Shaping the UK's Helicopter Force Post-Afghanistan

[Heli-News]

Air Vice Marshal Carl Dixon shares his thoughts about how the United Kingdom’s Joint Helicopter Command is preparing to conduct contingency operations following the closure of the Afghan campaign.

When Air Vice Marshal Carl Dixon became the fifth commander of the United Kingdom’s Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) in April 2011, he wanted to continue to improve the structure of helicopter availability: “When I took over I looked at the issue of helicopter provision and associated areas including the training, engineering and support components, as well as what the aircraft were being used for in theater.” JHC was founded in 1999 to unify battlefield and air assault helicopters operationally from the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force, the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps (AAC).

Dixon reflected on the arrival of USMC in Helmand Province as an opportunity for JHC to improve its cooperative relationships: “We professionalized how we worked in a NATO context with the United States Marine Corps in theater,” he explained. The quick development of a peer relationship then secured the delivery of an integrated effect across Helmand. “As far as the soldier is concerned, there is a seamless look and feel to who is doing the flying, which is a real win,” he said.

Full report (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/unit-profile/Shaping-the-UKs-Helicopter-Force-Post-Afghanistan_79870.html#.UgIbAdI3A80)

[andrewn]

There's an awful lot of "buzz" words and management speak in that article. I work as a Consultant and can't help but find it amusing that Carl Dixon revels in many of the phrases we used to use with such abandon in civvy street (and that are now being dropped in favour of more plain English).

[ExAscoteer]

WTF does 'professionalized' actually mean?

I looked it up in the OED and it doesn't exist.

Surely British VSOs should be talking in English!

[TomJoad]

Did not the Prime Minister recently verbalise that as a means to effect transformational change in communication of its strategy all governmental departments were to formalise and implement, without facilitating cange event programmes, a reduction in the utilisation of said management speak. Did I say going forward!:E


Its a shame for this sort of language hides what is probably an important and worthwhile message. But when I see it, I can no longer be arsed to listen or read.

I long for the day when such crap is recognised for the muppetry that it truly is.

[[email protected]]

Sadly that is exactly the type of jargon-loaded nonsense that gets people promoted nowadays:ugh:

No real understanding of how to achieve quality training, especially for newbies - just a vague idea that blobbing it up so one sortie has 2 or 3 trainers each vying for primacy and student focus must somehow be more efficient and therefore promotion-earning!

[Archimedes]

WTF does 'professionalized' actually mean?

I looked it up in the OED and it doesn't exist.

Surely British VSOs should be talking in English!


Er... It does exist in sociology and has been in use for at least 50 years - Vollmer and Mills, 'Nuclear Technology and the Professionalization of Labor' (in an American publication) dates to the early 1960s. The word, in essence, means the process of transforming a skilled profession so that it is at the highest level of competence.

To be honest, I think I'd rather he use 'professionalize[d]' instead of the alternative, which'd look like

we embarked upon a transformative process of socializing NATO doctrine within our knowledge community so that we ensured the maintenance of the hierarchical divide between the knowledge-authorities within our professional space to create appropriate organizational closure

Which would have been another way of putting it (I apologise to any sociologists for the fact that I may have missed some nuances buried in that steaming pile of BS), and which translates as 'doing our best to make sure we're operating at the top of our game no matter whether the helicopter is crewed by the RAF, RN, AAC, USMC, US Army or coalition partners'.

[ExAscoteer]

Er... It does exist in sociology and has been in use for at least 50 years - (in an American publication) dates to the early 1960s.


AHA! So it's Spam sociological B/S!

While you can make something better, you can't make something more professional. It either is professional or it isn't.

The word 'professionalize' does not exist in English so I stant by my (amended) point. Britsish VSOs should talk English rather than some sort of Spam management-speak gobbledygook!

[TomJoad]

we embarked upon a transformative process of socializing NATO doctrine within our knowledge community so that we ensured the maintenance of the hierarchical divide between the knowledge-authorities within our professional space to create appropriate organizational closure




"our knowledge community" - pants

"hierarchical divide between the knowledge-authorities within our professional space to create appropriate organizational closure"

Ok I may be thick here but when I see the word between I'm looking for two things ie between a and b? So please between the knowledge-authorities" and what? Or have I missed something! I'm sorry but that sentence has been so obfuscated that any sense in its purpose has been lost. It is as the youth say an "epic fail'. That's why thistype of management double speak has had its day - it's a busted flush, it fails to communicate

[Archimedes]

Tom, sorry - that's a typo on my part.

