Army cuts - AAC going?

[Thomas coupling]

Just heard on BBC2 lunchtime news that part of the Army cuts include the AAC. Is this confirmed?:ugh:

[airborne_artist]

Are you sure it wasn't the ACC that's going?:E




Yes, I know that the cooks are now in the AGC, RLC or something or other, but you get the drift.

[Milo Minderbinder]

BBC News - Army to lose 17 units amid job cuts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18716101)

"The Army Air Corps will reduce from five to four units as 1 Regiment AAC merges with 9 Regiment AAC"

[xenolith]

A golden opportunity wasted:ugh:

[Melchett01]

Are you sure it wasn't the ACC that's going

Do you mean 1 ACC or the Catering Corps?

I wouldn't be surprised if the merger of 1 & 9 Regts wasn't tied up with the introduction of Wildcat, which will be coming in in smaller numbers than the current Lx fleet.

[Finnpog]

A golden opportunity wasted :ugh:

Oh, the US model? Where all battlefield helicopters are operated by the end user and flown by NCO pilots?

Well, I am sure that most folks on here would think that that was a top idea, but that does seem to upset the applecart somewhat.

You'll be suggesting that Royal Marines Commandos can fly FW next. :ok:

:E:E

[xenolith]

Oh, the US model?

US, as in wont work?;)

[wg13_dummy]

Yes of course. You need to be a crab officer to drive an SH bus.... Stick to Chinooks, Pumas and Merli....ah, ignore that last one. ;)

I'll bet CrabAir almost rubbed their hands with glee at the thought of the end of the AAC believing they'd poach Apache.

As has been alluded to, the AAC wont be losing too much in real terms and with the introduction of fewer Wildcat, we'll at least have enough people to fill the seats (as opposed to just keeping people employed to boost the numbers even though there is nothing for them to fly....)

I'll bet it still pisses a few crabs off that mere NCOs can operate Apache very effectively.

[MATELO]

I was talking to an ex tank bloke today, and he told me the Army had no tanks left at all. He said the only thing they had were scimitar to lay down fire.

[seadrills]

And you believed him?

[Two's in]

1 Regt AAC are (or certainly were) performing what was essentially a Combat Service Support role for 1 Armd Div in Germany. As German based units are repatriated to the UK, there is less requirement for that role. Merging with 9 Regt in Dishforth consolidates the Lynx experience ready for Wildcat introduction, and keeps 3 and 4 Regt AAC firmly focused on providing direct fire support with Apache.

So to answer the original poster's question (however tongue in cheek), the only place the AAC is going is from strength to strength as a critical and relevant combat arm, this "cut" actually consolidates the AAC and will give them a head start on figuring out how to do more with less, a lesson other parts of the Army may want to learn rapidly.

[Melchett01]

Two's In ... how dare you bring logic and reason to PPrune. We got rid of all that sort of nonsense a while back and now you have to bring it back again ;)

[Two's in]

Sorry Melchett, I've been demobbed a few years now, so occasionally forget the rules of Mess badger-baiting...

[lynxgem]

Crabair wont be able to operate AH WG13, there's no hotels anywhere near otterburn or bastion...

[Father Jack Hackett]

I'll bite. Who do you think operates all those Chinooks and Merlins at Bastion, the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps?

Do pay attention 007!

[Melchett01]

there's no hotels anywhere near otterburn or bastion...

Any idiot can be uncomfortable. The skill comes in making life as bearable as possible in the given circumstances.

[orgASMic]

(Yawn) :hmm:

[xenolith]

wg30 Dummy

My, my, that was a proper rant. Hope you feel better and that the hankie was big enough for all that bile you managed to spit out!

Yes of course. You need to be a crab officer to drive an SH bus

Or a Navy one!

I'll bet it still pisses a few crabs off that mere NCOs can operate Apache very effectively.

What amazes ‘a few crabs’ is that the ‘mere NCO’s’ (your words not mine) sell themselves so cheaply. This constant harping about the nobility of doing the job so cheaply is a tad odd quite frankly. It has always seemed that the only people who don’t take the AAC seriously are, in fact, the British Army.

