Admin Guru's Shiny Purple Future

[Admin Guru]

With all the recent talk of Joint Force Ops within the Harrier world, I wonder whether it is time for the British forces to make the next step.

Purple Ops seem to be the in-thing at the moment, and the government, under considerable financial pressure, appear to see the combination of elements from different forces as a cost cutting measure under the disguise of 'progress'. I mention again the Harrier example - what good is a GR7 on a carrier if it is there to protect the boats it flies from? No radar and a very slow airframe indeed(can it even fire Air to Air missiles?) - why don't we just use hawks? I accept that the only viable air defence system currently in the UK is from the outdated F3, but despite its GR1 airframe, the SHAR at least had a radar.

The Army Air Corps' assets could be easily absorbed into the RAF's current SH force, and remain under the control of the Joint Helicopter command. I appreciate that the pilots may need additional training at the RAF Rotary Training facility at Shawbury to bring them up to standard. All the non-commissioned aircrew could be used to fill vacancies in the NCO aircrew branches, such as WSOps.

The RAF Regiment can be given a change of name to "Airfield Defence Corps". This can bring it in line with the Joint NBC centre at Honington. The CCS training could be done as a secondary duty by a competent individual who attends yearly courses on these skills.

Despite differences in the administrative side of things between the forces, a joint method could be created taking the best aspects of each service. With foresight this could be integrated into a European style; everyone in NATO is aware that joint ops reflects the participation of many different countries, not just forces. I also see a future for an integrated digital computer claim / forms system that would reduce paperwork for the adminers.

We have already accepted the success of the Joint Intelligence centre, and the Joint Catering Establishment. With these bold steps, I am sure the combination of the rest of the forces could be a distinct possibility.

I also see a need for a specific command to be created, simply responsible for the movement and organisation of the Forces. It could be seen as a sort of 'Supply Command', and could look after everything from getting troops into the back of Hercs, to shipping missiles and bombs down to the Gulf.

As for the style of the combined forces, I think we should lose the pomposity of the Army, some of the outdated and ridiculous traditions of the Navy and concentrate on the modern outloook of the Royal Air Force as the primary influence.

As a result, I see the following points as crucial to a bright joint future:

1. Scrap the FAA.. .2. Scrap the AAC, but use the helicopters in the SH role.. .3. Hand over the RAF Regt to the Army.. .4. Continue and expand the jointery of the remaining branches within all the services, and call the finished organisation "Royal British Forces."

Obviously, this new creation would not be without teething troubles so it is crucial to have the right people at the top of the tree. I see the need for military personnel with primarily administrative experience as the ideal candidates. Political influence would also be required, so I suggest an administrator and a civil servant hand in hand at the top.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

[DP Harvey]

get a life

[Proletarian]

You forgot to suggest amalgamating the scribblers with the nearest local county council department of sanitation.

[Megaton]

I would have thought that a better title for this thread might have been "Admin Guru's Shiny Purple Head."

Look, mate, you're giving tw@ts a bad name. And you're not making the RAF look any better either.

[Hong Kong Fuey]

A wonderful post, AG, and I take my hat off to you. However, I think your previous aircrew-baiting successes may have gone to your head somewhat and inspired you to aim above yourself. If I may be so bold as to offer a touch of advice - keep it simple, fella, and people will bite. Go over the top and it becomes obvious what you are trying to achieve.

I recommend you bone up on Machiavelli.

[jockspice]

Do us a favour and stick to paper clips because you know c0ck all about aviation. I'm not going to repeat your drivel to point out all the trades from all 3 services you insulted in your post, needless to say that it would be wise if you stayed in your own wee world and stop stealing the oxygen from the real one.. .Don't you feel these bites lower morale even more and are destructive rather than amusing? No wonder everyone takes the pi55 out off the crabs when they have cretins like you batting for them.

And..........relax.