The definition, as I understand it, is that professionalisation creates a divide between the 'knowledge-authorities' (I think normal people might use, say, 'experts') and 'outsiders' (i.e. the non-experts). I edited that bit but left 'between' in there. I think the fact that I missed it despite reading through says something about the sphincter-tightening lack of clarity in that sort of language, since it isn't instantly jarring if you have just written - or, in effect, thrown a series of words onto the page - it...

A cynic (why, yes, that might be me) might suggest that the use of obtuse language like that is to create a divide between sociologists and the rest of us.

ExAscoteer - sorry, but it does exist in English, since sociologists use it widely. It may not be in the OED, but there are a lot of words that aren't in the OED, hence the excited articles in the Telegraph telling us which words have been added and sometimes which words have been dropped. If a word is in use, it exists. Whether it should be in use, or should exist is another issue...

[TomJoad]

Tom, sorry - that's a typo on my part.

The definition, as I understand it, is that professionalisation creates a divide between the 'knowledge-authorities' (I think normal people might use, say, 'experts') and 'outsiders' (i.e. the non-experts). I edited that bit but left 'between' in there. I think the fact that I missed it despite reading through says something about the sphincter-tightening lack of clarity in that sort of language, since it isn't instantly jarring if you have just written - or, in effect, thrown a series of words onto the page - it...

A cynic (why, yes, that might be me) might suggest that the use of obtuse language like that is to create a divide between sociologists and the rest of us.



Cheers Archimedes that would make more sense. But does this not just serve to confirm the point. This article is no doubt putting forward some important and interesting ideas. The bulk of posts it has attracted however are commenting on the impenetrable language.

As for 'is it a real word or not debate", I always thought that one of the great strengths of the English language was its ability to accommodate new words so I have no great difficulty with proffessionalisation /professionalized - would not be my choice but used in isolation I can decipher the intended meaning. What I take issue with is the need to use such words; this particular excerpt could easily have been written in a clearer style.


There is another thread currently running entitled "‘Who Are These Defence Chiefs” in which, amongst other things, the questions is asked about how can we have made such a mess of Defence Procurement and Through Life Support. I believe that part of the answer lies in two decades worth of pervasive management speak. Any idiot can write a paper and convince any other idiot about the merits of a new system when the true meaning is hidden by such nonsense. We convinced ourselves that we were masters of the universe, sat back and fell in love with what we had written without actually questioning or understanding its meaning. Sorry I ramble – hobby horse!:sad:

[Wensleydale]

sociologists use it widely


When I was at University, one of the toilet roll holders in a trap in the Union building had a notice penned over it: "Sociology Degree. Help yourself".

Enough said really.

[CoffmanStarter]

Did you get a 1st or 2nd Wensleydale :E

[Churchills Ghost]

There's an awful lot of "buzz" words and management speak in that article.

Indeed. What a lot of waffle!

Are there some clearly definable mid-to-long-term planning issues which share common ground between the services and, if so, what are they?

[jumpjumpjohn]

...is not really the management-speak of the senior staff per se, but more that a very sensible idea (that a large number of us at the OCU level have been pushing for for a while now) is looking like it might be adopted.

Implementing it will be tricky, and will require a change in both the mentality and manning levels at 60(R), but it would have great benefit to the front-line training system if it all works as envisaged.

Either way, nice to see a refreshingly 'new' view being put forward from the top, even if it is clouded in the usual manage-twaddle.

[vascodegama]

I always thought that if the word was not in the COD then it was not acceptable for SW (or whatever it's called these days).

[Fareastdriver]

I was scheduled to go to a JHC briefing this year.. On the evening before there was a bit of a get together of various interested parties, Two of the JHC personnel spoke formally for only a minute or so each. That was enough for me to scrub round the next days arrangements as I would not be able to put up with that phraseology all the morning

[ShyTorque]

Good to hear there are so many who are sure they could do a better job. What a shame they never got to run JHC, what a better place it would be. Maybe the reason was too much emphasis on what was or what wasn't in their personally approved dictionaries?