[parabellum]

Within in the Army, even in this modern age, there are still elements that simply hate the idea of a soldier with any kind of wings on their uniform, we were regarded as 'elitist' and a bad influence, needed to be kept in our place, that sort of thing. In our small helicopter unit my boss was one of Stirling's originals from North Africa who went right through the war at the very sharp end and his opinion was these types, who thought we were 'elitist', had probably done rather badly at staff college!

The sole purpose of the RAF is to fly aeroplanes and the sole reason for an aircraft carrier is to enable aeroplanes to fly, but to this weird bunch I mention above, the idea of a soldier with wings was simply 'not on'.

[Tiger_mate]

The Otterburn Towers Hotel and the pub across the road from it would have closed years ago were in not for the military regardless of uniform colour. ...and the bait used is a bit yesterday even if it got a nibble.

Preferred Marys B&B myself and the pitstops at Rothbury or Thropton.

[charliegolf]

Preferred Marys B&B myself

With the compulsory full-English-on-a-dustbin-lid breakfast. Mmm! In those days I was still about 9 and a 1/2 stone soaking wet- Mary used to worry about my diet!

If memory serves, It was Dunne's Farm, but no-one ever referred to it as such.

CG

[SilsoeSid]

I'll bet CrabAir almost rubbed their hands with glee at the thought of the end of the AAC believing they'd poach Apache.

Just about sums up xenoliths attitide, hence the bite, nice one WG :ok:
Sorry xn mate, it just ain't going to happen and while you're at it, you wont ever be getting the Harrier back either :E

[xenolith]

Sid, you and the dummy have got a really peevish chip on your shoulder re the RAF; the Apache going to the RAF is a none argument invented to have a snipe at the SHF. To my mind the AH choice should have been the upgraded Cobra as chosen by the US Marines over the Apache. The greater number of cheaper airframes should have gone to the FAA as a carrier bourne asset.

Without the AH the AAC have little to offer as the Lynx and Wildcat can carry jack sh1t; it and the Merlin were nothing more than a job creation scheme for Wastelands.

Given that, how much bayonet strength could have been saved had they got rid of the AAC?

[wg13_dummy]

Sid, you and the dummy have got a really peevish chip on your shoulder re the RAF

No chip. Just think that on the whole, crabs are a bunch of self serving cnuts.

To my mind the AH choice should have been the upgraded Cobra as chosen by the US Marines over the Apache. The greater number of cheaper airframes should have gone to the FAA as a carrier bourne asset.

Have to agree with you there.


Without the AH the AAC have little to offer as the Lynx and Wildcat can carry jack sh1t; it and the Merlin were nothing more than a job creation scheme for Wastelands.

And agree there too....to a certain degree. The Lynx (more specifically the crews) has and is being used as a tac platform, C&C and as fire support as opposed to a 'troop carrier'. This is the bit some SH types cant seem to fathom. 'We exploit the limitations of our equipment and still deliver capability in whatever role is required.'



Given that, how much bayonet strength could have been saved had they got rid of the AAC?

The argument would be similar to that raging re the Merlin going to CHF. 'It'll cost more to give it to the navy!!! etc etc'. Would it?

At a guess, the AAC is cheaper to run than one Puma det to Morocco and it is still seen as value for money.

We currently make up about 1.9% of Army strength. Post 2020 we'll be about 2.4% of the strength so in real terms, we're still growing :ok:

[Biggus]

Considering that the Battle of Britain was mainly won by NCO pilots flying Hurricanes (as opposed to the myth of Officers flying Spitfires) and many of the RAF heavy bombers in WW2 were flown by an entire crew of NCOs, past history would indicate that anyone in the RAF who thinks you have to be an officer to be a pilot is either severely deluded or a very senior officer (actually those two are often one and the same in my limited experience) - and that's from a still serving crab!

The all officer thing is a throw back to the age of the "deterrent".

[riggersnr]

Not so, WG13 Dummy, that some crabs are irked that AAC SNCO pilots do a great job flying and operating the Apache, at least not this (ex-) Brylcreem Boy.

