AAC Rotary Training

[chinook240]

Although I'm sure this article is full of spin it makes interesting reading about the way the AAC is approaching their current and future rotary training, Are the SHF and FAA being left behind fighting each other?

IN FOCUS: British Army fights to influence helicopter training choices (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-british-army-fights-to-influence-helicopter-training-choices-363505/)

[Tourist]

I'm frankly astounded.

The AAC actually train!!:confused:

[high spirits]

So, according to the article - 65 get trained at shawbs per year. Throughput at wallop is 40-50 per year. What happens to the rest? Holds? Chopped?

[Yozzer]

There are self preservation undertones in this article, not least of which is an effort to retain the airfield at Middle Wallop that I am assured is in danger of closing. Unfortunatley there is no mention of the support infrastructure provided to the AAC by the RAF such as Safety Equipment fitters and Ground Engineers and the willy waving goes as far as refuelling in the field AAC v TSW and HHI/LPC requirements. Rumour has it that the AAC want to take on the Helicopter Support role(s) [JATE/JHSU?] in toto. The game is changing and the AAC are taking a lead from the Navy in pursuing positive PR and who can blame them. The 'Joint' of JHC is there in name only and the green suited elements of JHC are doing well at maintaining Army interests. Perhaps the uncertainty of Merlin/Puma II and indeed the Benson station is seen as a chink that the AAC can exploit to their own advantage. SDSR was bound to trigger in-service bickering, even subtle willy waving such as this.

[TheWizard]

Bloody hell, you get issued your own personal iPad these days!! :eek:

What happened to making up your own "green brain"?!

In addition to its continued key role in Afghanistan, Whiteside believes the Apache's recent success over Libya provides a pointer to potential future maritime use of the type. "In terms of global projection, we have a capability now that we can deploy and operate in the *congested littoral environment anywhere in the world," he says. "It should help bridge any gap in carrier strike certainly out for the next 10 years, and probably longer."


Well, that's the FAA surplus to requirements then!! :}

[ralphmalph]

Yozzer,

"Unfortunatley there is no mention of the support infrastructure provided to the AAC by the RAF such as Safety Equipment fitters and Ground Engineers"

Just a small and dedicated detachment of Squippers on each AAC base....around 20 in number. Please elucidate on the Ground Engineers?

"There are self preservation undertones in this article, not least of which is an effort to retain the airfield at Middle Wallop that I am assured is in danger of closing"

A bit like every other part of defence, we are all under threat. I find it funny that the "spin" call is being used in an army context. We "brown jobs" long have been astounded at the RAF's ability to spin. Indeed, not 6 months ago two Typhoon pilots were RTU'd from Italy after being caught smashed in a ditch by the rozzers.......and then....."we dont have enough pilots for the jets" The war about Typhoon overstretch was not won and GR4 takes over the mantle.

Maybe we should all trawl RAF news and dig out some **** reporting from there and we could all have a chatter!

Ralph

[ralphmalph]

Perhaps if the Puma fleet had not had such a bad record (documented by AAIB reports) then the spotlight would not be on Puma2!

[Could be the last?]

Ralph,

:=

[Sloppy Link]

Ralph,
:ok:

[Bismark]

I thought the gazelle was going out of service? With a reduced number of Wildcat and almost certainly a reduction in Apache (can they really expect to retain so many?) the AAC won't have too much to shout about. Will they be bigger than the FAA?

[Two's in]

Maybe everyone's just nervous that the AAC seems to be able to run all this training capability under the auspices of a single Group Captain equivalent.

[Yozzer]

"They arrive here and we try to unmould their tri-service learning," says Royal Navy Lt Andy Higgins, the squadron's second in command.

Is that really a Naval Officer on an Army Unit slagging off jointery or have I got the wrong end of the stick; especially when the only tri-service training army helicopter pilots get at DHFS are the Army and Navy elements!

It could be seen as a self hack singing the praises of the busy (read restricted airspace) of SPTA versus the freedom that is offered by LFA9 especially with regard to tactical flexibility rather then adhering to published routes. (....and mountain flying (MFTA) on its (LFA9) doorstep)

Good Museum at Wallop though in fairness.

[Odigron]

Clearly Joint Helicopter world does not work - too much time b-tching and moaning. It appears that everyone is fixated on trying to outdo everyone else to such an extent that everyone is wasting resource that we don't have. Time for a single service to take on heli ops and save the tax payer some blxxdy money? I for one don't really care which one it is either (WAFU, Brownjob or Crab).

[MightyGem]

The army's helicopter inventory outnumbers that of its fellow UK services, the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.
Did wonder if that was still the case. :D

The AAC actually train!!
No. They get issued an Apache on day one of the course, and get told, "Right then. Off you go. Don't bend it". :eek:

Is that really a Naval Officer on an Army Unit slagging off jointery or have I got the wrong end of the stick
Yes. There's a world of difference in training pilots to "fly" a helicopter at Shawbury and then train them how to "use" it according to Service. I'm sure the RAF and RN do the same.

