on SDSR. Let's wait and see what happens.

And that's not a dig, but your last post suggests you already know the results.

[Tiger_mate]

1. We use MAOT on three nights of the week every week in order to enable us (all 4 squadrons) to conduct night loads and circuits at remote sites in the local area. I suggest that this alone is reason enough to retain RN/RM MAOT at Yeovilton.


You do not have to be a MAOT to attach USL at a Night "T". A HHI or LPC can do these tasks. Furthermore, many HHI & LPC lack hands on experience / currency so would benefit from being allowed to complete this role. The Marines have many such individuals if the Navy felt compelled to keep such support in house.

IMHO the truth lays more in self preservation and a reluctance to be involved in the 'joint' party by persons embedded into the Somerset community. A shame really for RM MAOT have some important soldiering (commando) skills to share that the light blue brothers do not have, therefore they could enhance rather then simply extend the present set-up.

I see that BZN based JADTEU Trg Wg are keeping their heads down; which is not surprising as having recently cancelled in toto one of their commitments they now only do HHI and Abseil instruction, both of which require helicopters and of course BZN has plenty of those....Not. Were they to move to ODH, the savings in flying hours alone should see the Trg Wg removed from the AWC cloak behind which they hide.

Duplication of effort :ugh:
Unecessary expense :=
Time for change :D

[Roadster280]

I think the runway at Colerne is still used, but some of the hangars have been removed. 21 Sig Regt (AS) is still there.

It makes sense to put all the JHC units in one place to me. What about Lyneham, when it closes? :E

Of course if such places hadn't been disposed of entirely, there would still be Little Rissington and Kemble.

[The Helpful Stacker]

From what I recall from last time a move was proposed for TSW (to Wittering when 85 (EL) Wing moved) the sticking points were the as already mentioned 24hr operating refuel site, but also the location of TSW at Stafford for ease of access to the main training areas they use. Those 'few guys and some LRs' (sweet Jesus :rolleyes:) do a fair amount of travelling each year so that the growbag wearing classes don't have to splash Eau de Avtur on the flying gloves.

Whilst were on the subject of TSW and seeing as I'm quite a defensive ex-wing mong the comparison of tasks carried out by TSW and AAC refuellers is quite frankly laughable.

TSW can build and operate semi-permanent bulk and tactical fuel installations, operate the bulk fuellers that supply them, operate tac fuellers for mobile operations, supply a para-dropped capability and test all the avaition fuel sloshing around in that kit, plus any ground fuels to be tested thrown their way as well. Not bad for some stackers, slammers and a few techies.

The Army on the other hand requires many different corps and branches of those corps in order to carry out a similar but not equal range of tasks.

I'm not doubting the ability of Army units to provide their bits of what TSW does, its just with TSW you have it all under one command and ready to go rather than having to bring together elements who quite often have other concerns than avaition support, pet ops (the guys who build and operate BFIs for the Army) are a fine example of this, as they are more concerned with ground fuels handling, which are a damn sight easy to chuck about.

Compared to flying fuels handling is not rocket science, but would you be happy flying with Avtur issued from a Marine Dieso and water contaminated pillow tank, via a pipeline in which two filter systems were bypassed before the product is top loaded a refueller and sent on it merry way to your aircraft? This is exactly what happened when folk who were used to dealing with ground fuels were left without RAF supervision (we weren't contacted as they 'didn't need us') on a major fuels exercise somewhere hot a few years back, resulting in two VC10s, a Timmy and three Wessexes being grounded and the important Middle East staging point having to de-bulk, service, flush and re-bulk two thirds of its refueller fleet.

As I say, avaition fuel handling isn't rocket science, but it needs more care than chucking about Dieso. You chaps can't roll to the side of the road when fuel contaimination knackers your engine so wouldn't you rather the best care be taken over your go-juice rather than the cheapest or most cap-badge loyal care?

[Old-Duffer]

Helpful Stacker makes good points.

Interestingly, the RAF picks its TSW guys and gals mostly from those with a bit of experience in the basic trade and they are usually SACs. If the Army followed the same process, the entire refuelling mob would be at least lance corporal (bit like the RMP here).

At Stafford, where the Army now hold sway, they still cannot get their heads around the fact that the SACs (M & F of course) can show a clean pair of heels in every respect (fitness included) to Army lance jacks/jackesses.

The RAF Regt recently introduced the rank of lance corporal for fire group leaders to denote their extra skills/responsibilities etc and to let the Army know that these guys knew what they were about. Perhaps the RAF ought to look at its LAC/SAC/SAC Tech progression again.