[MG]

Have to say, I've always had a lot of time for Carl Dixon. No matter what you may think, he's actually a straight-talking SH pilot first and foremost. He doesn't take prisoners among those who hide behind B/S; he can smell it a mile off and I've seen many a Lt Col or Col (and equivalent) squirm under questioning. A good man to have in charge.

[TomJoad]

Good to hear there are so many who are sure they could do a better job. What a shame they never got to run JHC, what a better place it would be. Maybe the reason was too much emphasis on what was or what wasn't in their personally approved dictionaries?

Or rather they resisted the fashion to use clichéd jargon and chose a different path. By the time I was in my third staff appointment I considered myself rather proficient at the old management waffle - even took some pride in it. But then I became so scunnered (annoyed ) with it; the duplicity, the emptiness - not just in the management speak but in the whole change management madness. The ability to spin words to hide the reality had been elevated to doctrinal level. I mentioned it before but when somebody asked me where we were on the "transformational staircase" I realised that my talents would be better employed elsewhere. Rant mode off.

[BEagle]

But the simple fact remains that there'll be some 84 RAF helicopters (by my sums) looking for a mission after Endex on the North-West Frontier....

Please correct my sums, but won't it be:

38 x Chinook HC4/4A
8 x Chinook HC5
14 x Chinook HC6
24 x Puma HC2/2A

:confused:

[SOSL]

It's called DW (Defence Writing)................ I apologise for posting this.

Rgds SOS

[TomJoad]

It's called DW (Defence Writing). I apologise for posting this.

Rgds SOS

NTWF NHD(not to worry fella, no harm done).

[SASless]

Errrr.....are there some other types that should be in that list even if they are not RAF Helicopters?

[SOSL]

T TJ IGYP (Thanks TomJoad I get your point).

Rgds SOS

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Puma hasn't even started flying again has it?

[Evalu8ter]

Beags,
Your sums look good, but I shouldn't fret re their employment. Successive govts have managed to find uses for them! Additionally, there is a lot of training required to refresh atrophied skills - particularly jungle/arctic environments and certain tactical disciplines. Don't forget, unlike most FW aircraft, RW have a massive part to play in any national crisis - extreme weather, floods, disease, let alone anything more nefarious. With the loss of MilSAR this capability will be even more important in the future.

SASLEss,
Beagle mentions only RAF RW (less the 20-odd SAR Sea King 3/3As due to retire by 2016). To the list needs to be added 22 Merlin Mk4 (3/3A transferred to the FAA and modified for ship use), 60-odd Wildcats, a slack handful of Gazelle/Lynx 9A (OSD late this decade) and the AH.

[[email protected]]

With an almost exclusively Chinook RAF RW force in a few years, perhaps the time has come to scrap DHFS and run helicopter training on the same type used on the front-line.

Why waste hours on Squirrel and Griffin when you then have to teach all the same stuff again on an OCU?

This will allow the full-crew training idea to be implemented right from the outset.

Yes I know Chinook hours are more expensive but what else are we going to do with all those aircraft (unless we invade somewhere else)?

[Just This Once...]

I'm not sure direct to Puma or Chinook would be cost effective or desirable.

Direct from Squirrel to Puma/Chinook could work.

[alfred_the_great]

Why not desirable?

[Bismark]

Beagle mentions only RAF RW (less the 20-odd SAR Sea King 3/3As due to retire by 2016). To the list needs to be added 22 Merlin Mk4 (3/3A transferred to the FAA and modified for ship use), 60-odd Wildcats, a slack handful of Gazelle/Lynx 9A (OSD late this decade) and the AH.

Not to mention the grey Merlins (30+) and residual Lynx Mk8 as well.

[Always a Sapper]

We could loan the AH to the local plod airforces, certainly let them stop the chavs in the nicked motors in a more appropriate manner... :E

[SASless]

Why not go straight from the Squirrel to the Chinook?

As I have opined in the past.....Folks...a helicopter is a helicopter is a helicopter.

The real difference is the operational use of the machine and training for that.


Young, fresh, keen as mustard, new co-pilots can quickly learn to fly the bigger machine and with not a lot of training can fit into an experienced crew with not a lot of bother.....assuming the experienced crew is willing/required to mentor the new guy.

The hard part of learning how to fly the Chinook is understanding how small it is.....along with how big it is.

