PDA

View Full Version : UK re-roles Apache attack helicopter units - IHS Janes


Heathrow Harry
10th Feb 2017, 13:53
The British Army's attack helicopter regiments have been re-aligned to better support the British Army's reaction force and high readiness brigades.

The UK Attack Helicopter Force has spent the past 13 years either supporting light air assault and amphibious units, or on counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan so the re-orientation to work alongside armoured forces is innovative.

The plans were part of the 'Army 2020 Refine' exercise that was announced in December 2016 and they will see the Army Air Corps' (AAC's) two attack-helicopter squadrons held at continuous readiness for deployment on operations.

Previously the AAC operated a readiness cycle in which one regiment was ready for operations and the other concentrated on training and supporting exercises.

Under the new plans, 3 Regiment AAC will be tasked to support the armoured infantry, and strike brigades of 3 (UK) Division and 4 Regiment AAC will support the army's 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines.

Colonel Chris Bisset, the Commander of the UK's Attack Helicopter Force at Wattisham Flying Station in Suffolk, explained the new system in a briefing to his soldiers seen by Jane's. "For the last couple of years we have soaked up [demand for us] by using a system whereby we conduct a year of training for operations followed by a year held at readiness for operations anywhere in the world, alternating between 3 Regiment AAC and 4 Regiment AAC and supported by 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME," he said. "The only way to 'do more' is to train and be ready at the same time, a so-called 'continuous readiness' model and this is the course of action we will have to adopt."

The commanding officer of 3 Regiment AAC, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ackrill, said in the same briefing, "we have been tasked to lead a change of focus to the significant parts of the army who have of late seen little of the Apache, indeed of helicopters in general.

Rotate too late
10th Feb 2017, 17:10
Soooooo, no rest for the wicked then!

Rotate too late
11th Feb 2017, 13:54
It's not down to them, it's not their decision of that I'm sure, they are the ones that need to manage it. Good luck to them. Both are extremely pleasant.

Two's in
11th Feb 2017, 14:11
Combat experience rules of the forum:

1. If you don't like what people write on this forum - start your own. The mods get to police it, you'll soon know if you've strayed.
2. Just because you know people personally does not preclude others from commenting on them - if you know them better, good for you.
3. Learn to assume people on here are at least black belt level cynics or sarcastic bastards - it's how you survive the military.
4. Most of us understand that (despite the geriatric decision making in Falaise road) you don't get to command an Apache Regt without a reasonable level of common sense.
5. It's the internet. You don't have a clue whether you are having social intercourse with a 12,000 hour, Master Blue steely-eyed sky God, or a 12 year old kid taking a break from "Call of Duty" to wind up some old farts. Assume the best, prepare for the worst (Although if HH is only 12, he's really good at it!).
6. Relax.

Easy Street
11th Feb 2017, 15:37
the re-orientation to work alongside armoured forces is innovative

I'm struggling to see how it's "innovative" to use the aircraft in the role for which it was originally designed. And I had to chuckle after reading about the so-called "continuous readiness" model: it's basically what the RAF has always done! At the height of TELIC / HERRICK the Army-style "form cycle" was in vogue among some of the light blue leadership, but thankfully that's gone away now; indeed it seems that the AAC is now adopting an RAF-style operating model.

Out Of Trim
11th Feb 2017, 15:59
Easy Street,

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Their earlier way of working seems very strange to me! Maybe it's just an Army thing..

Always a Sapper
11th Feb 2017, 18:38
the re-orientation to work alongside armoured forces is innovative

All well and good, but that's always assuming that you actually have an armoured force to work along side in the first place rather than...

1. A shed full of rusty museum pieces at Ash*****h...

2. An ever increasing line of knackered AFV's leading away from the Barracks taken out by the lack of 'track mileage' that you could follow towards the RV...

Or as sadly seems to be the norm these days an ever increasing list of nice shiny low mileage vehicles that have been put up for sale on auction sites various on behalf of the MOD bean counters...

Pontius Navigator
12th Feb 2017, 08:20
Easy Street, agree, I didn't comment earlier as I was not sure of the latest state of play.

The essential difference must be that the RAF can commit 80% of a sqn and even augment a sqn whereas a battalion with a company in training cannot readily absorb a different company from cold.

Interestingly, I believe the Soviets used to have one sqn of a regiment as the training sqn. I guess the RAF does too with training flights or reserve sqns.

Rotate too late
12th Feb 2017, 09:52
I must admit, the soldier first mentality must be taking more than just a back seat, it must be in the trailer being towed!

SASless
12th Feb 2017, 12:46
Is it more a shortage of assets and resources that forces the Readiness issue?

As Force size shrinks....the readiness demands do not necessarily follow as the threats generally do not decrease over time.

The Apache was originally designed with the mission being anti-tank warfare in Europe but has since had to adopt other duties.

I recall the discussion here back when the Aircraft were being deployed to the Sand Box as conventional Helicopter Gunships and the arguments that presented.

Now we see the mission set returning more to the original Mission set and again there is some argument going on.

Does it really matter how Readiness Requirements are met....so long as they are and along the way Individual Soldiers are provided needed breaks from Duty to avoid burn out?

Perhaps the question really should be...."Is the Apache Force too small to met the demands of readiness for all contingencies?".

Rotate too late
12th Feb 2017, 12:52
"Is the Apache Force too small to met the demands of readiness for all contingencies?"

Just let me be in the office when the chain of command are presented with that little career stopper!

Always a Sapper
12th Feb 2017, 15:52
"Is the Army, Navy & RAF too small to met the demands of readiness for all contingencies?"

Here you go RTL, I've fixed it for you.

And yes, seats, wall mounted, fly. would be in great demand should that little question ever get raised...

Pontius Navigator
12th Feb 2017, 17:02
Contingencies - no problem.

1. Write contingencies for every eventuality - lock in cupboard
2. Assume only X contingencies at a time requiring Y assets

3. Use existing forces for actual contingency, now upgraded to Operation, for contingency not considered an eventuality in #1
4. Hope and pray that #2 applies and #1 or #3 don't recur again.

A good example of wishful thinking pulling chestnuts out of the fire was GW1 and SH didn't foresee the end of the Cold War and the loss of sponsorship by the USSR.

chopper2004
12th Feb 2017, 17:50
Do not forget the order of 50 x AH-64E Guardians with delivery in the 2020-21 timeframe, to replace the current fleet. On paper its pretty much <`10 airframes

Cheers