AAC - Today's Telegraph

[CrabInCab]

AAC / 16 Air Assault got a bit of a kicking in today's Torygraph, any thoughts?

For some reason 'told you so' and 'cutting off nose to spite face' seem to be phrases springing to mind in at the mo!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/31/narmy31.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/07/31/ixportal.html

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

:ouch:

PS. "Told you so"

[Titan Locked]

.... and transfer control of all the support helicopters (and their crews) to the army as well.

Or is it that way already ...???!!!

[CrabInCab]

TL. Well as I'm now an a/c Commander I guess it's only a matter of time before JH(A)C takes full control.

:)

[ChristopherRobin]

Well, I'd hardly call the Telegraph the font of all knowledge when it comes to military analysis.

The same could be said of the Typhoon and the attempts to make it a multi-role platform. I think everyone knows that it ain't what you got, but how you use it that's important, and once that is figured out Apache will prove its worth.

My opinion is that using Apache as part of the all-arms battle is the way forward, just like any other new equipment . Attempting to wield it as a force in its own right, as was once attempted with the tank, will lead to problems as the US has found out.

So. Is the problem the kit or the operator? A bad workman will always blame his tools, and the only thing under consideration is the American tactics, not how the Brits will use it.

The Telegraph should stick to what its good at: printing pictures of Liz Hurley and a first-rate Court and Social.

And Crabs should stick to what they're good at -

...none of which springs to mind right now.

[ORAC]

Army, new equipment?.... :hmm:

[CrabInCab]

C Robin,

That's a bit rich coming from the AAC. For me the oil painting in the mess at RAF Aldergrove sums you lot up. For the uninitiated, the painting depicts a number of battered and smashed AAC gliders in a field in the 40's, the small plaque below proudly states:

"Above all, soldiers first."

Enough said.........


;) :ok:

[mutleyfour]

"Above all, soldiers first."

Which is why we are more professional than the Air Force.

[CrabInCab]

....in a trench.

[mutleyfour]

....in a trench.


........and in the Air.

[30mikemike]

Sorry to get back to the thread................

Surely the golf bag approach is the one to adopt! Aside from the Marines issue having Apache in 16 AABde was/is a good idea as long as it has Aviation in mind. The Bde has been tied up in operations with its infantry Battalions and therefore unable to progress with AH stuff that is ‘beyond the immediate horizon’.

Apache is a fantastic tool and can do an awful lot more than has been done by Aviation in the past although it does have its limitations. It is not invulnerable and has situations where it may not be a good idea to employ it as has every other piece of kit we have. This comes down to the chain of command understanding how and when to use it. A principle that has existed with every piece of equipment we have although this new machine has its own set of unique circumstances.

16 AABde appears to concentrate on current ops as is quite right but to go back to supporting formations would also be a step backwards for Apache as that would restrict its ability to support Air Ops etc. What would be more logical would be to Brigade Aviation separate to an Airborne Bde thereby retaining the ability to support formations in Land Warfare and also to develop its ability to support Air Ops. This would allow full mission capability whilst restricting the infrastructure required in order to support the beast both digitally and logistically.

Views??????

[SandChopper]

Children, stop the quibbling! Everyone knows that the Army Air Corps are more professional than the Crabs, but only at whinging and when operating south of Loch Neigh and east of Ballygawley.........

The average AAC pilot will always be better on the ground because he is a soldier first, wasn't the plan for the latest desert push to deploy the boys on foot with a SA-80; more potent than a Gazelle at least!

As for the Apache disaster, blame the system and not the AAC; it would have been better to buy a Lego version.

:O

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

30mm, you make some good sense. Unfortunately, there are those of us who think the following will happen:

a. Split 16 and call the 2 new elements 24 and 5 .

b. Bolster to Bde strength with a few Marines.

c. Wax lyrical about parachuting and it's vital contribution to modern warfare.

c. Keep both 24 and 5 under the C2 of 3 Div.

If so, in one fell swoop you've done nothing but expand the size of the Army; no real change to capability. However, if, as implied, you convince someone that a few dozen Apache are a great tool that can be used either as part of a Land op or as a supported/supporting element of a COMAO or equivalent, well then you're talking.

The cynics amongst us believe that, as long as ownership is an issue, Apache is nothing more than a General's play-thing. I'm not normally one for being purple, but IMHO Apache really should be a Joint asset.


Fly Safely

[flygunz]

CrabIncab
I read your posts here a few times just to make sure where you are coming from. The anti AAC banter is par for the course and the Apache is always good for a cheap shot, especially as you dont get to sit in one. What isn't ok though and far less than cheap, is the sneery, sarcastic and derogatory remark about the Gliders and Pilots from WW2. It pretty much breaks the golden rule of Military flying to slag off our predecessors regardless of service. The Glider Pilots of WW2 were a skilled lot not lacking in bravery, just imagine having one chance to make a paricular field next to key bridge under heavy fire.
The soldiers first thing was part of the ethos, the Pilot after landing integrated into the fighting force and in some cases was the senior in charge. Good and efficient use of manpower in war.

So Crab in my opinion you're either young and stupid or a slimeball with no respect. Keep to the topics.