(Blimey, I've just defended the RAF! If that isn't jointery, I don't know what is! I'm off for a large gin :) )

[LambJalfraezi]

Don't fret too much fellas. I know AG and the phrase ' A small man trapped in a small man's body' springs to mind. I still wonder if his parents had any children that lived.

'Do you want me to send you back to where I found you...unemployed in Greenland?'

[nrkingdon]

Admin Guru,. . please don't post again. Your ignorance is really beginning to grate.. . Oh and whilst you are busy not posting, leave the RAF and do us all a favour. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Wibble

[Toddington Ted]

When I served in the Senior Service, a boat was a submarine, not a surface vessel. It's very bad form and rather like calling a locomotive a train. What do they teach these people today? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Big Green Arrow]

Judging by AG's posts...absolutely **** all!

[It's Not Over Until......]

Just because this thread has been posted by that t**t Admin Guru everyone is slagging it off. If someone else had posted it I'm sure there would be some more interesting answers. Some of what he/she says may come true! <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[G.Khan]

AG - as one who, thirty six years ago, when in the Army, had to pass RAF Biggin Hill, had ex RN and RAF instructors and had my FHT with a serving Wing Commander could you tell me what evidence you have to suggest that Army aviators would need to be "brought up to RAF standard" please?

Given the overall size of Army aviation compared to RAF rotary wing, (excluding Search and Rescue), and the fact that most RAF rotary wing flying is in support of the Army then surely the logical thing to do would be to give it all to the Army, yes?

No need to remove NCO aircrew from pilots duties, most of them will go on to get a commission anyway.

If you ever get to Staff College try your theory on them. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[The Bodger]

A G obviously you need a visit by the CDT team !!!

[FJJP]

<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Here we go again. Isn't it obvious by now that he's getting off on us reacting to his daft posts? This time he's cobbled together topics that have been the subject of various studies over the past few years (although I suspect he is unaware of it).

The inaccuracy of some of his statements, and the stupidity of some (Hawks for fleet defence springs to mind - middle of the Indian Ocean, Hawks, ramp, etc) indicates his depth of knowledge and intellectual capacity. In short, he is a shallow thinker who has aspirations well above his capabilities.

Incidentally, and for AG's information, the Canadian Forces went through the jointery exercise in the early 70's and are now back to single service.

If we ignore his attempts at winding people up, he will hopefully give up and it will free up server space for more worthy topics.

<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: FJJP ]</p>

[attackattackattack]

Oh for goodness sake, AG says something provocative, you lot bite, he walks away laughing and encouraged to do it again. HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THESE THINGS! It's a windup. He thrives on your outraged reactions. Don't take it seriously. If you reply, accept that it's part of a game.

Please remember that it's banter - not very good banter - but banter all the same.

As for the points he's raised: I think that JHC should actually revert to the senior service. They've always been better at operating rotary.

The Harrier force should move to the Army, their primary role is, after all, ground support and the RAF tends not to understand the muddy parts of war. Harriers are a bit like expensive tanks really.

The RAF should link up with the European Space programme and become Space Cadets (oops, too late).

Navy ships should be operated by P & O (because they haven't run three aground in the last few years).

Airfield defence should actually be a Regular Army role. We can let Stabs and Crabs go off and fight for nasty sandy bits. So I agree with AG on one point.

PS Satire/bollox caption is ON!

Edited to add: FJJP you beat me to it by a breath. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: attackattackattack ]</p>

[chippy63]

attack3,. .Thanks for your contribution to AG's Amazing Multi-coloured but Mainly Purple Vision.

I think there are touches of near-brilliance in AG's Purple Vision. To move in the same paragraph straight from comment on Euro defence integration to an IT system to process claims so as to make things easy for the likes of AG is actually quite funny.

AG winds the hare up and sets it running, everyone seems willing to go chasing after it.

Of course, it would be tragic if his scribblings were sincerely meant- but no-one can be that daft, can they? Can they.... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Lets find AG a new job.

One that will suit him

Governor of Rockall, perhaps?

[OldBonaMate]

A G

There's something familiar about your style of wind-up. Does KOS ('82 - '85) mean anything to you?