When I was very young (when the Earth was flat and had hair) my Dad used to bounce me on his knee and tell me war stories. He used to wear a natty khaki, hairy, tickly suit, had three odd stripes on his sleeve and wore what looked like a grubby sea gull on his chest, sometimes with dangly, jangly, shiny things. When I was still an ignorant yoof he used to take me to Glider Pilot Regimental Association Meetings and we would visit a Dutch holiday resort called Arnhem. Apparently, during WW2 he had dropped in one day...As I matured the penny dropped, and I developed a profound awe for him and his SNCO colleagues. As a result of the tales of battle, of dirt, of filth, I made it my life's ambition to join the Crabs, where I could work regular hours and sleep in a proper bed. And so it was.

After many years I retired from the jolly life of a SARboy, QHI, and CFS Examiner Ne'erdowell, to find myself working on 660 Sqn DHFS for 11 years. As a result of this latter experience my profound awe developed into a sustained respect and admiration for AAC SNCO pilots, especially as I became very aware of the contribution to Apache ops that was made - and is being made - by SNCO pilots who are, in my experience, a brave and gallant lot.

Even if you are all dirty, filthy and smell of wee.

[chopper2004]

Xenolith,

I wholeheartedly agree that the Cobra Venom would've been a good AH as it came neck and neck, cheek and cheek, with the Longbow, more so for CHF's purposes. I read in the concluding chapter of Hans Halbertsadt's Army Aviation (Presidio Power series pub.1989) that there were some army aviator debated that maybe they should stick on an extra engine to the Cobras ike their Flying Leatherneck counterparts.

Then again the recent Op Ellamy ops proved the Longbow is a worthy 'feet wet' asset with the UK being the first to use it from the sea. Though read in Air Forces Monthly, last month that the Dutch were starting ship trials with their D models.

Best of luck to 1 or 9 or 19 :ok:with the forging ahead who knows maybe in years to come, 9 may get redeployed to Germany if the garrisons are kept there.....

Cheers

[xenolith]

Dummy

No chip. Just think that on the whole, crabs are a bunch of self serving cnuts.

Uncalled for and just plain rude. Based on what you say should I assume that the AAC are a bunch of uncouth louts?

The Lynx (more specifically the crews) has and is being used as a tac platform, C&C and as fire support as opposed to a 'troop carrier'

I’m afraid that my only experience of that is ‘Lynx 5 ‘ in NI; from that perspective your statement is totally without foundation.

The argument would be similar to that raging re the Merlin going to CHF. 'It'll cost more to give it to the navy!!! etc etc'. Would it?

There is bound to be extra cost involved but I have long believed that it is worth it, in the long term, to keep the FAA viable, as they do actually deliver a quantifiable benefit and do it well.

At a guess, the AAC is cheaper to run than one Puma det to Morocco and it is still seen as value for money.

Nonsense! Stop guessing it makes you appear to be crass.

We currently make up about 1.9% of Army strength. Post 2020 we'll be about 2.4% of the strength so in real terms, we're still growing

Perhaps if you considered quality rather than quantity, you may achieve a tad more clarity in your overall view.

Biggus

The RAF are not the only part of the British military that recruit officer only pilots. Apart from that issue your point has merit.

[wg13_dummy]

Not uncouth, just straight to the point. Sorry if it offended your Grantham Poly educated fragility...



I’m afraid that my only experience of that is ‘Lynx 5 ‘ in NI; from that perspective your statement is totally without foundation.

Depends what era you witnessed Lynx 5. If it was in the latter stages of Op Banner then your comment is relevant. If was from an earlier period then maybe you were one of the crabs who felt aggrieved at a Sgt Pilot being Mission Commander/Aviation Commander of 2-4 Lynx, Gazelle, Wessex and Puma in South Armagh? Why do you think GOC NI wanted it that way?.....Because he knew his AAC chaps could do the tactical command bit and not just support the blokes on the ground but be an intrinsic part of the operation? Same can be said of current ops.


Nonsense! Stop guessing it makes you appear to be crass.

...clean up in aisle 1.....