Whipping boy - Guess you've got it about right there!:ok:

[ChristopherRobin]

Crab in Cab - that "number of battered and smashed AAC gliders in a field in the 40's" very probably held a number of battered and smashed and very dead GPR pilots in them.

So if you must sneer at anyone, sneer at me, not them. And as for the GPR being soldiers first, if you'd taken the time to look more closely at the painting you'd notice that gliders don't have any engines, so being a soldier first was probably a very clever thing to be.

As opposed to a very brave RAF chap like you so clearly are, sweeping aside the sacrifices of history from the safety of the Aldergrove Mess.

[Talk Split]

Sounds like most of the above have just hijacked this thread to do a bit of inter service mud-slinging. Fair enough if thats what you want. The Crabs are just threaders that they don't have Apache, and the Pongo's are desperately wondering how to employ it.

How many of you have actually served within 16 Air Asslt Bde?

I have and the REAL problem is that the men up top don't really have an appreciation of what aviation (in the broader sense) can do for them. It's not about one service being more professional than another, it's just a complete lack of understanding about the needs and capability of aviation within the broader field Army.

By the way, the Royal Marines are integral to the Royal Navy, carry Royal Navy ID and we are bloody proud of them so 'a few marines' to bolster an Army brigade aint going to happen.

Right i'm off my box now...

[Grimweasel]

16 AAB. A fine concept if you have the same funding that the US Forces have. Unluckily for us we just can't afford to fully impliment the necessary infrastructre and training needed to realise the full potential of an Air Assualt Brigade.

Why revert back to a Para. Bdge? When was the last time the 'Meat'n'veg' were used in battle? More importantly does the UK have the correct aircraft in service to be able to offer the Para's something to drop from?

For expiditionary warfare we need to look at gaining a few specialist units that can be trained in disciplines much akin to those employed by SF. To dilute the SF units with larger numbers or even sub-standard numbers would be wrong, but the time has come to earmark UK units to train in much the same way that the US Rangers do. Specialist Forces as apposed to Special Forces.

As a serving member of 16AAB I can confirm that the Bdge. has hardly had time to breathe since it's inception. The Bdge has gone from one Op to the next. This is not a bad thing as the units have gained valuable Op experience. Questions still need to asked about how the Apache can be supplied when it has the ablility to push the FLOT forward by 30 miles a day. The Logistical chain would have trouble keeping up!!

By axing the Bdge we would farm out units with valuable Op experience to other Bdge's that have stayed at home. Good cross polination. If the Army wants the Marines back then surely this wouild give the RAF the ammo. it needed for getting the Apache over to its ranks???

[teeteringhead]

You know I hate to:

a. Go off thread

b. Spoil an argument with facts

but I'm about to do both. Crab-in-Cab should not mock glider pilots - and anyway many were RAF. The Glider Pilot Regiment lost 90% of its strength at Arnhem, and was bolstered for the Rhine crossing operation by 1500 (not a misprint - one thousand five hundred) RAF pilots.

See the Assault Glider Project Website (http://www.assaultgliderproject.org.uk/) for more gen on these amazing people. Just imagine: every landing's an EOL, and then (if you survive) you're an instant pongo. And they did engine-off take-offs too, sometimes from tactical locations!

And just to quell further familiar banter, the RAF pilots attached to the GPR were of all ranks from Sgt to Sqn Ldr ......

Respect!!

[sabredog]

Flygunz and ChristopherRobin,
Well done,Sirs. Many thanks for your excellent reponses to CrabInCab's derogatory comments about the GPR.
CrabInCab, I believe an apology is required.
Sabredog

[RubiC Cube]

Grim weasel,

The Army can't have the Marines back because they've never had them. The Marines have always been a part of the Navy.

[Letsby Avenue]

As long as the AAC view flying as an extra curricular activity they will make little or no progress with AH – As an ex AAC QHI who worked all hours at Wattisham to get un-current pilots current again using the single regimental Ac, I found it frustrating in the extreme for me and the pilots I flew with to finish our NVG serials at 0230hrs or later only to find that we were all required on the Regimental run at 0600 hrs. The Corps really have to get behind their pilots and concentrate on using AH as part of the all arms battle. I’m afraid the Corps is somewhat led by donkeys!:rolleyes:

[Magic Mushroom]

CrabinCab,
I sincerely hope that you didn't mean to cast negative aspertions on the GPR. However, even if you didn't, I feel an apology would be apropriate as at the very least your comment was somewhat poorly phrased.

To those who have commented upon the British GPR, the fact that they were trained as infantry was in contrast, US glider pilots. The Yank pilots were not infantry trained during WWII and they must have been a considerable burden for the troops that they had flown into battle.
Regards,
M2

[CrabInCab]

Have re-read my posts and there is absolutely no inference of disrespect to the British GPR in anything I've said and certainly none meant.

For those who have taken offence, apologies, none was intended to those that have gone before us (offence that is).

Apache, you can keep it, we don't need it or want it. Judging by the long cue of AAC at PMA Innsworth, it's not proving much interest for you lot either unless you're a Brig looking for the next promotion.

While the AAC maintains the soldiers-first ethos that Letsby alluded to you will be considered amateur, which is a pity, no matter how much you bleat about it. If you spent as much time on developing the Apache as you do winging about the Puma daring to park on the wrong spot at Bessbrook or other such back-stabbing triviality, the AAC might just have a future.