BTW you seem to have done it again, well done.

PS you missed out the Royals, the Met, and Dad's Army; what have they done wrong? <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[attackattackattack]

OBM

The Royals are getting themselves in their own pickle without our helpful suggestions. I see that Phillip has enraged the 'Spearchucking' tribes of Australia.

Perhaps we could combine the Royals with the Met to produce morning forecasts in which Charles divines the weather by talking with his plants.

We could combine Dad's Army with MOD. This would be a sitcom situation where a group of people who are palpably unfit to be connected with the armed forces attempt to set and manage a defence policy.....Oh, my legal team tell me that this has already been done.

I hope these cover the glaring ommisions in AG's fine suggestions.

Sadly the Royal Observer Corps no longer exists. If they had been around they could monitor the flash to bang between Government Ministers telling lies and civil servants getting fired.

[Barn Doors]

AG wouldn't know what a GR7 looked like if one came along and parked itself up his a$$

I proclaim some large kicking to AG's dumb head!

. . <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[cloudybeer]

We're not biting....BUT.....he's managed it again. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!!"

[Admin Guru]

Firstly, I apologise in advance for being slightly tipsy after another politically fuelled session at happy hour. . .Firstly, I am duty bound to apologise for some inaccuracies in my first post. Apparently the SHAR has a GR3 airframe, not a GR1. Also, G Khan has a point about AAC pilots. My comment referred to getting everyone up to a common level of skills for joint Ops - the Army and RAF must have their own slightly different specialisations that need integrating. As for the Army pilots, they should of course have the opportunity to undergo further training for a commission if they wish.

I'm amazed that you find Purple Ops such a far fetched idea. For the information of FJJP, the Canadian forces are indeed a combined operation and they have not reverted to single service. Maybe someone who has recently done the Maple Flag exercise can comment to confirm this.

I'm also amazed that many people seem so anti-jointery and its consequences. Surely it is the way forward? Many PPruners seem to thrive on slagging off each others services - not very productive, an attitude like that is it? On a similar note, why just shoot the messenger with "you ****." Combined Ops are a reality, and I thought it might make an interesting discussion about whether we should make the next step to the "Royal British Forces."

Ed Winchester, thanks for holding back recently. I'm now more than happy for you to comment on my Forum.

[Ed Winchester]

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/nighty.gif

[opso]

AG

[Sigh] It's with the unease of foreboding and the disquiet of being 'suckered in' that I reply.

[quote] I also see a need for a specific command to be created, simply responsible for the movement and organisation of the Forces. It could be seen as a sort of 'Supply Command', and could look after everything from getting troops into the back of Hercs, to shipping missiles and bombs down to the Gulf.

<hr></blockquote>

It's called the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) and it was formed in Apr 99 (if I remember the year correctly). The bit of DLO reponsible for the movement of equipment and personnel is the Defence Transport Movement Agency (DTMA) and is based at DLO Andover. Rather laughingly at the time, the MoD magazine 'Focus' ran an interview with the newly appointed Chief of Defence Logistics who had gone from army cpl to 2- (or 3-) star, captioning a photo of him as [quote] The new purple head of logistics. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <hr></blockquote>

As for your comments on the Canadian forces, people are referring to the fact that several years ago, they joined completely; single uniform, joint command structure, logistics et al. However, they found that morale, service identity, retention and recruitment all suffered significantly. As a result, whilst they maintain more jointery than we do, they have pulled back from the brink and now have 3 services again in all but name. Instead, Canadian military savings came from more radical methods that, whilst I have never been FJ (to my relief <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ), I would never want to see enacted within the RAF.

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: opso ]</p>

[G.Khan]

And before DLO it was called Movement Control, I think? (used to wear MOV armbands at street level but obviously went right up to Whitehall).