I realize in a shrinking military organization....there is going to be some Turf protecting going on....but sometimes commonsense has to used. The RAF certainly has figured out a way to complicate matters at the expense of efficiency and cost it would appear....but at least it justifies all those manning points I guess.

Before you squawk....the US Army is pretty good at doing the same thing.

A young BlackHawk pilot friend of mine told me of all the "Qualifications" she has to achieve before flying in Afghanistan......the process was to the point it would make the Australian CAA blush and I used to think they were the most extreme in the World.

[teeteringhead]

Surely the most important point of using a small (= cheap) helo is to weed out early those who won't make it to the big (= expensive) ones.

Fellow QHIs at every level will probably agree (always a bold statement!) that most of those chopped lacked "capacity" rather than motor skills. If they can't hack the "wetware" use on a puddle jumper they'll never hack a big one.

And whilst it is possible to teach crew management on a Squirrel, it's easier on a Griffin, with .... er ... crew. Did we (RAF) not at one time send ab initios straight from Gazelle to Puma?

[Biggus]

What makes anyone think those numbers of RW assets (whatever they might be) will still exist after SDSR15?

[MG]

Biggus, probably through recent history (and that includes the time before the desert - before 2003), along with the advent of the Joint Expeditionary Force as one of the likely key tenets for the future direction of Defence.

[Evalu8ter]

Crab,
I think JHC's rationale to look at training is designed to take hours away from the expensive front line types - particularly Chinook. The CPF 'top up' for Chinook hours will soon run dry and I imagine that a further round of 'economies' will drive JHC to further reduce costs associated with flying FL platforms - there is little sea room to reduce any other costs. My read of AVM Dixon's statement is that if you have the same aircraft as the RW trainer (ie all new pilots already qualified on it...) scattered through the front line you can transfer basic skills flying (IF, GH etc) from the FL type to the cheaper alternative - perhaps even saving Stn Execs from being current on the FL type. As a bonus, these platforms would be available for NVG recces and light comms work, and provide a further 'pot' of airframes for national contingency. Much like the Gazelles in the past, the 'tick' on the smaller airframe could be used as a carrot to incentivise crews to stay.

The Squirrel (or equivalent..) is pretty tricky to teach rearcrew skills on though...

[Tiger_mate]

I have taught rearcrew on the Eurocopter AS355 Ecureuil 2 (Twin Squirrel), a situation that was at the time a last resort to complete an FCO sponsored task within a limited timeframe.

To do it we had to remove the fwd left seat and at no time could pilot & QHCI & student crewman all be on the right side together due to CofG issues. Putting a 'balance person' in the LHS was a none starter. The short version of this story is that practical crewman training in these helicopters is a none starter beyond Navigation training.

However students graduating from basic trainer to advance skills on their operational type has already been done: (In 105 flying hours)

Fast track rotary wing training/ (http://www.aeroresource.co.uk/articles/2010/project_curium/)

[SASless]

Anyone looked West to see how the US Military does this....as they have a few helicopters too you know.

The US Army does Primary flight training in the Jet Ranger....then Studes move onto the FL aircraft they are to be assigned.

National Guard and Reserve Units have replaced some FL aircraft with EC-145 derivatives.

Is that not what you guys are talking about except you are trying to featherbed as many levels of QHI's and the like as possible?

[Could be the last?]

So looking to the future shape of JHC, which Puma Squadron will survive the restructure?

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

You would think the oldest one?

[Old-Duffer]

FarEastDriver, at Post 16, says he couldn't face the JHC brief, following the short speeches at the 'do' the night before.

I was at both events.

The JHC 'in depth' presentation was probably the most comprehensive and 'this is how it is guys (and gals)' I have heard in many a long day. I learned a great deal and it helped me to understand better the many and complex issues faced by JHC and what is being done to address these in the present climate and in the face of uncertainty.

As a consequence, I hope I can now take a more balanced view of what I hear and read elsewhere.

Old Duffer

[Could be the last?]

Alex,

You would think so, but that would mean the loss of the last Op Tiger Sqn...?

[kintyred]

Be careful about reading too much into the US Army training model. Their aim is to get their aircrew onto the frontline as quickly as possible and learn "on the job". It works pretty well for them because they have a relatively large pool of very experienced captains to pass on the knowledge. They are also prepared to accept a higher accident rate. I can't see either of those things happening in our system!