AAC to consider smaller / surrogate training RW platform?

[chopper2004]

UK considers 'surrogate' helicopters to reduce pilot training costs - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/32851/uk-considers-surrogate-helicopters-to-reduce-pilot-training-costs)

Food for thought.............

[Gnd]

Chaps, again as in many other posts - stop being so single service orientated - it is the Comd JHCs 'Hacking' idea and not the Army specifically. You 'one liners' will be most peeved if the Army get it and you have to use all your cash on 1 hrs flying while the Army get 15! Sexton is AAC bu he is the voice (in this matter) for the JHC, it is the AVM who wants it; oh, and do not think the press are clever enough to get the tri-service thing. Blue hat = AAC, God forbid they actually find out the correct source. New cheap aircraft for all JHC stations as surrogate trainers for their expensive siblings.

Edited - thanks for the title change (and a review of my hastie spelling)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Presumably the main use would be IF currency, NVD recces and the like, rather than the multi-crew tricky stuff?

[chopper2004]

Though how does the US Army have handled this over the decades from the UH-1H Huey to the TH-67 Creek then crews graduate then off to UH-60L/M, AH-64A/D, CH-47D/F

Maybe SAS could answer....

[jayteeto]

7 Sqn used a Gazelle for years to do their NVG route recces, makes sense really.

[Mil-26Man]

oh, and do not think the press are clever enough to get the tri-service
thing. Blue hat = AAC, God forbid they actualy find out the correct source.


I was at this conference and Sexton was most definitely referring to the army in terms of the 45% running costs, and he did say that he'd like to see all JHC stations with surrogate training helicopters. Maybe it's not the press who don't get the whole tri-service thing.

[Gnd]

Not true, look at the uk running cost for Rw v FW = 45% although that is official Gov figures and I lump them in the same tar barrel as the press. Merlin is no problem as they are Navy and not JHC so the Ch is the problem. As I said, check the facts not the rhetoric! If the truth can be prized out, the Army is probably way over the 45% as they hold the majority of RW assets?
Statistical Releases | 2013 (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php/publications/equipment/formations-vessels-and-aircraft/2013)

So if it is only 45% for the Army - they are doing very well compared to the smaller forces???

[Mil-26Man]

Don't shoot the messenger. Like I said, the report linked in the first thread is accurate in that it has reported exactly what Sexton said - I know, as I was there. Perhaps one to take up with the brigadier?

[Mil-26Man]

Gnd,

It's not helpful editing your posts with additional facts/questions after you've already been replied to. Best to come back with a new post so that your facts/questions don't get missed.

You say:



If the truth can be prized out, the Army is probably way over the 45% as they
hold the majority of RW assets?
Statistical Releases | 2013 (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F532797-aac-consider-smaller-surrogate-training-rw-platform.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dasa.mod.uk%2Findex.php%2Fpublications% 2Fequipment%2Fformations-vessels-and-aircraft%2F2013&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew-57%2F)

So if it
is only 45% for the Army - they are doing very well compared to the smaller
forces???


Surely that makes the case of a surrogate helicopter trainer even more compelling, no?

[Gnd]

Sorry, didn't mean to do that, just thought I better add true facts, not be ambiguous like sexton. I am in horrendious agreement - get them; my issue is the title as it is factually incorrect and only serves to let the snipers loose. It is a JHC plan - nothing to do with the AAC specifically. Not too many good JHC plans at the moment so lets be certain it is out there if the Head Shed want it proclaimed - we can do better than just accept small mistakes and inaccuracies. Sorry again and well done for being so fast.

AHH bugger - edited (fast) as just noticed the title has changed; got my wish!!!!

[Mil-26Man]

AHH bugger - edited (fast) as just noticed the title has changed; got my wish!!!!

The title of the Jane's story? I tweeted it when it was first published, and looking back it's always been "UK...." rather than ''Army....". The only reference to the AAC is in reporting what Sexton had to say.

Edit: Ahh, thinking you mean the title of the thread.

[sycamore]

R-22s in camo then....?
or,bring back the Sioux....

[Rosevidney1]

I trained on the Hiller 12B!

[teeteringhead]

Merlin is no problem as they are Navy and not JHC Surely the ex-RAF Junglie cabs will be JHC??

[GipsyMagpie]

Great idea. Think of all the tasks that could be done with a light hack. Recces, crew positioning, meetings, spares collection. I think the TP community use Gazelles for this sort of thing. And they seem to find the flying beneficial or they wouldn't do it. Stick and rudder skills are good whichever way you skin it. I reckon an ec120 would be a good start. But then again, should we just ditch single engine and go all multi?

[Gnd]

Your right, looks like the Sk is replaced by Me in 16, SoS made an announcement today for the 5 year maint contract provided by the experts!!!

MoD contracts safeguard 1,000 AgustaWestland jobs - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/10601739/MoD-contracts-safeguard-1000-AgustaWestland-jobs.html)

[NutLoose]

Good to see the Telegraph are keeping abreast of current Royal news and aircraft operators

The £330m Merlin Life Support Programme (MLSP) will eventually see the Merlin replace the Royal Navy’s Sea King fleet, which are flown by Prince William, and will take place in two phases.


The only collectives he's probably pulling on these days are a bunches of Spuds out of the ground in deepest Cambridgeshire.

[Gnd]

I rest my case for Press reliability and our need to be better than them!

[Hueymeister]

When I was a QHI FBH quoted the contract cost of the Squirrel at @£140 per flying hour, that was back in 2007 mind.

The whole concept makes sense.

[Martin the Martian]

At the risk of wandering off topic, the armed forces are all seeming to move towards larger and larger aircraft. The Gazelle looks like it will be phased out without a direct replacement, leaving the Wildcat as the smallest operational helicopter in service, while the RAF are set to lose the Hercules once the Atlas is in service. Using an aircraft that big for a lot of jobs will seem like overkill.

[Rosevidney1]

I am in total agreement with the Martian who also lives in the delectable Duchy. I was on the Sioux when the Gazelle entered service and I recall being impressed at how difficult it was to see it when down in the weeds doing its job. When I converted to type I felt it was the best machine we could have had. Why should the AAC get on the 'Bigger, Heavier More Expensive' trend? It can only mean a smaller Corps as we can't afford an adequate number of helicopters.

[Greenielynxpilot]

Love the way everyone jumps straight to the conclusion that the training in question is for the benefit of the aircrew.

The quote was ... "45% of the army's running cost bill [is] taken up by helicopters. We have to reduce those costs to a minimum, and [the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is] looking at surrogate training"

And I'll bet you all a pint that when the Army is contemplating whose training needs are paramount, it will be the requirements of our Land Forces, not the operators in flying suits, that will hold the day - and quite rightly so - because that is where the biggest potential pay-off is.

I've never understood why we use high value assets to conduct low level collective training, and the old chestnut "the pilots need it for currency" was just an excuse for not bothering to properly calculate, and account for, the true cost of operating our assets in the way we did. This initiative will consign that attitude to the dustbin. For far too long the "train as you fight" mentality has been a blocker to embracing the all the potential benefits that a well designed and properly resourced synthetic and blended training environment might promise.

The thing that's changed is now Defence is broke.