[uncle peter]

i assume AG avoids preparation h like superman avoids kryptonite, as any contact must surely signal the end for our anal irritant.

ps its a thread not a forum.

best wishes :)

[FJJP]

AG - I suggets you get your facts straight. I recently served with a Canadian exchange officer, in light blue uniform, who informed me that whilst the Army and Air Force retain the same ranks and rank braid, they have reverted to single service colour uniforms. Whilst the Army and Air Force used common rank structure, the Canadian Navy never lost their Navy rank terminology.

[opso]

G.Khan, before DLO, DTMA's function was done by JTMS in MoD (Joint Transport and Movements Specialists, I believe) which was set up as a 'one-stop shop' - which it never was, but then again, DTMA isn't either. Prior to that all air movement was done through HQ 38 Gp's Mov Ops; 4 offices remarkably enough called Mov Ops 1 to Mov Ops 4.

Before that it was probably Transport Command, but I don't remember that too well. BEagle...?

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: opso ]</p>

[G.Khan]

Thanks OPSO, I "retired" in 1968! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[Stan Moore]

AG does it again!! But I can't resist the bait and have to bite.. .. .For once our pencil wielding warrior has a point - lots of time is wasted in single service willy waving at the expense of a truly 'joined - up' solution to defence problems. I think it is getting better, though, and although probably heresy on PPrune, joint service staff college is probaly a good start(the bar is always the best place to get to understand someone!). .. .However, I do think each indivual service has unique strengths and would hate to see indiviual service weaknesses imposed on us all... for instance, as a northern comprehensive school oik come good, I would hate to see the class-ridden, discriminatory approach of some areas of the British Army visited on the other services. - Jointery means changing to fit in as much as other people changing to fit in with you so be beware(see SHAR debate!). .. .As a final shot, and at the risk of being unfashionable, the MoD is full of poor sods who would rather be flying trying - to make a difference from the inside against great odds... have a little sympathy!

[Jump jump John]

I think that you may have over-reached your own fishing ability with this one AG. Its much to close to a good idea (in parts) for anyone to ever believe its a serious suggestion. I especially like the idea of computerised claims forms etc - anything that eases the undoubtedly high workload at SHQ must be good.. .. .However, I do think that we need more integration between the forces. For example, as already mentioned, the Harrier and SH forces could benefit from living and training more with the Army, but being run by them? I quite fancy SH myself and while I'd be more than happy happy working with the AAC, if I wanted to join the Army then I would have done.. .. .All in all, nice try but I'm afraid you are in danger of becoming a slightly more worthwhile contributer to this site. DAMN!

[SixOfTheBest]

Admin Guru Strikes again!!. .Just want to put one point to bed in the hope that it never wakes up again. This talk of GR7's going over to the army. I've never heard such a pile of doggy doo in all my life. The only thing the Harrier has in common with the Army is a nine-line CAS brief. After that, the commonality ends. Any mud with a UHF radio can peform CAS (some better, some worse), so why not go the whole hog? Let's all go Army! AG can then expand his little empire to allow for the increase in claims, charge paperwork etc etc Carry on the discussion, but stop blahing about the Harrier/Army commonality. It just don't exist!

[Fox_4]

Jump Jump John - For a UAS Stude you have a very high opinion of yourself. Perhaps your name should be Jumped Up John. . .Maybe once you get in and fly SH or whatever, then your posts might be worthwhile contributions!. .Admin guru may be outlandish in his suggestions but your pomposity is huge for one so junior. I bet you are senior stude!. .. . <img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif" alt="" />. . . . <small>[ 04 March 2002, 16:21: Message edited by: Fox_4 ]</small>

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

JJJ, I fear your knowledge of SH ops is somewhat shallow.