[lynx-effect]

I quote 'Without the AH the AAC have little to offer.' Of course without an Army Helicopter (AH) the AAC have little to offer.:D

[xenolith]

Ahhh Dum Dum, I fear that as you can offer little more than discourteous rhetoric our discourse is at an end but feel free to have the last word.;)

That said, if you are still ‘operational’ and due to go into harm’s way anytime soon I wish you a safe journey and speedy return to your loved ones. Little could diminish the respect I hold for what you do.:ok:

Lynx effect, well put:rolleyes: Just been to happy hour perchance?

[Chicken Leg]

Biggus

The RAF are not the only part of the British military that recruit officer only pilots. Apart from that issue your point has merit.

The RAF are part of a Military?

Every day an education!!

[PTT]

This is precisely the kind of petty squabbling which allows politicians to get away with cuts of this sort. We're supposed to be on the same side.

[Biggus]

Chicken Leg,

Do grow up. Kindly tell all the descendants of the following

List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_of_the_Royal_Air_Force)

that their illustrious ancestors weren't in the military.....

Don't tell me, it was banter....

[MightyGem]

Of course it was banter. :ok:

[Melchett01]

At a guess, the AAC is cheaper to run than one Puma det to Morocco and it is still seen as value for money.

We currently make up about 1.9% of Army strength. Post 2020 we'll be about 2.4% of the strength so in real terms, we're still growing

And the AAC accounts for somewhere in the region of half of the Army's operational budget. So do you still think that given the relatively small size of the AAC (based on your figures) that taking up half the budget represents good value?

I'd love to know where the sheer venom and bile that comes from many elements of the Army towards the other service comes from. Given your parochialism and general lack of corporate knowledge of anything outside your own Regiments let alone Arms and Services (that comment from an Army instructor at Shriv) suggests it can't be based on a proper understanding or experience of working with the other services.

[parabellum]

I'd love to know where the sheer venom and bile that comes from many elements of the Army towards the other service comes from.


'Venom' and 'bile' are a bit strong aren't they? The Army have always got on well with the RN, they share a very similar 'can do' ethic, during my time this was not so obvious at some levels in the RAF.

[Heathrow Harry]

the problem is that everyone thinks they can operate aeroplanes whereas not even the Navy think they can operate tanks........................... (well in their more lucid moments anyway)

[Melchett01]

parabellum,

For I'd say, 75-80% of the Army, yes it probably is a bit strong. But there is a significant number that seem to do nothing other than taking pot shots at the RAF and generally down playing the RAF's contribution. And no, this isn't the RAF being precious or 'crying to mummy'. It's just very tedious. However, if I'm wrong, then the constant failure to learn or want to learn about anything outside of their own Regt, in some extreme cases Bn, as exemplified by some of the comments in this thread and in almost every thread on ARRSe can only be described as venom and bile. Banter is banter, but to come on PPrunE and describe the RAF as a bunch of self-serving c***s is out of order and frankly deserves such a tag.

[CrabInCab]

Strangely enough I've never had any complaints from the limbless army lads I, and many of my colleagues, have pulled out under heavy fire. Must be another Air Force he's talking about??

Really very sad that a small minority of AAC undermine the credibility of their organisation with such puerile and ill-informed opinion.

[Clockwork Mouse]

I love it when the crabs take a pot at the Army and then go all prickly and hurt when the Army return the favour! What a pointless thread this has turned into, again!

[wg13_dummy]

Great innit :E

Really very sad that a large majority of RAF undermine the credibility of their organisation....

but to come on PPrunE and describe the RAF as a bunch of self-serving c***s is out of order and frankly deserves such a tag.

As a crab, you'd obviously disagree.


The Army have always got on well with the RN, they share a very similar 'can do' ethic

Yep tend to agree. Percy and Jack speak the same sort of language.

A theory might be that helicopter aviators in the Navy and Army are seen to be at the top of their game whereas RAF heli types are seen as failed FJ pilots by their peers hence their chippyness? I dont agree with that theory because at the coalface/in the cockpit, we are all pretty much the same. Its only once you look at the higher echelons, you see the larger divisions. RAF are perceived to be very PR and marketing savvy to the extent of stitching up their counterparts in other services.