:zzz:

[Captain Gadget]

Mr Crab-in-Cab (C-in-C, now ain't that appropriate?)

I had the privilege - and it was a privilege - of dropping Paras onto the Ginkelsche Heide near Arnhem, the main drop zone for Operation Market-Garden, for the annual commemoration three years on the trot.

I have walked through Arnhem's streets, where the shops had their windows hung with red, white and blue ribbons and banners shouting 'Welcome back, Tommy!'. I went to the John Frost Brug and marvelled at how much it was like the film. The townspeople were - and are - passionate about the Ten Thousand.

It brought tears to my eyes.

The strategy that led to the Arnhem drop was questionable, to say the least. Nonetheless, the heroism of those who took part in it is not in doubt. The Glider Pilot Regiment, along with the RAF crews that towed them into battle, flew and fought with absolute distinction.

Inter-Service banter is fine - in fact, it's compulsory.

The only rule is that you don't - EVER - mean it.


Gadget :mad:

[CrabInCab]

Gadget.

I say again.

"Have re-read my posts and there is absolutely no inference of disrespect to the British GPR in anything I've said and certainly none meant."

Your point?

[Scud-U-Like]

Crab

Instead of telling us what you didn't mean by your post, perhaps you'd be good enough to tell us what you did mean by it.

[CrabInCab]

Scud-u-like; it appears quite obvious to me, read article then comment! Which bit was so difficult, the reading or the commenting?


:zzz:

[KENNYR]

CrabinCab, All controversy aside, you dont actually mention how differently the RAF would operate the Apache. Would it be possible, logistically, to operate the Apache from so far back from the front lines, even with the use of FARPs (presumably run by the Army so close to the front lines). Do you really believe that RAF helicopter pilots are that much more skilled than Army pilots? Surely even you cannot be that arrogant.

[CrabInCab]

KennyR - Correct I don't because as I stated we don't need Apache or want it.

I do not for a minute believe that RAF helicopter pilots are more skilled than Army pilots and have never said so, professional yes-skilled no, what I do believe however is:

1. The RAF has considerable experience in operation and employment of complex airbourne weapon systems and has been doing it for quite a while, the AAC does not.

2. The RAF has a fair understanding of the logistical and engineering problems associated with the employment of such an asset near the front line (Harrier). I think your FARP will be manned almost entirely by RAF somewhere near a Chinook or ten.

3. The RAF has considerable experience in the selection and training of aircrews to be employed operating complex airbourne weapon delivery systems, the AAC does not.

The knowledge is there, use it, tap it and the AAC are in business and all sucess to them; continue with your heads so firmly entrenched up your regimental backsides and the AAC will be gone before you know it.

And to think I was going to be bored this weekend!

Thanks.

:ok:

[Tourist]

You don't think that perhaps the RN should have it?
You know, what with all our trained airborne tactitions with helo-radar experience and the like.
Or are we not professional enough for you CinC either?:D

[CrabInCab]

A fish bite too.

:)

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Rubic,

I don't think anyone - even the Torygraph - has ever implied that the Royal Marines ever belonged to the Army. However, the Commandos were very much army at the beginning; indeed, the (later) Royal Marines version came in for a lot of stick as they took non-volunteers.

Love the banter, by the way - gives us something to chat about and wind up the policemen when we do our shift changes (there is life after service heli flying, you know...)

[Low Ball]

See also letter in Saturday's Telegraph from the Chief of the General Staff, which I copy below:-

" I take strong exception to your article of 31 July "Army chiefs are out to capture the Marines" which stated that I was behind a move to take the Royal Marines under my "control". There is no such move, as the Defence Press Office clearly told your Defence Correspondent. In today's joint operations, Army units may serve under command of RM officers for a particular mission - the reverse is equally true. The recent battle for Basra is a particularly vivid example.

The article goes on with a gloom-laden and unbalanced report about the Apache attack helicopter. Overall, the Apache proved itself highly effective in the recent Iraq war. Our own programme is largely on track and there is no doubt that the Apache system will deliver "radical changes". We are working to update our thinking on the use of Apache in the context of lighter, faster-moving intervention forces. Far from being a "costly mistake", any changes that flow from that work will be an endorsement of the central role Apache has in our vision for future land operations".

Watch his lips he is the Head of the Shed

So that'll be that arguement over then.

Crab - at least have the good grace to admit that your poorly worded reply has caused offence. That should not be too much to ask rather than be mealy mouthed about what you thought you had said. As an aside one of the many reasons that the Army is fielding the Apache is that the Country just cannot afford the one to thirty ratio employed by the RAF in comparison to the Army's one to ten. Regarding the 'soldiers first' banter, I am one of your customers that has been landed at the phone number and had to walk to the grid reference - nuff said.