[G.Khan]

Would anybody who is ex RN really spell that badly? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Admin Guru]

Glad I'm the subject of discussions at happy hour, but I'm not "Dixie" Dean! Anyway, I have never been on a boat and am actually quite prone to sea-sickness.. .. .Also glad that I've had some more sensible replies after the initial unprovoked berating. This I find hard to take, especially from the like of Jumped up John.. .Surely Jackonicko has something to comment on jointery; he must have done some reporting on the successes of the project. I also fail to believe that BEagle hasn't encountered any examples of this in his lengthy career.. .I look forward to some more replies on this forum - it is a large topic and one worthy of some attention.. . . . <small>[ 05 March 2002, 20:51: Message edited by: Admin Guru ]</small>

[d00rcu]

AG - I suspect you are a Combined United Nations Taskforce officer (commanding)....

[Dr Schlong]

Nice!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[Jim Pooley]

Joint service ops have their individual ups and downs. Yes an almalgamated force is desirabe so all services can operate from a single doctrine, however the current tri service format provides a level of "competition" i.e. each service can strive to better the other, thereby lifting each others standards as a matter of pride. In an environment with no rival organisation to be judged against, standards could slip.. .. .Purple is NOT the new black.

[Jump jump John]

Sorry if that last post sounded 'pompous' and 'jumped up', it certainly wasn't meant to. For information I am not the PMC/Senior Student, but i've just re-read the post, and I didn't think it was quite bad enough to deserve a proper slagging. . .I have never claimed to have an exhaustive knowledge of the RAF, especially not the bits I'm not involved with, but just because I'm not on a squadron yet doesn't mean that I (or any other UAS/JEFTS bods) don't have a single good idea or worthwhile opinion in our heads. I didn't mean to offend anyone, just trying to voice my opinions in a vaguely humourous manner. . .Oooops. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 11:15: Message edited by: Jump jump John ]</small>

[Jackonicko]

Since you specifically 'fished for me' I'll open my gob again, though others have more to contribute and have already expressed it much better.. .. .I'm theoretically in favour of jointery in some limited areas, but only when its requirement-driven, and not for the sake of penny pinching. There are arguments for jointery in these limited areas (does the RAF accord enough priority to SH? does the Army mis-use the AAC? etc. etc.) and there may be advantage in making air power providers more accountable to (But NOT owned by) the end customer.. .. .Wider amalgamations have a very poor track record, and can have a serious effect on morale, esprit de corps etc. (Eg Canada).

[Baz Heath]

AG. .. .You need assessment!. .. .Go get a life, and when you find one, do us all a favour and PVR - tw@t!. .. .Its fools like you that are causing good men (and probably women) in all three services to jump ship! Sod Off!!!. .. .MM sends

[Admin Guru]

Magic man. .. .Noticed this just before my visit to happy hour. It is hardly my intention to get people to jump ship - quite the opposite in fact. I strive to make the RAF a better place; my section is highly motivated with extremely high morale. . .I always look for better ways to complete tasks . .and this jointery issue is one that I feel needs adressing; we can all mutually benefit from the other services' particular skills. This is an attempt to make the services a better product. I wouldn't expect you, or other pilots, to fully appreciate the complex fiscal world however I assure you that budgets drive all of our tasks. Without the funding, nothing can be done. By using the money we have more effectively, we can do more tasks, to a better standard.. .. .By improving effectiveness and morale, how can I possibly be causing people to 'jump ship'? I would like to see some evidence of this. I will not sink to your level and call you a tw@t.. .I will look at this Forum in closer detail after happy hour - I know purple issues will probably come up in conversation.

[stevenlamb77]

APO GURU,. .I HEREBY AKNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF ALL PPRUNERS THAT YOU ALLEGEDLY VISIT THE BAR. THERE IS THEREFORE NO FURTHER NEED FOR YOU TO KEEP DROPPING IT INTO THE CONVERSATION. . .WITH COMPLIMENTS. .TLP. .. .PS, IF YOURE THE COMIC CREATION OF SOME IDLE PILOTS MIND, THEN I SALUTE YOU: YOURE A FOCKING LEGEND. IF YOURE REAL OF COURSE, YOU REMAIN A KNOB, WITH BELLS ON. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> . .. .NOW IF YOULL ECSPUSE ME: IM NISSED AS A PEWT. NOTE TO SELF:never drink again...