$145 million on unmanned spyplanes.
Too right...you are too bloody old Ernie!!!!! You were there for the fun times of the past. And the place is full of collegeboys now.
Sad thing is, I remember drinking beer with Arm out the window (he is such a nice fella, you would never have known he was a rotorhead!!!), when 5av was taking over the old 35sqn HQ. TVL Os mess bar...those were the days.
Caribous, in where it is hot, wet and tight!!!
Don.
Sad thing is, I remember drinking beer with Arm out the window (he is such a nice fella, you would never have known he was a rotorhead!!!), when 5av was taking over the old 35sqn HQ. TVL Os mess bar...those were the days.
Caribous, in where it is hot, wet and tight!!!
Don.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are migrating further from the original intent of the thread, but here goes…..
Arm out the window – If you are who I think you are, I remember you well and have flown with you a number of times. The issue is not about guys like you and I – the operators. On the whole, they wish to provide the best service they can, they are willing to work hard, push endurance, live in **** conditions and get the job done. Nothing wrong with that. The issue now for battlefield airmobility and manoeuvre, is that the ground commander wants “his” air assets as part of “his” task organization (task org). That means at least under tactical command (TACOMD) or operational command (OPCOMD). That means that he, the ground commander (generally a LTCOL or a BRIG) will set the mission. I would be surprised if air force would be prepared for “grunts” to allocate missions and tasks to its air assets without prior approval. This approval takes time – time you simply don’t have when the battle is running red hot. It’s the ground commander who takes the risks, would airforce (under our present paradigm) be prepared to conduct an air assault fully prepared to suffer the battle damages occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq. The answer is irrefutable no. The operators would, but the honchos would like to remain “in the loop”.
The army don’t have it stitched up. They are an organization run on a shoe string and can thus look …. what? …. Disjointed. Army aviation is still trying to justify its relevance to the broader army (although this is now nearly complete – think 1 Avn Regt moving to Robertson Barracks). As to doubling up, I guess there is some of that, but each FEG (force element group) has its own duplication, the army (and navy?) is just another FEG. So the doubling up is actually not very much at all.
Lastly it is about perceptions. And remember perceptions is reality. Airforce still views tactical transport just above cleaning the bogs (think how have the RAAF gone about replacing the Boo and how they just stopped flying the CH47 in what appeared a hissy fit about the Blackhawks). Remember how we sold off the A4’s?? Has the navy forgotten what support they ended up getting? They needed the Kiwi’s in the end. How is that perceived by the service chiefs and senior command group? It really is not about the right or wrong, or saving money. There is a lot of tribalism (in all services). There is a lot of inefficiencies – I suspect RAAF to have the most fat. It is about getting dirty – how many RAAF squadrons are manned, equipped and prepared to deploy, in toto, at short notice, anywhere in the world for a period of up to 6 months.
Arm out the window – If you are who I think you are, I remember you well and have flown with you a number of times. The issue is not about guys like you and I – the operators. On the whole, they wish to provide the best service they can, they are willing to work hard, push endurance, live in **** conditions and get the job done. Nothing wrong with that. The issue now for battlefield airmobility and manoeuvre, is that the ground commander wants “his” air assets as part of “his” task organization (task org). That means at least under tactical command (TACOMD) or operational command (OPCOMD). That means that he, the ground commander (generally a LTCOL or a BRIG) will set the mission. I would be surprised if air force would be prepared for “grunts” to allocate missions and tasks to its air assets without prior approval. This approval takes time – time you simply don’t have when the battle is running red hot. It’s the ground commander who takes the risks, would airforce (under our present paradigm) be prepared to conduct an air assault fully prepared to suffer the battle damages occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq. The answer is irrefutable no. The operators would, but the honchos would like to remain “in the loop”.
The army don’t have it stitched up. They are an organization run on a shoe string and can thus look …. what? …. Disjointed. Army aviation is still trying to justify its relevance to the broader army (although this is now nearly complete – think 1 Avn Regt moving to Robertson Barracks). As to doubling up, I guess there is some of that, but each FEG (force element group) has its own duplication, the army (and navy?) is just another FEG. So the doubling up is actually not very much at all.