LB

[Eight Eights Blue]

Never have I ever been so interested in a particular thread and I reply to the PPP who calls himself C-in-C. For those who don't know what PPP stands for, it is Pompous Puma P---k.
If indeed you fly the old Puma, perhaps while looking in the mess at RAF Aldergrove at the old GPR print you may wish to have your own painting endorsed with all the Puma's that have been spread all over the Emerald Isle over the last 18 months, at the last count it was 4. Call yourself professionals eh!!!!!
And another thing, reference south of Lough Neigh and East of Ballygawley, have a word with yourself, you can do better than that.
And another thing, it was pleasurable having spent nearly 3 years at the above described location putting fools like you in your place.
And another thing, we never used to whinge about you parking on the wrong spot, we did it on purpose to show you lot who was actually in charge down there and unless things have changed drastically then Lynx 5 springs to mind, an Army AIr Corps Lynx Pilot rank ranged from Sgt to Major, something that you lot could never comprehend.
And another thing, slag off the Apache as much as you like but you still would not get your hands on it. Yes agreed the RAF is more advanced in weapons systems but you ain't, if you were that good, you would be flying some fast jet somewhere but you ain't so give your mouth a rest and get on with what your used to, leaving the Army to pick up the pieces when you lot have done your 14 hours.
Nuff said.

[16 blades]

Having worked for and alongside the Army, and serving them as 'customers', there is a general lack of appreciation of what it takes to run an airborne force of any description. This is not meant to cast dispersions on any AAC individual's own professionalism - it's a fault of your service in general. As long as the upper echelons of the Army continue to view helicopters as airborne landrovers and AT aircraft as airborne trucks or 4 tonners, this kind of thing will continue. You CANNOT run an effective airborne force whilst aviation is regarded as a secondary duty. To drag guys out of their pits at 0600 to go running after a late NVG detail is not only totally pointless (you don't need high levels of 'physical fitness' to be a flyer), but bloody dangerous if they have to fly that day also.

Notwithstanding what i've already said, the comment above which reads ' pick up the pieces after you lot have done your 14hrs' shows an extreme lack of professionalism and appreciation. This is typical of comments I would expect from soldiers (non AAC). If you want to be a big hero, fine. I'd rather stay alive so I can continue to operate the next day. Crew duty rules are there for a reason - if you don't know what that reason is, you have no place in the air.

This lack of appreciation at the highest level became obvious during the deployment phase of TELIC (which, I point out, was run by HQLAND, not PJHQ - at least at PJHQ there are elements of light & dark blue to pull the 'Melchetts' aside and 'educate' them). Dithering, stupid decisions, kneejerk reactions and a total lack of knowledge almost led to the complete collapse of in-theatre AT support (with which I was heavily involved), until certain elements were persuaded to wind their necks in and let people who knew what they were doing (RAF I must point out) run that element of the OP.

Unless and until the Army's movers and shakers realise that aviation requires the dedicated and undivided attention of its exponents, and drops this 'Soldiers First' bollocks, the days of the AAC as anything more than a flying club are numbered.

[SOMAT]

EEB

What a tirade! Calm down old boy! Otherwise people will begin to think it's true about the AAC inferiority complex!

16 Blades

Well said, especially the bit about the flying club.:D


Depart quietly

[Grimweasel]

Save money and axe the AAC. Bring all UK Heli assets under one command and after all since the machines FLY it must be an Air Force job.
We have Joint Harrier force so lets save money and have one logistical chain looking after one Heli Command. All the squabbling will then cease. You know it makes sense. How people can decry a Puma pilot and call him a failed jet jockey is just the same as calling an AAC pilot a failed SAS trooper!! Horses for courses.
Rant Over.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

".....................endorsement of the central role Apache has in our vision for future land operations."

How Joint is that sort of statement?

[teeteringhead]

Children children! What a lot of name calling which (nearly) hides some sensible thinking.

I have always thought that NO individual service had a monopoly of the skills required to get the best out of Apache for UK plc.

The RAF clearly have the edge in operating (and, more importantly, servicing) complex weapons systems, and using DAS etc. The servicing is important. You don't want your REME (or gc or maintainer) diverted from the task of fixing jets by going for runs or doing stags (sounds like something perverted highlanders might do).

Equally clearly, despite the number of Melchetts about, many crab helo pilots have extremely poor awareness of the requirements of the blighter on the ground that they are supposed to be supporting. (Not all, before the flak starts, but many). And JHC has (more or less) proved that we can work together and talk, if not the same language, at least a mutually intelligable one.

And of course, the dear WAFUs have unrivalled expertise at shipboard ops (shame the junglies can't persuade the pingers and baggies to use gogs more oftem though).

And my point is: what's wrong with a joint squadron/wing/regiment? We've had joint RN/RAF with that outfit that flew Canberras with lots of aerials, we've had joint Army/RAF (a long time ago) with the bold GPR and AOP sqns, and you could probably count 847 as joint Army/RN, although the Royals would complain. Never had all three though (OK Jayteeto, I know about your lot!) :ok:

So- RAF engineers and EWOs/QWIs, Army HTIs and IntOs, and .... err ... RN FDOs I s'pose (they could also do the entertainments and PR - in both areas they excel!) And pilots? Equally (or proportionately) drawn from all three, subject to identical selection, training and standards (just exactly like DHFS could, but doesn't do).