Higher up:

RAF - everything FJ
RN - everything that floats
Army - marching up and down and cocktail parties.

Quite cheap shots using examples of heroism to win an argument on here. Lets see how quickly some forget the bond of who supports who once we've left Helmand.

[Chicken Leg]

The crabs seem to be taking the Army's response to their banter a little personally. They shouldn't. It's not that we don't think you do a decent job, it's more that we simply don't like you. ;)

[BEagle]

And quite what will the Hairy Arm Corps find to do with itself once the UK leaves Afghanistan?

A few fah-pah demos apart, what do you actually see yourselves doing?

[wg13_dummy]

And quite what will the Hairy Arm Corps find to do with itself once the UK leaves Afghanistan?

A few fah-pah demos apart, what do you actually see yourselves doing?

Prob find ourselves sat on top of one of them there big boats bobbing around the ogsplosh along side those naval types 'projecting power and diplomacy'.....




As an aside, will Puma 2 have a reasonable SHOL (or infact any form of SHOL)?

[TheWizard]

Give a rest girls, you sound like a bunch of 5 year olds playing Top Trumps.
This is the sort of ****e that the media loves to pick up on.

[BEagle]

The dynamics of helicopter operations from rolling/pitching/heaving platforms are quite complex, so if no shipborne helicopter operating requirements have been specified for the Puma HC Mk 2, then it will be of little use whilst bobbing up and down on the briny.

In any case, wasn't the Puma LEP chiefly geared towards hot/high operations?

[wg13_dummy]

The dynamics of helicopter operations from rolling/pitching/heaving platforms are quite complex, so if no shipborne helicopter operating requirements have been specified for the Puma HC Mk 2, then it will be of little use whilst bobbing up and down on the briny.

In any case, wasn't the Puma LEP chiefly geared towards hot/high operations?

Kinda limits its potential employment. Good if we're called to stop those pesky flip flops up in them there hills, not so good (as FCOC suggests) if we are involved in an Op that requires some form of Lit M. Do you think it was a bit of an oversight not to specify LEP to have a SHOL? Or was it drawn up in haste to preserve an airframe? If we have another ELLAMY type op, the Pumas will be on the sidelines with the half time oranges and a sick note from matron? £16 million per airframe well spent.... Does that limit RAF SH involvement somewhat?

[BEagle]

Once 'them' in the MoD-box get their heads out of their sandaholic, helicopter-centric mind set and return to a more in-depth view of national requirements, the need for aircraft such as all those Chinooks and the AAC's AH-64s will surely come into question?

As will the need for 8 C-17s, 23-ish A400....'Fat Lass' and some ageing C-130Js, given there'll be 9 Voyagers available to....do what?

[The Cryptkeeper]

When I saw the title of this thread I wondered how long it would take to degenerate into the normal Army vs RAF slanging match!

When I transferred it used to be that the AAC was indeed looked upon by the RAF as an organisation that played at flying. Thankfully over the last ten years the Corps has changed beyond all recognition (I have watched this happen) and believe me, we don't think we're perfect (far from it) but I have heard many compliments from friends in the RAF and RN about our professionalism and work ethic. I wonder how many people that have posted have recent operational experience and have actually worked together at JHF(A) in Helmand? On a personal level I think we work bloody well with our Crab and Fish Head brothers and sisters but wether intended or not the initial post did sound like someone taking great pleasure in a perceived demise of Army Aviation.

Anybody who has been fully briefed on Army 2020 will know that with the CSP the Apache has a stable future and is valued for it's contribution to the battlefield (CGS in particular is keen for continued development of the platform).

As for value for money? Well on my last tour the Apache accounted for over 80% of EKIA in TFH as well as the deterrant factor which is difficult to put a price on (particularly during escort of Tricky) - so probably not bad for a Corps that takes the quoted 60% of the Army's budget?

Peace out.

[MAD Boom]

If we have another ELLAMY type op, the Pumas will be on the sidelines with the half time oranges and a sick note from matron? £16 million per airframe well spent.... Does that limit RAF SH involvement somewhat?

An asset does not have to be able to do everything, that's why we have the three services with a variety of aircraft and capabilities.