Lastly it is about perceptions. And remember perceptions is reality. Airforce still views tactical transport just above cleaning the bogs (think how have the RAAF gone about replacing the Boo and how they just stopped flying the CH47 in what appeared a hissy fit about the Blackhawks). Remember how we sold off the A4’s?? Has the navy forgotten what support they ended up getting? They needed the Kiwi’s in the end. How is that perceived by the service chiefs and senior command group? It really is not about the right or wrong, or saving money. There is a lot of tribalism (in all services). There is a lot of inefficiencies – I suspect RAAF to have the most fat. It is about getting dirty – how many RAAF squadrons are manned, equipped and prepared to deploy, in toto, at short notice, anywhere in the world for a period of up to 6 months.
Mmmm, beer.....
But back to the topic...griffin black, it makes sense that UAVs would be available for tasking by the ground commanders according to their needs, but with the numbers of aircraft and operators that we would be likely to have, there would naturally have to be a system of prioritising and allocation to those with the greatest need.
This does not change no matter who's operating them, and having RAAF air assets under the operational command of ground commanders was commonplace during big exercises when the utility helicopters still 'belonged' to the RAAF, including having pilots and controllers in the Brigade TACP to provide specialist advice and run the tasking to the ground commander's requirements, liaise with artillery etc, and having the aircraft and maintenance crews in the bush ready to work as required.
This is years ago, of course, so things are no doubt different now particularly with regard to quick and secure communications and data transfer, but what I'm getting at is that whoever operates the assets could and should have systems in place to provide the service that's needed, and the RAAF could do this. The role dictates the equipment and procedures, so if readiness to deploy and operate in the field is required, and money is allocated to allow appropriate support equipment to be on hand, the job will be done, and the personnel will get as dirty as necessary.
Shep is a fast jet man through and through, and so may not see things in the same way that Angus, who at FLTCDR and XO level in the helicopter world was intimately involved with the tasking of RAAF air assets by Army commanders, would.
With massive outlays for upgrades and replacement of things like the fighter, strike & maritime patrol assets coming up, I guess he's also forced to think about cutting out anything that he doesn't consider to be a core Air Force role.
Re the Caribou, I guess it really is a 'low-tech option for benign environments' these days, but the good it does in general support and natural disaster relief work in rugged terrain make it something worth having, as proven by the ongoing unwillingness to put it out to pasture, even though it's been rumoured to be about to fall off the twig for decades now, it seems.
But back to the topic...griffin black, it makes sense that UAVs would be available for tasking by the ground commanders according to their needs, but with the numbers of aircraft and operators that we would be likely to have, there would naturally have to be a system of prioritising and allocation to those with the greatest need.
This does not change no matter who's operating them, and having RAAF air assets under the operational command of ground commanders was commonplace during big exercises when the utility helicopters still 'belonged' to the RAAF, including having pilots and controllers in the Brigade TACP to provide specialist advice and run the tasking to the ground commander's requirements, liaise with artillery etc, and having the aircraft and maintenance crews in the bush ready to work as required.
This is years ago, of course, so things are no doubt different now particularly with regard to quick and secure communications and data transfer, but what I'm getting at is that whoever operates the assets could and should have systems in place to provide the service that's needed, and the RAAF could do this. The role dictates the equipment and procedures, so if readiness to deploy and operate in the field is required, and money is allocated to allow appropriate support equipment to be on hand, the job will be done, and the personnel will get as dirty as necessary.
Shep is a fast jet man through and through, and so may not see things in the same way that Angus, who at FLTCDR and XO level in the helicopter world was intimately involved with the tasking of RAAF air assets by Army commanders, would.
With massive outlays for upgrades and replacement of things like the fighter, strike & maritime patrol assets coming up, I guess he's also forced to think about cutting out anything that he doesn't consider to be a core Air Force role.
Re the Caribou, I guess it really is a 'low-tech option for benign environments' these days, but the good it does in general support and natural disaster relief work in rugged terrain make it something worth having, as proven by the ongoing unwillingness to put it out to pasture, even though it's been rumoured to be about to fall off the twig for decades now, it seems.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
talking of throwing the Caribou on the scrap heap early,
I cringe when I think think of the Army despoiling them..... uuuuuugh.