Wot abaht it JHC? (gets flakvest and helmet from handy shelf, puts fingers in ears and waits......) ;)

[EESDL]

Oh please stop the intelligent conversation............
as one Army chappy could quite succintly sum it up (rare occasion to say the least!) on a battle field in the not too distant future:

"For heaven's sake, keep those Apaches away from here, they're scaring the horses"
:-)

[Detrimento Sumus]

Yawn - same old puerile ill-informed ballocks from JHFNI. There is whole world of aviation out there that extends beyond the shores of Lough Neigh.

[Muff Coupling]

Best bit of banter and mud slinging for a while..all the elements of a internet bar brawl...this is what PPRUNE used to be like:E

Just a thought...CGS might just have missed the point about AH in his letter..a bit of a Torygraph trap me thinks!

NO WAH 64 D's deployed to Iraq - is he relying on the performance of the US AH 64D as a combat indicator for the future of Land Warfare? The very ones that had the **** kicked out of them by small arms fire, because they were called upon to perform tasks that the aircraft were not designed for. Lesson learned from Op Anaconda in Afghanistan....clearly not.

FCR's were relegated to the off position..ineffective against AK47's, technicals and too time consumming and complicated for the close battle. If you spend £38M on an integrated fire control system to enable stand off shock firepower at mass target arrays on the dense battlefield..and then ask it to hover OGE at 150ft AGL to cover a house search..you might need to ask wether or not you have just brought too much sophistication.

"working to update our thinking" Mmmmm, ok..then just what is the AH's central role on the battlefield, when the future threat is low intensity, urban and HMG & RPG's from kitchen windows. Where is the Army's doctrine for AH? How much thinking is needed..the cheque was handed over in 1996. Or is there just a tadge of..."just what are we going to do with this?"

AH will deliver "radical changes"....I would suggest that the suicide fanatical human bomber will be the driver for that. AH comes complete with FCR / RFI and very expensive RF Hellfire..radical..perhaps not. Give me the names of any Iraqi Air Defender's who turned scopes on! Not a long list I would suggest. Besides there are much more capable platforms whose job it is to execute that task (EF3 & EF 18 G). I for one could not think of a future conflict where sophisticated RF SAM / SPAAGs might be used. (OK..China, FSU or N. Korea..I will give you those). So have we procured a dated capability that might prove to be a "costly mistake"?

"Light, fast moving intervention forces"..to self deploy the AH will require ferry tanks..ferry tanks on..weapons off..arrive in Monrovia to support SF / Peacekeepers..err..sorry JFComd need to wait for the ship or C17 with killing thingy's on board..but have a gun though. AH is a "HEAVY" weapon system / platform..a Harrier with rotor blades. Lots of motion lotion required and lots of ammo. Its why the US Marines did not want it, US SF avoid it and why it is organic to US Divisonal CONOPS and Div Logistics. This is why 16 Special Needs Bde do not understand it and the Army must realise IT must support it...the AAC can only fly it.

Carry on with the banter..but you cannot avoid the end state..if the AH is to return its investment..it must become a tri-service asset..with full joint communications, joint logistics and joint operations. The AAC must stop trying to emulate the GPR, become proffessional (and not just act with professionalism..there is a subtle difference) and therefore become central in operating the AH, in any future tri-service organisation (JAHF)....if it is to survive this decade.

Digging in now....... :ouch:

[16 blades]

MuffC,
You have far too much insight my friend! but well said anyway...

I agree that some sort of Joint chain will be required to get best use out of Apache or any AH force, and accept that 'Jointery' will be the way of the future in many arenas - but it will only work if the Army stop using 'Jointery' as a means of imposing their ethos on the other services. What works well for them does NOT work well for the RAF (and I imagine for RN / RM as well) - they need to understand this, and also that other services have the expertise they need to operate AH effectively.

I wouldn't pretend to know the first thing about soldiering, so why does the Army purport to be 'experts' in the field of aviation? Take advice from those in the know, and more importantly, listen to it! - drop the 'we're in charge, we'll do things our way' attitude. We are all on the same team, after all!

[MightyGem]

Grimweasle, I believe that the majority of RAF helo pilots are failed jet jocks as you can't join with the intention of going rotary. Whereas there are very few AAC pilots who have even tried let alone failed the SAS course.

[16 blades]

MG,

Not true - you can express your intentions to join any particular ac type at any stage of trg or selection - you even get a space on your paperwork to rank your preferences (FJ/RW/ME).

Very few failed FJ mates end up on rotary - if they've failed FJ they probably wouldn't fair much better on the SH force. Most of them get dumped on the AT fleet!!
(at least that's how it was when I joined / went through trg many moons ago - the goalposts are never static).

Besides, being a 'failed' FJ mate means you have not met (usually by a narrow margin) what is arguably the highest standard required in the aviation world, anywhere in the world. Nothing to be TOO ashamed of..........

[jayteeto]

Teetering head, Thank You..... We are Tri-Service and we treat each other.... ALL ranks, as intelligent individuals. ****** me!! It works!! Well it would if it wasn't for the bloody navy and army. J for joke.
PS. I have three weeks left in the RAF, anyone got any jobs because I haven't...... :{

[ChristopherRobin]

You know, one of the main tenets of this thread (on the RAF side anyway) is that the AAC still has a 'soldiers first' policy.

