JHC?
Hmmh.....
I do believe that who is in charge does make a difference.
I do believe that the other 2 Services are now 'paying' to bring the AAC up to a 'warfighting' professional aviation community and not just a flying club (less 57 & historically NI).
I do believe that future JHFs should consist of (and be led by) JHC - in that there is not really enough 'command' going on. Also when they have to command a frontline organisation then their staff work just might be a bit more focussed rather than paper based as they see first hand the consequences and results of their decisions back in Wilton.
I do believe that JHC should say no and force the Govts hand - the fisheads Sea King should have been replaced years ago, and the Puma not far behind. And yet saying, 'yes' and putting crews into difficult positions lacks moral courage. IMHO if JHC had said no in the past (with justifiable reasons) then with NATO and theatre commanders crying out for helicopters/lift then the money would have been made availible for a rapid procurement (increased buy of other SH). Sadly those who want careers have allowed that moral courage to be tainted and hence both Puma and Sea King linger on. Putting a 'band aid' over the Sea King with 'gucci' blades or de-rating engines (Swiss Des style!) is still not delivering the capability that the young servicemen and women require when they need to do their job.
I dont believe that all JHC Staff Officers are mahogny bomber desk wollers - but I do believe that some see the SO2/SO1 position as a possible promotion job and therefore allow this to cloud their judgement.
I do believe that JHF HQs is the way ahead and any training or operation that does not put all of the assets under one 'command' roof will be very inefficient and less effective.
I do believe that DHFS is creating a young pilot that eats, breathes and thinks Joint (on the personal level with mates in the bar) - it is up to us on the shop floor to foster and encourage that friendship.
I do believe that JHC HQ is risk averse and stifling training. If in doubt write a rule or regulation to cover their @rses sat comfortably in their offices. Train hard fight easy is being lost in the sea of Duty Of Care, Risk Management, Political Correctness etc. There is now a big 'delta' to 'operational' training and getting out of the back of a C17/C130 on Ops.
I do believe that standards and operational training should be exactly that - standardised. JHC is allowing each Service to Standardise itself when if ever there was a requirement for Joint standards (both pure flying and warfare/combat/tactics) now is the time.
I do believe in JHC but it is very inefficient and could cut its superflous paper work and staff effort considerably if it really worked out what its job is.
I do believe that single service mentality has to stop - there is not enough of us to go around and therefore we need to take the good and the bad from each service and recognise our weaknesses and strengths and openly draw on them. The moment we withdraw behind our single service bastions (forgive the pun) then we are saving nothing but losing a lot. I know that 10 years ago my operation in the Amphib role was cuff and bluff compared to what the Fisheads have taught me - same goes to the Pongos that have really assisted me understand what a Main Effort REALLY is (compared to staff college manual) etc etc. Hopefully we have returned this knowledge by assisting our Army and RN colleagues with COMAOs, RWOETU and TLT etc.
If we really are going to say to Gordon and Swiss Des - Oi, enough is enough, either pay up for new equipment or we stop (before a nasty accident happens), then we will have to be united behind one voice. Harry Stait at Odiham or Benson or the Fishead Boss alone at Yeovs will be lost in the noise.
Whereas a 2 star that has a united and coherent team behind him - all the way to the shop floor will stand a much better chance (providing moral courage outweighs that flashing career caption!).
That is what I believe - but I know I am wrong on many occasions