[Yozzer]

I am sure that the hangars full of stored Gazelle that are not fit for purpose for the civvy market are nevertheless retained 'on inventory'. As always, stats can be made to sell the desired story.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/Dukepie/shbry1.jpg

Fully accept that an OCU/OCF/AFTS of whatever service is the next stepping stone but the statement seems to suggest undoing the single service cultural aspects of the training prior to wallop rather then the academics of flight. In fact there are merits in training on your future operational type that the UK has never embraced as it invariably also incurs more expensive running costs. The main player on that argument is the path taken by a RN Sea King pilot when compared to an RAF Sea King pilot recruited on the same day. Is the Griffin graduate any better a pilot? I suspect he may well be, as training is rarely wasted, but at a cost. A few years ago a few navy pilots and crewmen were routed via MEARW Trg at DHFS and 'pulled' on grounds of cost.

[Rosevidney1]

I was on number 196 Army Pilots course in 1967. The CFI at that time was an RAF Wing Commander. After training we newbies could find ourselves on one of 5 types then in Hairy Arm Corps inventory. Tribalism was not as rife between the services in those days. On 'interesting' tours such Northern Ireland pilots from all three services could find themselves operating from the same location and they invariably got along well. Fish heads and brown jobs particularly so. Crab Air was generally perceived as being hampered by their hide-bound regulations.

[MightyGem]

Crab Air was generally perceived as being hampered by their hide-bound regulations.
Incominggggg!! :eek:

[Bertie Thruster]

Army taught me never to be more uncomfortable than I need be. So I swopped to RAF!

-Crab Air was generally perceived as being pampered by their hide-bound regulations.-

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Bertie,

Same, and couldn't possibly agree more (although I very much enjoyed my loan tour with the AAC - very professional bunch they were/are, too).

[ewe.lander]

Don't reply, don't reply, don't reply Ewe......

Bugger.

These day's it's about 'value for money' to Govt & Civvies.

Truth is:-

- in 1995 AAC Islanders Sgts & Cpls, RAF Islanders Sqn Ldrs & Flt Lt'ss.

- in 2005 AAC Apache's S/Sgts & Sgts, RAF Tornado's Flt Lt's & Flt Lt's

Both Services are professional, committed and passionate about doing 'the job' totally. I served in both AAC & RAF, utterly love 'em both, but Middle Wallop is this - bloody good value for money. Dont tell me you cannot compare Apache & Tornado - Apache is delivering Ordnance on target, just the same as it's whizzy fast jet compadre. Judging by other PPrune threads on the Military - it's what the AAC are doing right in 2011.

Forget emotion, tradition, whatever...... Pongoes cost less than Crabs. Both are needed, but please don't knock the Army Aviators, that's the mistake the Royal Navy made 90 years ago with non-Navy Aviation.

Take's cover.......

ewe

[St Johns Wort]

I served in both AAC & RAF, utterly love 'em both,

'Ewe' were always a tad on the slutty side..........:E

[Unchecked]

Ewe,

I really agree with your sentiment - the AAC is good value for money - in what it does. But i do need to bring you up on your statement that you can compare Apache & Tornado. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about which is best at all - they are both sets of truly dedicated and professional aviators, but although they do both deliver ordnance, the reach, speed, quantities and effects are worlds apart. I don't think many (but the most-hardened 'Crab-Haters') would disagree.

[Sloppy Link]

Hmmn. Reach and speed I'll give you but quantities and effects? I think you'l find that there is a fairly equal comparison there, especially effect. A 500lb bomb has it's place but also a Hellfire missile can have a similar effect and the 30mm gun can often do the job where a smart bomb would best be described as a blunt tool.

[Mmmmnice]

Ch240 - a fight between the AAC - FAA - RAF now there's a thought......saves money all around; cost of deploying, no nasty sand to b*gger up the kit, no extra pay for time away from home, enemy easy to locate and clearly recognisable, not many on each side so shouldn't last too long, no need to involve the yanks........why hasn't someone thought of this before?
I think we should all buy Ch240 a drink!

[Mmmmnice]

I know, I'll probably go to hell for that one.......

[Backwards PLT]

in 2005 AAC Apache's S/Sgts & Sgts, RAF Tornado's Flt Lt's & Flt Lt's


I keep seeing this quoted and it really isn't true anymore. It is really Flt Lt v SSgt where there is virtually no pay difference so it is a bit of a non point. I am assuming here (because I don't know) that pilot SSgts are higher band, if they aren't then there is a pay difference but compared to training and running costs of the kit it is negligible.

I think that a lot of this is viewpoint. The Army wonder why the RAF commissions so many of their aircrew and the RAF wonders why the Army don't commission their's. From the light blue perspective we could say that it shows how much we value a group of very skilled and capable professionals. Slightly more cynically you could say that commissioning someone is one way of making them feel more valued so they will stay rather than leave. The minimal extra cost of running an officer is vastly offset by the huge training costs. So in reality officers could well be cheaper if you take a long term view. Additionally as Apache/Tornado crews are generally a bunch of pretty bright and switched on individuals why handicap their ability to make very senior rank by making them start as NCOs? Or all the above could be bollox.

Would be interested on hearing the AAC view on why they don't commission as many?