It dropped that a long time ago. Sure we still go for runs etc, and learn how to shoot weapons - nothing wrong with that in a prone to capture job, is there? After all the RAF do a conduct after capture course too, but wouldn't it be so much better if you could move your lardy @rses fast enough not to get caught in the first place?

And I love all this stuff about the Army being clueless when it comes to complex weapon systems and logistics etc - because the Army just doesn't have any missiles or complex weapon systems at all does it? I suppose you chaps think that the log chain for Harrier is so much harder than even a single Artillery Regiment? No idea, have you?

The trouble is that the most blinkered single-service service is indeed the RAF. Have a look at yourselves! Bang for buck, you just don't return anywhere near the amount of investment as the Army has consistently for decades. Fact is, you lot cost a hell of a lot more money in capitation rates alone, take a Sqn Ldr doing the same job as an AAC Sgt. (or not, in the case of Lynx 5).

As a taxpayer, why should I want a helo pilot who costs me twice as much as another, just because one is in the RAF? At least the Fish heads can claim to bring some better breeding to the job, but you lot?

Time and again in SAMA, I watched the RAF perform textbook sight-picture approaches into XMG, fly over the border, drop men off in a water meadow despite advice not to do so (Puma up to the door in water - thanks v much station commander), fire off GPMG rounds into a 25,000 Ltr fuel tank - having been 'keen' enough to actually load his weapon - I mean has there ever been a more ironic job title than Loadie?

And all this at much greater cost and fewer task lines flown than the fraction of AAC people across the road.

If I was the defence minister I'd cut you lot to shreds. And don't even get me started on Typhoon - you want to see poor logistics? Typhoon's is a complete disaster and the RAF brass know it. Why doesn't the Telegraph research a bit on that?

Stop trying to pretend that efficiency = poor flight safety.
Stop pretending that you are worth the money as if you were all latter-day Douglas Baders.
Start employing NCO aircrew.
Remember that men everywhere do indeed say that that was your finest hour and that when the annals of battle are written they still will.

Don't make the rest of them a sad epitaph to that.

[Tourist]

Cristopher Robin, We are not worthy!
Good banter!:D

[ZH875]

Some terms and Ranks used in Flying Units of the RAF:

Flight Commander (ie one in charge of a flight) = Squadron Leader (Not Flt Lt)
Squadron Commander (ie Officer in charge of a sqn) = Wing Commander (Not Sqn Ldr)
Wing Commander (person i/c 3-4 Sqns)= Group Captain (Not Wg Cdr)
Group Captain (bod ic 3/4 groups) = Air Commodore (not Gp Capt)

etc etc.

So there we have it. An AAC Sgt Pilot far better value/£.

As the RAF always supports either the Navy or the Army, how about giving the Mudmovers to the grunts and the pursuit ships to the fisheads. Meanwhile Mr Branson can have the AAR and AT fleet.

Mr Lockheed can have the C130J back.

[Flatus Veteranus]

I do not defend the RAF's rank structure, which was devised when aeroplanes were made of sticks and cloth and were worth a few hindred quid a throw. However the reason the AAC prefers NCO pilots is that senior army officers believe that the real purpose of AAC aircraft is to provide personal conveyance for the gentry. And they would feel distinctly uncomfortable being chaufeured around by an officer.

"The RAF always supports either the army or the navy". Well, I never felt that way when I was driving a Vulcan - rather the reverse. The main purpose of the army was to protect my base and of the navy to secure my supply of fuel (and grub).

[ZH875]

Flatus I fully Agree.

BTW which Vulcan unit were you on, & when?

[Mr C Hinecap]

'And I love all this stuff about the Army being clueless when it comes to complex weapon systems and logistics etc - because the Army just doesn't have any missiles or complex weapon systems at all does it? I suppose you chaps think that the log chain for Harrier is so much harder than even a single Artillery Regiment? No idea, have you?'

It is different, Mr Robin - VERY different. The Army are not clueless, just deal in different 'stuff' at the moment. Whether you agree or not, the RAF has been dealing in complex weapons platforms for some time now, whether successfully or not. In relative terms, the Army has not. As the Army becomes more reliant upon more complex weapons the RAF becomes more 'expeditionary'. Thus, given the right circumstances, we could actually learn something useful from each other - a wacky concept indeed! Imagine - SHARING things! Wow!

A couple of small examples of the above:

NI, last century. Blue Jobs want to put top shiny new camera thingy into rotary thing. Army Engineer positions mounts in Lynx and decrees that holes should be drilled here, here and here. 'What about the integrity of the air frame?' pipes up Blue Job. 'I'm a f&*king tank engineer by trade - put the holes there' was the reply.

Big exercise, Middle East, before GWII. Blue Job stuff put in ISOs marked CRANE LIFT ONLY, cos it might break if tilted. Brown Jobs put kit on Drops Trucks, tip it at 45 degrees 8 times before bits are delivered to sqn. B(_)gger!

Just different Mr Robin.

Sorry - I get a bit emotional - a loggy that is interested in the flying stuff? I keep it quiet! You ain't seen me - roit?

[andrewc]

The real issue about all of this is that 16 Air Mobile, equipped
with attack helicopters and enough heli-lift capacity to deploy
and support battalion plus sized air-mobile units would be a
significantly useful item in many combat situations.

