Ralph and Peeps,
If Afghan and AH had not happened then might I suggest we as a Corps would have been up the creek without a paddle. As it is, AH happened but we were not really given a funding 'paddle' until Herrick began. The contingency funding has gone a long way to helping but not overcoming the funding gaps in the original plan however.
Dare I say that with the percieved doubt over a Lynx replacement that it is hardly suprising that AH has become something of a Corps and Joint focus. The platform delivers capability that the Corps has aspired to for many years and simply could not replicate with the Lynx TOW platform.
If a Lynx replacement is not forthcoming we are likely to be left with core capability of AH, fixed wing and a disparate collection of periferal capabilities in that order of importance. Which of these capabilities do you suspect that PJHQ will be seeking to contribute to the kinetic as well as ISTAR battle?
By default AH has a longer training requirement than the other platforms and is somewhat more expensive in terms of funding and technical manpower. It is dissapointing that the main frustration to developing more capability in terms of operational task lines is in fact the REME capability to generate training airframes on which to train more crews and sustain UK training. It seems that the AAC's well won reputation on ops is likely to be tarnished by this logistic inability to generate the requirement. The Corps future reputation is in the hands of the REME and out of our own, simple as that.
Given the ability to train to generate more crews and a stronger will to retain those trained in the seats they relinquish on appointment to desks, departing disilussioned with the continued workload and the like it is more likely that we can increase the number of trained aircrew within the units.
My earlier estimate of 60% manning will be frustrated in the coming year not just by routine and premature termination of sevice but also by six appointments on the CCRB of AH officers to non-AH pilot LSNs. We will as a result only slowly generate more crews.
I can assure you however that if we had the manning for a one on three off regime of whatever duration then the aircrew themselves would certainly be up for the extra opportunities to contribute to the kinetic effort that more task lines would bring.
Yours, skill faded,
HEDP