(ps if you really think that Tornado and Apache are the same then you are the exception that proves the "bright and switched on" rule)

[Backwards PLT]

Forgot to add that it would be great if this could be a semi-adult debate/discussion without bitching or name calling and apologies if I have hijacked the thread.:ok:

[airborne_artist]

It's worth throwing into the mix that our green chums tend to want to keep technical expertise in the ranks, while the response in the dark and light blue is to commission those who show some nous and ability coupled with confidence.

A quick look at the numbers going through BRNC, RMAS and Cranwell with former ranker service will show that the Army has a very different take on the usefulness of former service in the ranks among the officers. They do tend to catch up with some in their later NCO service, but quite late, which limits their promotion prospects.

[chinook240]

Mmnice

I think we should all buy Ch240 a drink!

Knowing you, it'll be a coffee.:p

[Army Mover]

I was always led to believe that we had officers for one reason, that was to lead and be responsible for their men. It was really frustrating to work with some RAF officers who quite plainly couldn't give a f**k about their men and were only interested in the pointy thing out on the pan. That said, I subsequently met some Army officers with a similar attitude, but then I had the rank to do something about it.

[Odigron]

Mover, I think you may have a good point; the Crabs appear to rely much more on management than leadership; they would say that they are a more technical service and I suppose that they don't need the same degree of leadership compaired to those in regular and direct contact with the enemy. What is clear is that each of the 3 services does have a different approach to it's people. I have met some fisheads and crabs who wouldn't relish being led in the army leadership manner - I guess that's one of the reasons we have 3 services

[Unchecked]

Odigron - you've hit the nail on the head.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I have met quite a few ex army folk who didn't like the Army style of leadership either, in fact they disliked it so much they moved to the light blue and had a thoroughly enjoyable and far more civilised time :ok:

[Backwards PLT]

Why do you have to use pejorative words like Crab? You'll find that you can have a much more grown up conversation if you avoid crab/fishhead/pongo.

Interesting that there are no further points on the cost piece.

The officer question raises more points. Are we saying that officers are only officers to lead men? Maybe. Then aircrew who have no potential could "just" be SNCOs (but shouldn't SNCOs be able to lead as well??) Does responsibility make any difference, both in terms of 100s of millions worth of kit and the employment of weapons (which aren't the same as firing an SA-80 or firing an arty piece, IMHO). Perhaps as they don't lead men (?) all aircrew could have an entirely different rank structure, neither officer nor NCO? We could call them specialist aircrew or professional aviators!! Remember this is service agnostic, but if you want to be efficient (cheap) then you don't put someone through training for a complex weapons system such as Tornado or Apache and only have them operate it for 5 years - you do it forever, perhaps with a few short breaks to broaden knowledge bases.

Hd Land at DCDC has an "interesting" view of leadership in the 3 services; they are all of course different, but he clearly is very proud of Army leadership but doesn't get RAF leadership (he doesn't openly sneer but it is close).

[Admin_Guru]

I have met some fisheads and crabs who wouldn't relish being led in the army leadership manner - I guess that's one of the reasons we have 3 services

....and one of the reasons that 'Joint' is never more than a wishful ideology. One mans leader is another mans bully.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

....and one of the reasons that 'Joint' is never more than a wishful ideology. One mans leader is another mans bully.

Historically a very single service trait.

[wahwah64]

Well as SNCO aircrew on PES, I am lucky to take home in excess of £60k per year so I don't see the AAC as being classed as "value for money" as I am sure it would be much cheaper to have a turn over of young officers who in the majority never reach PES/PAS status.

With regards the effect at the sharp end? Well we each have our own benefits as Libya proved.

[orgASMic]

Why do you have to use pejorative words like Crab? You'll find that you can have a much more grown up conversation if you avoid crab/fishhead/pongo.


Surely, on these boards it should be "crab/wafu/pongo". ;)

[airborne_artist]

Surely, on these boards it should be "crab/wafu/pongo". ;)

Green-job, crab and Senior Service, please ;)

[Trim Stab]

Surely, on these boards it should be "crab/wafu/pongo". http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


To be consistently perjorative with in-arm jargon, it should be

crab/wafu/smurfhat

or

crab/wafu/bluetac-head

or

crab/wafu/lard-arsed, big-wallet, "that's enough about you, let's talk about me" tosser.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Or more likely crab/wafu/squaddie, most civilians refer to anything in cam gear as a squaddie:ok:

[Backwards PLT]

Excellent, just the sort of discussion I was looking for! :(

[orgASMic]

Merely trying to point out that members of the esteemed FAA are 'WAFUs' not 'Fish-heads', old boy. Do lighten up.

[teeteringhead]

To be (ever so slightly) serious,when one was last in MoD the SNCO vs Officer pilot thing was being studied (probably has been a few times since!).

It was found that the (slight) extra cost of the RAF zob was outweighed by his/her longer average service - ISTR about 5 years longer on average (then).

But then lots of 22 year time served Hairy Arm Corps turn up as Crab occifers anyway ........;) Don't know how they figure in the stats .....

[orgASMic]

Indeed. There was a time in the late 90s when the RAF was deliberately targetting AAC ssgt and WO2 QHIs for transfer to commissioned service.