Who runs it is irrelevant if UK-plc can't support a unit
of this type of a sensible size.

Remember 1940, the Germans had fewer and worse tanks
than the French or British...what differed was how they
used them, concentrated with support doctrine that allowed
them to make a difference as against the penny packets
of the allies.

I'm certain you can see the analogy,

-- Andrew

[Eagle 270]

Mr C Hinecap,
you aint wrong there! How very, very of you picking up on two very pertinent points! You got anymore? I have a couple of crab stories if you wish. Doesnt make the game though, so I wont.


Some dinosaur mentioned Vulcan. How very last century. History is a great thing, if it’s relevant to the future. That was the RAFs time. They had it all. V Force, AD, and all the trappings above FAA and AAC. Now though, it aint, simple. Army supporting the RAF? V Force went out with ... er V Force. About 1969. We had Saladin’s and Centurions then lofty! Move on if you can. You been living in a deep dark hole? Banter, I love it! Quality dependant, of course.

CR. Quite relevant. MLRS, 155 of any nature, 120 of any nature, AD, take your pick, TOW and now Hellfire and 2.75mm. And anything below that concerning ordinance. Or shall we tell the 5 regts who have nothing better to do to wrap it in cling film just incase we need it? As the Army wouldnt want to pee the enemy off, would we? Crabs need to keep in check Tonka and GR7 and .......ohh Shaguars........and.........T, T, Thats all folks....
Typical of these types trying to dig a niche to justify their existence. Basically, who cares? Job is a job. Whatever or who ever it takes. I think insecurity unless they are the show stoppers is the order of the day! What or who are you supporting? SH....Army, GA...Army.......FAC....Army........Air superiorority.......Army to enable...........Tac resupply...Army.....SF..........Army, any questions? Quick question, What is the RAF's role in todays deployments?

BTW, I'm not a pongo! Just a boring purple type who believes we are now a multi asset. Harrier, Apache, Challenger, don’t give a toss. If you can give me the kit and have the reality to admit where your limits are, I'll buy that for a pound! Chess board, flexibility. Boat, plane, tank. Dont care as long as you give me the goods as advertised! Jobs a good un.

[Scorpy]

Back in 1996 there was a push to encourage RAF electrical and avionic technicians to transfer to the REME specifically for the Apache because there was a requirement for the expertise of the weapons systems etc. from fast-jets. As I am aware there were no takers. Or the ones that applied soon withdraw.

Given the problems with training the aircrew for the Apache, are the groundcrew up to speed??

[BEagle]

Having watched some grunt blacksmith trying to repair a photocopier (instead of having a maintenance contract with the manufacturer/supplier as sensible people would), I despair at the thought of such people trying to maintain WAH64.....

....and I'll think you'll find that the Vulcan did something quite well known in 1982, Eagle 270. Or perhaps 20 years ago is rather jurassic in your terms? Which surprises me as most grunts drone on about their wedgimental histowy and have enough mediaeval plunder on the tables during Mess dinners to support a small African nation's annual debt.

When Bwigadier Sir Hardly Bloody-Worthitt wakes up to the fact that helicopters are not just '3-dimensional Landwovers' and that aviation is a profession, not just something which "Isn't weally pwoper soldierwing, don't you know" the AAC might begin to enjoy the status it should. But too many grunts still haven't accepted this simple fact.

[16 blades]

BEags,

Well Said!

Have you notice how the grunty types in this thread try to allude to some kind of snobbish superiority whilst the blue fraternity just post common sense? Sounds like childish arrogance to me.......

Eagle270,

The RAF's role in today's Ops is to go in long before any of you lot dare and blow sh!t up so it's not quite so scary for your mopping up operations. And to fly you in there. And to fly you home afterwards. And all your kit. And Melchett's drinks cabinet.

Need I remind you that it was air power alone (ours, not yours) that decided the outcome of the Kosovo crisis 4 years ago?

......bite on that, cabbages!......
......childish arrogance a speciality.......

[Sloppy Link]

BEagle, Muff Coupling et al

A minor point of correctness, it is an Apache AH1 and has been so called for nigh on a year or so now. The WAH bit was a marketing advertisment by Wastelands that was seen off by a "cluless" Army type!

[30mikemike]

Beags,

As a quiet observer of long standing may I say I have admired the quality and informative content of many of your previous posts although, if I may say so, perhaps not so your last...........

16 blades,

If air power alone won the conflict obviously you give no credence to the mass build up of land forces and subsequent 'invasion'. Somehow I suspect that they may have made a small contribution..............?????

I, as are many in green, am all for the 'golf bag' or joint approach. More importantly as an aviator I want to achieve maximum effect with the best kit we can get our hands on but balance that with a tax payers outlook too. Most of all I want to do it properly (Can't spool 'fessional).

'All said in the best possible taste'

Regards

[Eagle 270]

Quite right 30mm. Blinkered chaps (crustaceans at times). As can Upteumpth Wegiment of Foot.

Beage's. And having watched an RAF Policeman trying to conduct an investigation as to who stole a Twix from a vending machine was like watching a particularly enthralling episode of the 'Professionals'. A 'tradesman' of your cloth I take?

