Westcountry-based helicopter elite force in jeopardy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Marmaris
Age: 68
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westcountry-based helicopter elite force in jeopardy
Appeared in Cornwall News this morning. Is this the end of the FAA?Cornwall News | An elite Westcountry-based helicopter force which has played a vital role in Afghanistan could be in jeopardy under plans to make further scything cuts to the defence budget.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes sense. The cost of transfer is large. Training for 35+ crews, 150+ maintainers. Oxfordshire based Merlin specific workshops. Merlin simulator, which can’t move as its part of the multi platform sim’. Accommodation in Oxfordshire for visiting sim’ crews, Loss of 12 years of Merlin experience etc etc and so it goes on. My CHF mates can’t tell me the last time they embarked on a ship and when they did a Chinook was onboard proving that the crabs can cope with embarked Ops. ‘Bootys’ don’t care whose bus they get on as long as the bus turns up. The only thing that it will do is keep the CHF name alive. There is no tangible tactical or strategic benefit, especially as the MOD is broke in more ways than one. The best we can hope for is a joint Merlin Sqn as per 360 Sqn in the good old days combining CHF and Merlin SH.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future of CHF has been in doubt for a while, but I'd be cynical until an official decision is announced. Even if the CHF is scrapped I don't think it will be the end of the FAA as - even without CHF and Harriers - there is still a big chunk of important rotary assets with relatively specialist skills and roles. I am not sure the concept of a 'critical mass' is relevant when pretty much all training is joint anyway. There would be no real efficiencies to be made in scrapping the FAA in toto, and it would just piss of both dark and light blue types alike (said as a light blue).
Makes a good story though and it'll wind a few up...
Makes a good story though and it'll wind a few up...
Yes, but it's a PFI. It wouldn't necessarily cost the MOD anything if it were in the company's interest. I'm not saying it would be zero cost but the company aren't stupid.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Or like when the F3 OCU moved from Coningsby to Leuchars. Not only did the Sim stay put, so did the ground staff, civies all.
At least there would probably be sufficient instructor types available in the west country.
At least there would probably be sufficient instructor types available in the west country.
In my experience the sim is best used when its not colocated with the flying units, the crews aren't distracted by their sqns fly pro, aren't just popping home for lunch or cancelling at the last minute because its only the sim, etc.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elite my @rse
Mind you someone from Cornwall would probably think that having a set of round wheels on your car is fairly elite. Only joking........
Chinook 240,
Perhaps you ought to ask the old and bold from the plastic pig force (who used to go to Stavanger for sims) how many of them could fly a tail rotor failure to a successful landing whilst sober.
Sims away from base can bring their own distractions......
Chinook 240,
Perhaps you ought to ask the old and bold from the plastic pig force (who used to go to Stavanger for sims) how many of them could fly a tail rotor failure to a successful landing whilst sober.
Sims away from base can bring their own distractions......
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a matter of interest is there a merlin sim at CU and if so how does it differ from the RAF Jobbie?
Also...
With the RAF Dropping a 1/4 of its trainee pilots will there be enough pilots in the system to fly the Merlin under RAF control in the forseeable?
Also...
With the RAF Dropping a 1/4 of its trainee pilots will there be enough pilots in the system to fly the Merlin under RAF control in the forseeable?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ask the old and bold from the plastic pig force (who used to go to Stavanger for sims) how many of them could fly a tail rotor failure to a successful landing whilst sober.
That said, travelling Business Class, enjoying the perks that it brings and being in the Sim on the same day brought home a lesson I remember to this day. .......so not entirely unfair!
Gentleman Aviator
But it was only business class from Norn Iron, cos it then exceeded the (whatever it was) magic figure for travelling time.
Made it even better to meet up with the 33 Sqn blokes on the same flight travelling cattle!!
Made it even better to meet up with the 33 Sqn blokes on the same flight travelling cattle!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like the red weed in War of the Worlds... First JFH and now JHC (with CHF being the focus.)
Defence is in somewhat of a downward spiral of resource versus requirement and the discussions about who/what/when a Force should be cut to save money isn't going away any time soon.
