Uk Apache - Do They Really Mean All Of This?
Well this thread is in the right place, a rumour network. There is more rumour/I have it on good authority/A friend in the know told me/and any other poor excuse for flinging mud than I’ve had hot dinners. Just as plainly there are more experts here than the Army needs, who know didley squat about some of the intricacies of equipment procurement, management of resources, maintenance and project management in the round or the truth of the matter about Apache introduction to service.
Before I start a plethora of WTF does he know about it replies I should declare my hand. I’m outside the programme looking in and also inside looking out, somewhat of a luxury you might say. I also know most of the staff officers who have been on the receiving end of the ill educated comment on this thread. They are good men and true working tirelessly against considerable odds doing the best for you. In fact they are doing jobs that most of the brickbat throwers couldn’t or wouldn’t do but are vital to the success of the programme. I have also been in Operational Requirements in the MoD during a War and been at War with the AAC. So in this thread IMHO there is a lot of pretty offensive manure but hidden, sadly without bands and banners, one or two pearls which the majority of muck spreaders are too blinkered to see.
First, I think what you should be doing is slapping yourselves on the back – all of you; suppliers, maintainers, aircrew, groundcrew, staff and anyone frankly associated with the equipment. You are doing a fantastically successful job given some of the constraints. Stop beating yourselves up, OK some things could be better but all in all it’s a success story.
Second when I spoke at an Attack Dinner some years ago BA (Before Apache or Before Afghanistan whichever is applicable) in this case the latter I made the point to the attendees that if they thought the MoD was going to spend this much money on the Apache it would certainly want to justify the expense by seeing what it could do on operations sooner rather than later. None of us then foresaw that it would be that soon – such is the way of things military. I know now, which I didn’t know at the time, that there had been an estimate of when the MoD thought that the aircraft might be exposed to operations and that this was being used to plan all sorts of things such as manning levels, support holdings and establishments to name but a few. You have to have a plan, it can change and the requirement to change is not an admission of having got it wrong its an evolution of the plan. In fact the aircraft was sent on operations before this date so it isn’t entirely surprising that all the dominoes were not lined up, but they are getting lined up real quick. For those sniping at spares shortages if you think that curing the problem is merely nipping across the Atlantic with a very big wedge and a large truck you are demonstrating a level of ignorance which is beyond comment. Example, not with Apache I grant you but similar examples will apply – some years ago if you wanted a Lynx MRH there was a two year lead time, you could only order them in batches of 20 and they were only made in France.
Third there is much talk of ‘can we only send 8 aircraft’ or can we only manage to send 8 out of 48. This displays a poor understanding of ‘fleets within fleets’ ‘depth servicing cycles’, UOR fits to mention but a few. If you think I’m just tossing words into a pond to keep you quiet do talk to someone who knows the implications of what I’m on about. It would take too long here. So 8 aircraft, as things stand now, can complete the requirement. Note the word requirement, that’s THE requirement NOT your requirement which sounds more akin to Bader’s Big Wings. Eight aircraft at present rates is presumably containable with current support manning levels. The addition of more aircraft will skew the support manning requirement out of all proportion. The example to try and get your heads around follows the premise that the greatest enemy of aircraft availability and serviceability is the Squadron Commanders who through the ages (and I was one once) have traditionally wanted to have all their aircraft out in a line for pictures and flypasts with their names painted on the side of the cockpit. This is appalling use of aircraft and a terrible waste of engineering resource. It is always better to fly 6 hours each off 2 aircraft than one hour each off 12.
Enough I guess. I don’t want to get into repeat tour arguments it’s not productive. Suffice to say the older among us do understand. In the late seventies and early eighties it was not unheard of for pilots to complete 2 four month tours in NI in 12 to 15 month periods. It will not go on forever. Manning levels will improve as will spares holdings and experience, all of which will ease the problem, after all HERRICK is only 2 years old. I also understand the management challenges in keeping returned operational crews fired up and enthused during the period between tours, no one said it would be easy.
Do stick with it, you are all doing a fantastic job and the Army and RAF crews that I talk to would not be without you. We know there is pain but there is terrific gain. I spoke with a young soldier of the Mercian Regiment, currently at Headly Court ,very recently as he visited us in support of our Help for Heroes fundraising. He said ‘I wouldn’t be talking to you now if it wasn’t for the Apache’. Nuff said, I’m proud to play a small part in your efforts and to sit in your reflected glory.
LB