Airforce still views tactical transport just above cleaning the bogs.... ... they just stopped flying the CH47 in what appeared a hissy fit about the Blackhawks). Remember how we sold off the A4’s?? Has the navy forgotten what support they ended up getting? They needed the Kiwi’s in the end.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GriffinBlack:
So essentially your problem is that you want a person who knows nothing of aviation to be commanding what aviation assets do? There by removing all forms of "aviation risk management" and supervision from aviation professionals?
Aircraft are often assigned to "support" as directed, the service operating shouldn't and from what I've seen doesn't prove problematic.
Of course, air transport assets are just flying unimogs aren't they
So essentially your problem is that you want a person who knows nothing of aviation to be commanding what aviation assets do? There by removing all forms of "aviation risk management" and supervision from aviation professionals?
Aircraft are often assigned to "support" as directed, the service operating shouldn't and from what I've seen doesn't prove problematic.
Of course, air transport assets are just flying unimogs aren't they
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup.. that's up to date intel for you
Could the army operate and maintain the boos? Just gotta hope they don't outsource the crewing to Transfield.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's replacement is fixed wing it will stay with Air Force. However I think you'll find our current chief personally wants the capability to go to Army. 
Poor old gravel truck..
Poor old gravel truck..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm very much yesterday's man in this argument and by no means current with today's situation in the ADF, but in a previous life, I spent a lot of time working for the Green Machine in a green machine and saw enough then to draw my own conclusions.
I don't think the Green Machine of today is very much different to the one in my day, (at least in its attitudes to air assets), and if I'm right, I believe that if (God forbid) we ever find ourselves in a really nasty, backs to the wall situation a la 1942, the handing over of the rotary wing operation to the Army will then be seen to have been the major disaster many like me thought it to be back in 1988. I think the same argument could be mounted re tac fixed wing.
But if I'm right, who'll know or care? Because the winners write the history books, and I suspect the book in question won't be in English - or maybe even in Roman script.
Not knocking Angus' undoubted capabilities, but I think his getting the CAF position had about as much to do with the part he played in the handover of the choppers to the grunts back in 88 as his very good performance as a rising star in the higher ranks in the years that followed.
As for Shep... I too remember the twitch above all else, (and that's not to say he's not a man of above average abilities too). But I do know his ummm... shall we say "unusual frankness" in expressing his opinions of aeroplanes that don't fly above Mach 1 when speaking to members of RAAF squadrons not of the knuckhead variety has left quite a few officers and airmen of those squadrons somewhat bemused.
I don't think the Green Machine of today is very much different to the one in my day, (at least in its attitudes to air assets), and if I'm right, I believe that if (God forbid) we ever find ourselves in a really nasty, backs to the wall situation a la 1942, the handing over of the rotary wing operation to the Army will then be seen to have been the major disaster many like me thought it to be back in 1988. I think the same argument could be mounted re tac fixed wing.
But if I'm right, who'll know or care? Because the winners write the history books, and I suspect the book in question won't be in English - or maybe even in Roman script.
Not knocking Angus' undoubted capabilities, but I think his getting the CAF position had about as much to do with the part he played in the handover of the choppers to the grunts back in 88 as his very good performance as a rising star in the higher ranks in the years that followed.
As for Shep... I too remember the twitch above all else, (and that's not to say he's not a man of above average abilities too). But I do know his ummm... shall we say "unusual frankness" in expressing his opinions of aeroplanes that don't fly above Mach 1 when speaking to members of RAAF squadrons not of the knuckhead variety has left quite a few officers and airmen of those squadrons somewhat bemused.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shall we say "unusual frankness" in expressing his opinions of aeroplanes that don't fly above Mach 1 when speaking to members of RAAF squadrons not of the knuckhead variety has left quite a few officers and airmen of those squadrons somewhat bemused
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread would have to give new meaning to the phrase "thread creep", but to add to that creep, I'd have to say that Wiley's apparently all too accurate comment about Shep brings to mind that old ditty about different types of aircrew that dates back to WW2.
The pertinent lines are:
"You can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such,
You can tell a fighter pilot... BUT YOU CAN'T TELL HIM MUCH."
The pertinent lines are:
"You can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such,
You can tell a fighter pilot... BUT YOU CAN'T TELL HIM MUCH."
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Migratory bird
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think so... I remember they were going to get them though too..
As for thread creep - I guess it's because we don't get a military thread much in the Aussie forums
As for thread creep - I guess it's because we don't get a military thread much in the Aussie forums