So (SH Fairey) you may be right that it would cost a fair chunk of coin to move a simulator to Yeovilton but some might say that it would cost considerably less over the medium term to look at the requirement for 3 services flying helicopters in support of the land and maritime domain. (Maybe few enough years that the big savings would happen in years 1-4 where this government wants to demonstrate savings prior to the big 'give away' pre-election softener?)
Instead of "why should the Navy operate helicopters in the CHF?" should the question not be: "With each service operating so few helicopters now and even less as we reconfigure to Future Force 2020, why are the 3 services all operating helicopters in support of the land battle from the sea and on the land?"
You can save some money by having 3 services fly single types (so only the RAF would fly green Merlin for example) but you save significantly more money if only 2 services fly helicopters at all and as a result are able to remove the manning structure from that service completely.
Assuming neither the Army or RAF want to spend their lives on frigates and destroyers with Merlin Mk1/2 and/or Wildcat, I'll assume the RN is one of them (but do let me know if anyone believes that not to be the case.)
The potential (objective) money saving in rough order of magnitude with the greatest saving at the top:
1. RN/RM flies all helicopters (RAF SH and AAC disbanded with pro-rata manning structures taken as savings.)
2. RN/RM flies all medium green and all grey, AAC flies AH and CH47 (RAF SH disbanded with pro-rata manning structures reduction in total RAF.)
3. RN/RM flies all grey, RAF flies all green (disband AAC with pro-rata manning structures reduction - less saving than RAF SH disbanding due to manning ratios.)
4. Defence helicopter command with 3 services still flying each type of helicopter.
If Defence wants to save serious money, chipping away at the edges is ignoring the (herd) of elephants in the room that is manning and service structures.
There are 2 domains - land and sea - connected by the air environment. An objective assessment might be that as all green helicopters are in support of the land environment (on land or from the sea to the land) and so they might reasonably be flown by the 2 services who currently have their genesis in those domain and each operate helicopters in them.
Defence is in a hole of quite staggering proportions. We can pretend that having 3 services in aviation (fixed and rotary) is OK but actually, it's not. We're broke. We need to do something about it.
An objective view might be that many decades of CH47 experience and a dozen years of Merlin experience wouldn't be thrown away if the personnel did the reciprocal of what they did nearly 93 years ago and throw away their surplus Russian uniform materiel and put back on the RFC and RNAS uniforms they carefully packed in their cases. (AAC and RN/RM ones are a little more modern now than those itchy RFC and RNAS ones.)
Anything that keeps 3 services in helicopters (in whatever sensible combination) is an opportunity missed assuming we remain broke.
Defence is in somewhat of a downward spiral of resource versus requirement and the discussions about who/what/when a Force should be cut to save money isn't going away any time soon.
So (SH Fairey) you may be right that it would cost a fair chunk of coin to move a simulator to Yeovilton but some might say that it would cost considerably less over the medium term to look at the requirement for 3 services flying helicopters in support of the land and maritime domain. (Maybe few enough years that the big savings would happen in years 1-4 where this government wants to demonstrate savings prior to the big 'give away' pre-election softener?)
Instead of "why should the Navy operate helicopters in the CHF?" should the question not be: "With each service operating so few helicopters now and even less as we reconfigure to Future Force 2020, why are the 3 services all operating helicopters in support of the land battle from the sea and on the land?"
You can save some money by having 3 services fly single types (so only the RAF would fly green Merlin for example) but you save significantly more money if only 2 services fly helicopters at all and as a result are able to remove the manning structure from that service completely.
Assuming neither the Army or RAF want to spend their lives on frigates and destroyers with Merlin Mk1/2 and/or Wildcat, I'll assume the RN is one of them (but do let me know if anyone believes that not to be the case.)
The potential (objective) money saving in rough order of magnitude with the greatest saving at the top:
1. RN/RM flies all helicopters (RAF SH and AAC disbanded with pro-rata manning structures taken as savings.)
2. RN/RM flies all medium green and all grey, AAC flies AH and CH47 (RAF SH disbanded with pro-rata manning structures reduction in total RAF.)
3. RN/RM flies all grey, RAF flies all green (disband AAC with pro-rata manning structures reduction - less saving than RAF SH disbanding due to manning ratios.)