The Puma HC2 is entering service to provide a more capable platform than its predecessor in providing battlefield helicopter support in a wider variety of operating environments. If that battlefield turns out to be the littoral, that's when the grey machines of the Navy should kick in to action.

So, does Puma 2 limit RAF SH involvement? No, that's what the Navy is for (in this case).

[wg13_dummy]

An asset does not have to be able to do everything, that's why we have the three services with a variety of aircraft and capabilities.

The Puma HC2 is entering service to provide a more capable platform than its predecessor in providing battlefield helicopter support in a wider variety of operating environments. If that battlefield turns out to be the littoral, that's when the grey machines of the Navy should kick in to action.

So, does Puma 2 limit RAF SH involvement? No, that's what the Navy is for (in this case).

On your first point, do you not think in these times of tight budgets and limited resources that our newly purchased platforms should be as flexible and 'multi role' as possible?

Wider variety as in 'hot and high'? Its only giving it a fairly specific increase in capability in a reasonably narrow operating area. Shame it'll miss out on the current op.

Your last point does suggest it will limit SH involvement as whatever the Puma HC 2 cant do, we'll use CHF Merlins instead.


Taking a completely independent point of view (ie as a taxpayer), do you think the cost to upgrade the Puma and its return of service is money well spent?

I'll head you off at the pass re Wildcat. My answer would be a conclusive 'No, Wildcat is not a sound investment!'

[MAD Boom]

On your first point, do you not think in these times of tight budgets and limited resources that our newly purchased platforms should be as flexible and 'multi role' as possible?

Absolutely. however I don't see the Apache or Wildcat able to lift an ISO container or carry a significant number of troops. Not very flexible or multi-role; in which case the army relies on using RAF SH.

The Puma was never been designed to carry out ship-borne operations, and the upgrade was never going to change that.

Shame it'll miss out on the current op.

It's not over yet, and I'll believe the 2014 withdrawal when I see it. Governments have been known to change their minds.

Your last point does suggest it will limit SH involvement as whatever the Puma HC 2 cant do, we'll use CHF Merlins instead.

In the littoral environment, yes. And when the army require a covert insert at night into a small, urban HLS, I very much doubt JHC will send anything other than the Puma. No asset is able to do everything; find me one that can, and procure that instead.

Taking a completely independent point of view (ie as a taxpayer), do you think the cost to upgrade the Puma and its return of service is money well spent?

I'll head you off at the pass re Wildcat. My answer would be a conclusive 'No, Wildcat is not a sound investment!'

Find a replacement for less before the end of 2012 and you can ditch Puma 2. Until then, the upgrade remains a sound choice to prolong the life of a well-proven platform at minimal expense to the tax-payer.

[Finnpog]

MAD Boom, comparing the WAH-64 with SH does you a disservice.
Is their role not more closely akin to that of an FJ CAS asset (or a flying tank) as opposed to that of a support heli. For that Ivan had it fairly well nailed with their Mil 24s.

Admittedly it has lifted Royal into a hot LZ, but in fairness the Harrier & Tornado couldn't do that nor lift an USL.

[hihover]

I don't believe you said that. It was funny though. Hope you're doing well meole.

Tam Macklin

[MAD Boom]

MAD Boom, comparing the WAH-64 with SH does you a disservice.
Is their role not more closely akin to that of an FJ CAS asset (or a flying tank) as opposed to that of a support heli. For that Ivan had it fairly well nailed with their Mil 24s.

Completely agree, Sir.

My point was made in extremis; merely trying to explain that an asset is designed in a certain role to fulfil certain tasks such as the AH in the CAS role as you suggest. No asset can do everything, so I stand by my point that the Puma 2 needs a SHOL capability as much as the AH is required to carry USLs.

The Puma 2 is as flexible as it needs to be. Outside of it's traditional SH role, there will be another asset available for the task.

[minigundiplomat]

As an experienced SH operator who has busted a gut on every occasion for the guys on the ground, particularly in the FOB's; I don't think this thread is covering anyone in glory right now.

Before the other side commences, I have been pulled out the clag several times by the AH, including one particular night when my ring was ticking like a clock and a certain QHI [named after a former Met Commissioner] went above and beyond to help us into PB Argylle.