I concur, the top end of the British Army still fail to realise the potential of such contraptions as the helicopter. I'm curious to find your angle on this as a posh truckie?

PS. The Blackbucks denied how much of the runway??

Lets talk Lightnings......

[SASless]

Hey...Hey......stop this bickering.....If it was good enough for Wellington....by Gawd....it is good enough for you. Now be quiet and pass the Sherry!

[pr00ne]

Eagle 270,

PS. The Blackbucks denied how much of the runway??

Just enough to stop Mirage III's and Daggers using it, and to scare the pants off the Argies that we could reach all the way down there, so their most sophisticated AD jets were hurriedly regrouped to provide protection for mainland Argentima.

A pretty good return methinks, plus the airfield was pretty badly knocked about by 1000LB' ers and Shrike missiles.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Sorry I am late replying to whoever it was who called me a "dinosaur" ; I have been taking the "worm" prophylactic. Well, some dinosaurs packed a far bigger punch than their linear decendants which are mainly, I believe, harmless feathered birds.

I flew the Vulcan at Waddo in 68/69 and later flew its contemporary the Buff (once). The Vulcan was the best medium bomber of its time and the Buff the best heavy bomber. The MOD in its infinitewisdom ceased to spend any development money on the Vulcan after Polaris came into service in 1969. The Americans continued to develop the Buff with continual systems and weapons updates. It is still, in terms of range/payload/CEP the most efficient ordnance deliverer in service with any Service of any nation. And its development costs were probably amortised 30 years ago. Rolls Royce are bidding to re-engine it (for about the third time) possibly with four RB 211s, which should pay for themselves over the projected 25 years of fleet life remaining. (There are those who say that the Buff may become the first centenarian aircraft in about 2050).

The Buffs probably did more damage to the Taliban and Al Q'aida
in Afganistan than any other system. It was supported with targeting information by special forces and could, and did, deliver JDAMS with remarkably short reaction times. In GW2 the much-vaunted Republican Guard regiments which were supposed to give the Allies a hard time around Baghdad never really materialised. Andrew Gilligan, never previously a fan of offensive air power, was forced to change his line after interviewing a Republican Guard regiment commander whose men had simply melted away after days of intensive bombing. We never heard much about it because there were no reporters "embedded" in the Buff fleet.

It would be just as true to say that, in expeditionary operations, the surface forces' role is to support the air forces, as the reverse. Meanwhile, instead of finding some way to equip ourselves with a fleet of large, long-range, non-penetrating ordance-deliverers, we are going to squander billions on two massive aircraft carriers and their pathetic little toy bombers, which will cost the earth to run and deliver very little "bang-per-buck".

[Rude C'man]

ill dig out me old 5 AB badge then , I always loved the old pegasus! Wheels being re-invented, never surely not !!! :ok:

[BEagle]

Good post, FV!!

Do you think that the likes of Phoney Tony and BuffHoon would ever admit that, once again, we appear to need an East of Suez presence.....

But the RN's new armoured rowing boats will keep BWoS happy.....

[Pub User]

Flatus

Despite being of the same cloth, I am forced to take issue with your observations.

Suggesting that bombers did "more damage" to organisations that may well be just as strong now (or perhaps even stronger)as they were 2 years ago is hardly an accolade to the attack system.

Surface forces supporting air forces? As an aside during offensive air ops perhaps, but the aim in all operations is to put people on the ground. The Army specialise in this - infantrymen are the ultimate force. They fight the real war long after the politicians, press and air forces have (thankfully) lost interest.

[What Limits]

Ah well, any old excuse for a bit of banter.

Do you not realise that all wars from about 1990 onwards have been won by the Global News and Media Networks! Armed forces are only put in there for the humanitarian effort afterwards.

Beware the rise of the machines. UAV and UCAV will put a lot of people out of business. Besides we dont want any more soldiers, sailors or airmen to get hurt in any future wars!

50% of all new and shiny kit yet to come into service is already redundant.

If you think that these are the ramblings of some KOS then you would be wrong. This is what civilians (who control the military after all) think.

By the way, where did you lot go to school? Your spelling is atrocious!!

[Flatus Veteranus]

PPRUNE FINAL EXAMINATION - MILITARY HISTORY

Question 1

"The Aim in all operations is to put people on the ground" - - Pub User

Comment on Pub User's Principle as applied to:

a. Drake's defeat of the Spanish Armada

b. Nelson's victory at Trafalgar

c. The Battle of Jutland

d. The Battle of Britain

e. The Battle of the Atlantic

Question 2

In which pub and at what time of the night/morning did Pub User formulate his principle? ;)

[Eagle 270]

FV, totally agree! Know where you're coming from. I don't think that a couple of plastic minesweepers and an Air force with less of a technological edge on modern society than The Ivory Coast could quite pull off the shindigs you mentioned!


But, the argument that they were all fought over fifty years ago might hold some water! One would hope we have learnt something since...........I doubt it!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Especially regarding the Vulcan. As was said, Polaris was all the fashion. We didn’t really have the spare folding stuff at the time, unlike our colonial cousins with the Buff. Simplistic, I know.
Just think, we could be on the TSR2 GR4 now, and it would work!

I would be the first to raise the buntin' if a formation of Battleships steamed up the Solent!