4. Defence helicopter command with 3 services still flying each type of helicopter.
If Defence wants to save serious money, chipping away at the edges is ignoring the (herd) of elephants in the room that is manning and service structures.
There are 2 domains - land and sea - connected by the air environment. An objective assessment might be that as all green helicopters are in support of the land environment (on land or from the sea to the land) and so they might reasonably be flown by the 2 services who currently have their genesis in those domain and each operate helicopters in them.
Defence is in a hole of quite staggering proportions. We can pretend that having 3 services in aviation (fixed and rotary) is OK but actually, it's not. We're broke. We need to do something about it.
An objective view might be that many decades of CH47 experience and a dozen years of Merlin experience wouldn't be thrown away if the personnel did the reciprocal of what they did nearly 93 years ago and throw away their surplus Russian uniform materiel and put back on the RFC and RNAS uniforms they carefully packed in their cases. (AAC and RN/RM ones are a little more modern now than those itchy RFC and RNAS ones.)
Anything that keeps 3 services in helicopters (in whatever sensible combination) is an opportunity missed assuming we remain broke.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snaggletooth
One is true second is just about history with the the heavy armour of the future as likely to be heli-borne. The third is the real problem as few RAF aircrew want to spend half the year at sea for the wholly practical reason that they didn't join the Navy!
You seem awfully keen to disband the RAF Regiment
One is true second is just about history with the the heavy armour of the future as likely to be heli-borne. The third is the real problem as few RAF aircrew want to spend half the year at sea for the wholly practical reason that they didn't join the Navy!
You seem awfully keen to disband the RAF Regiment
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
This subject has been thrashed out and bitterly (and in cases) arrogantly and ignorantly argued on previous threads.
I suggest that we all tread very carefully indeed, to the light blue we know too well that our new shiney wokkas may soon be history and that allegedly both ACAS and CAS have apparently been recently put firmly put back in their boxes over being too single service.
Equally Fisheads should sound off with caution, PR11 is not finalised, we are broke beyond unbelievable proportions for many years to come and therefore absolutely no option is beyond reproach.
Trenchard Phase 4 is certainly a Defence Helicopter Force that goes our (the light blue) way, but we should be careful as it is entirely feasible that this new potential Defence Helicopter Force may not include RAF in any major (command) role.
Therefore, when the stakes are this large, MOD this broke and the scope for change so large, arguing about where simulators go is being very very short sighted and believing that it is the key to the ownership or operation of helicopters is even more so.
Defence is changing to such a degree that we will probably never be able to recover, with a belief that capability 'holidays' and gapping can be rapidly re-generated (as we did at the outbreak of World War II). But what those that are taking these decisions and risks do not appreciate is that where a War Office may have been able to fight Spitfire pilots after as little 9 hours, today's technology will never see 'rapid re-generation' faced with conflict.
This subject has been thrashed out and bitterly (and in cases) arrogantly and ignorantly argued on previous threads.
I suggest that we all tread very carefully indeed, to the light blue we know too well that our new shiney wokkas may soon be history and that allegedly both ACAS and CAS have apparently been recently put firmly put back in their boxes over being too single service.
Equally Fisheads should sound off with caution, PR11 is not finalised, we are broke beyond unbelievable proportions for many years to come and therefore absolutely no option is beyond reproach.
Trenchard Phase 4 is certainly a Defence Helicopter Force that goes our (the light blue) way, but we should be careful as it is entirely feasible that this new potential Defence Helicopter Force may not include RAF in any major (command) role.
Therefore, when the stakes are this large, MOD this broke and the scope for change so large, arguing about where simulators go is being very very short sighted and believing that it is the key to the ownership or operation of helicopters is even more so.
Defence is changing to such a degree that we will probably never be able to recover, with a belief that capability 'holidays' and gapping can be rapidly re-generated (as we did at the outbreak of World War II). But what those that are taking these decisions and risks do not appreciate is that where a War Office may have been able to fight Spitfire pilots after as little 9 hours, today's technology will never see 'rapid re-generation' faced with conflict.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 20th Feb 2011 at 19:14.