Can we stop the dick measuring now? We all do our utmost in our particular specialisations, so lets leave the politics to the SO1's and above and respect each other for what we bring - whether it be SH/AH or maritime.

This whole thread has become a little unedifying.

[MaroonMan4]

MGD,

Couldn't agree more, and I was really surprised to see Beags get embroiled as well?

Sadly, this whole thread provides tax payers and politicians alike with the belief that 3 individual Services delivering Battlefield Helicopters is now not viable or value for money.

3 goldfish in a bowl, one from each service, all 3 involved with helicopters, with the water (funding from treasury) getting less each year.

Not all of the goldfish will survive.

Just as the Army has seen its regiments and battalions amalgamate, isn't it time that the AAC saves the overall Army budget further and also amalgamate, either with us and AIR or through a truly Joint Forces Command?

At what stage does the AAC become unsustainable and not viable (from a funding perspective), not in professionalism or in the delivery of battlefield capability, but purely in size?

[riggersnr]

Wizard, you may have put your finger close to a profound truth: that it is not possible for some Crabair Chaps and Grunt Futtocks to talk to one another in a manner befitting intelligent aviators, at least not in these columns. Superior amusement on a rainy day though....

Nice to hear from you Tam - I hope you are well and in good spirits.

[Genstabler]

At what stage does the AAC become unsustainable
At the same time the FAA and the RAF Regt become unsustainable?
How does amalgamating the AAC with the RAF or RN attract savings? The capability is still required, regardless of colour of uniform, and it is delivered much more effectively by the same coloured uniform. It ain't broke so don't fix it.

[Turkeyslapper]

Sorry if this has been done earlier however....if you are talking about placing all of the assets under one banner, why not give it all to the AAC.

AAAVN has been operating all battlefied RW assets (ARH, Black hawk, CH47 et al) for quite a while now and despite some teething problems they are making a good fist of it. Hell, they even operate off decks!

Just a question from down below.

Cheers

[Like This - Do That]

Just when you thought it was safe to back in the forum .....

Turkeyslapper, I can't help feeling that you've knocked over an ants' nest :uhoh:

[The Nip]

I am sure in the early 90’s, one of the serious papers had an article about the future use of military helicopters. It proposed an Air Cavalry Brigade. I presume this idea was not popular.

[ramp_up]

Surely one would have thought that as the AAC shrinks down to just the AH and 40 Wild Cats, the percentage of Green versus Blue of both shades in the HQ will also change proportionally, hopefully mirroring that of the overall stake holding of the JHC.

Bet it doesn’t though, mainly because there a number of SOs in the Centre with hidden agendas.

This is not meant as a dig at the guys and girls that have saved my ass in the sandpit, for I have the upmost admiration for them.

WG13, I wouldn’t slag crabs off to much. Remember who services your AEA. It’s amazing where your microphone could end up during the night shift.

[wg13_dummy]

Surely one would have thought that as the AAC shrinks down to just the AH and 40 Wild Cats, the percentage of Green versus Blue of both shades in the HQ will also change proportionally, hopefully mirroring that of the overall stake holding of the JHC.

The same could be levelled the other way. As the SH force shrinks (running only CH47 and Puma 2...but reducing to one type once Puma 2 runs its short course), totalling somewhere in the region of 70 aircraft. Compare that to around 100 aircraft (WAH64 and Wildcat...and Gazelle that will no doubt be marching on way past 2020). Dont forget the CHF element. I guess most importantly, you've probably forgotten who JHC actually work for - HQ Land.

I do fully endorse shooting every fifth SO though. The JHC would quite happily function without quite a proportion of its staff....on all three sides of the pissing contest.


It proposed an Air Cavalry Brigade. I presume this idea was not popular.

That is the problem throughout Defence. 'Popularity' vastly outweighs 'practicality' or common sense. I really cannot see why taking that last step to fully combine our heli assets in to one organic force isn't the way forward. One big issue at present is the inter-service pissing contest. Remove that and it really could be a combined force. Trouble is, non of the services want to give any ground whatsoever.