[Spot 4]

Good answers regarding the TSW perspective but two consequences spring to mind:

1) The UK Armed Forces Plc operations are no longer concentrated on regular exercises as nowadays we are operationally focused. As that situation will remain for many years regardless of political spin, SPTA remains the primary location for SH supported exercises and the mean topic of this thread, getting the support teams to live and work together has much merit.

2) If the Army and TSW are duplicating tasks then they too should amalgamate into one team, centrally located and subject to a combined training / evaluation / development / standards process. Optimising efficiency and saving money without adding to the workload burden.

As previous posters have alluded to, there are SH support members protective of their own areas of responsibility wearing blinkers with regard to system based best practice. What surprises me is that JHC is ten years old+ and only now is this debate being discussed. Does nobody at JHC HQ have the dynamic PQs to grip this and sort it.

Hyperthetical situation: Aid to civil power task (floods for example) JHC task a Chinook sqn and in turn pass the brief to Helicopter Support Wing Operations. Net result a sleeping giant well rehearsed in short notice and self sufficient deployment roll in short time and before the day is out a fully operating airhead is up and running based on a school premises. 24 hour support ops follow on maximising task efficiency. All conducted under a default (and known to all) chain of command. Rather then many little egos squabbling over importance in counter productive mini battles. It is the differance between a spider in his web ready to strike and a chimpanzees tea party, and gets my vote :ok:

[Tashengurt]

I agree with Old-Duffer, having spent what was then a fairly average ten years as an SAC I know that in terms of skills, experience and maturity I was a very different person at the beginning and end of my service. All well and good when working within your own section but out and about there was nothing to differentiate between those who knew what they were doing and those fresh out of the box.

[minigundiplomat]

Spot 4,


Wake up mate - you've obviously been dreaming.

[wokawoka]

MGD, you took the words out of my mouth.

If we are not involved in exercises anymore I would like to know why currently we found ourselves on MRX/OPTAG, in fact I would suggest that now that we are seeing some spare capacity with the Mk3, this one is quickly swallowed up by tasking.

I must say that operating regularly with TSW and JHSS (new JHSU), more often than not they can't do enough to help you. I have not experienced the little empire building people mentioned. But then all I do is request for a service which is more or less delivered every time.

[Roadster280]

Interestingly, the RAF picks its TSW guys and gals mostly from those with a bit of experience in the basic trade and they are usually SACs. If the Army followed the same process, the entire refuelling mob would be at least lance corporal (bit like the RMP here).

No, they would be Class 2 privates, not NCOs. Possibly even a class 1 private, if they were not yet NCO material. Nothing at all like the RMP, where shiny new coppers are LCpls, and after a year they get their Cpl. All of it paid, BTW, not like the LAC (ACpl (UPD)) RAFP.

It's an age old debate, with the RAF counting promotions, and the Army making determinations based on whether the guy is an NCO or not. The same debate occurs wrt WO2s and Flight Sergeants. No Warrant=not equivalent.

Suffice to say, a lance-jack can (in theory) discipline an SAC.

And be crap with fuels.

[minigundiplomat]

The same debate occurs wrt WO2s and Flight Sergeants. No Warrant=not equivalent.

I concur, although I have never ever heard anyone debate this issue. There is no equivalent to WOII in the RAF. If you look on the NATO rank chart, the RAF ladder is blank alongside the RN/Army WOII.

[NUFC1892]

I concur, although I have never ever heard anyone debate this issue.


You need to get out more, the last major debate (at AFB level) was about 5 years ago. It remains a much discussed source of irritation amongst FS working in tri-Service environments.


There is no equivalent to WOII in the RAF. If you look on the NATO rank chart, the RAF ladder is blank alongside the RN/Army WOII.


I was always happier being a first class FS than I would have been as a second class WO

[minigundiplomat]

You need to get out more, the last major debate (at AFB level) was about 5 years ago. It remains a much discussed source of irritation amongst FS working in tri-Service environments.

Last debate 5 years ago.

If that's all you have to worry about mate, I suggest it is you who needs to get out more. Not only are the NATO ranks quite clear, but I don't have time to get into p1ssing contests with WOII's. It doesn't irritate me, I just try and reason with them, or pass it up the chain.

I've found most to be receptive when there is an urgency of need and you offer them a workable solution to achieve a task, whether it be a resupply or casevac. Perhaps rearranging pencils is different.

[Spot 4]

Word has it that the colocation (relocation?) of helicopter suppport assets has been discussed at high levels and that it is the Army := (Regimental levels rather then HQ Land) who oppose it. Sadly the source of this rumour could not specify if it was particular real-estate or ownership & responsibility that was being opposed. Sounds like common sense could yet prevail, assuming it not yet to be dead in the water. Another month or so and speculation should be a thing of the past for it is sounding like JHC have this one on the boil. :ok: