Military rotary wing assets: Army or RAAF
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NQ
Age: 60
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-A-Frozo,
mate aren't the RAF regiment the same as ADGeeeeeees, just glorified grunts wearing blue
aren't they the next best thing to the SAS
Don't think your comment has much cred
mate aren't the RAF regiment the same as ADGeeeeeees, just glorified grunts wearing blue
aren't they the next best thing to the SAS
Don't think your comment has much cred
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mate aren't the RAF regiment the same as ADGeeeeeees, just glorified grunts wearing blue
aren't they the next best thing to the SAS
Last edited by Point0Five; 15th Dec 2006 at 13:38. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOTW
AOTW – please state for me clearly and unambiguously, who accepts the risk? And if the risk is considered too high by the RAAF comd, can he refuse it?
By the way, I disagree with both points above. The last BALO I worked with (quite recently) was an ATCO. I don’t think he would make any decisions. I am sure he would go to the CO, who would then give a quick call to the FEG comd who may then call the Air Comd.
You forget I know you and have flown with you a number of times.
I totally agree. But this includes technical and tactical aspects in equal amounts.
Trapezoid –
I have no idea why you feel a CFS trained QFI is worth mentioning.
Yes
HNA. Yeah well. Hardening in coming along well. Networked – not so good. However, networking is a problem for all services of all defence forces. I would call it an asperational statement.
No staff college for me!!!
PAF
So your JTAC did exactly what the JOST or platoon commander told him to do. He did his job well and got rewarded. Well done.
And give away one of our BOSes? What is the purpose of GBAD?
The BALO or DALO as the case may be wasn't going up the chain to ask his boss whether a task was acceptable or not
the answer as to what would be an acceptable risk would likely be similar whether it was RAAF or AAAvn helicopter guys doing the talking.
By the way, I disagree with both points above. The last BALO I worked with (quite recently) was an ATCO. I don’t think he would make any decisions. I am sure he would go to the CO, who would then give a quick call to the FEG comd who may then call the Air Comd.
I must add a bit of fuel to the fire here:
A couple of years after the helo transfer, I actually jumped the fence and put on the green uniform with the blue cordy thing that goes in your pocket for a few years, before going back the other way.
A couple of years after the helo transfer, I actually jumped the fence and put on the green uniform with the blue cordy thing that goes in your pocket for a few years, before going back the other way.
I don't expect people to know how many rivets in the tail boom, but they should know their stuff properly before being let loose with a crew and pax.
Trapezoid –
I have no idea why you feel a CFS trained QFI is worth mentioning.
Do you really believe it? Can you react?
Hardened and networked? Come on.
Experience, facts and logic are no match for Army staff college dogma!
PAF
So your JTAC did exactly what the JOST or platoon commander told him to do. He did his job well and got rewarded. Well done.
No, they control Ground Based Air Defence, I believe that PAF supports the RAAF filling this role, rather than the Army.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Griffinblack,
To let you know that I have mil credentials.
Confirm or deny this to the forum please.
There are morons in our service who spout doctrine and just gum up the works and there are quiet achievers, highly competent people who go about their business quietly and make everything happen.
One of the most tub thumping doctrinites I ever met was an Army Aviation Officer who was so blitheringly incompetent (and everyone knew it), yet still he climbed the greasy pole.
Which are you?
To let you know that I have mil credentials.
Confirm or deny this to the forum please.
There are morons in our service who spout doctrine and just gum up the works and there are quiet achievers, highly competent people who go about their business quietly and make everything happen.
One of the most tub thumping doctrinites I ever met was an Army Aviation Officer who was so blitheringly incompetent (and everyone knew it), yet still he climbed the greasy pole.
Which are you?
Griffinblack, I think you're just trying to point score for some reason, cherry-picking parts of people's comments and ignoring the rest, but are you suggesting that an Army helicopter unit would accept more risk than a RAAF one? Unless the infantry commander has his own helicopters, ie part of his unit that he can task as he wants, there's going to be possible conflict between him wanting to do something on the one hand, and the aviators possibly thinking it's too risky on the other, be they green or blue uniformed.
'You forget I know you and have flown with you a number of times.' - my discussion of my background was aimed at cutting through some of this hypothetical to and fro-ing. It's just what I saw, and unless things have changed drastically since I left, a background or otherwise in ground warfare makes little difference to how you shape up as a helicopter operator in the battlefield environment. If that's your contention, then I reckon it's a crock.
'You forget I know you and have flown with you a number of times.' - my discussion of my background was aimed at cutting through some of this hypothetical to and fro-ing. It's just what I saw, and unless things have changed drastically since I left, a background or otherwise in ground warfare makes little difference to how you shape up as a helicopter operator in the battlefield environment. If that's your contention, then I reckon it's a crock.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trapezoid –
From my point of view, I cannot deny your statement.
Why don’t you PM me, and I will let you know exactly my credentials and background and you can decide.
PAF –
Nice try.
AOTW –
The answer is yes (in context). Using our example above, with the need to conduct JAAT IOT save lives, I have no doubt army aviation would do the task, the question is would RAAF do the task? and are they able to refuse it? Clearly the task is ‘extreme’ risk. I am still waiting for this answer from you. In day to day training and exercises the answer is no.
You say
However, you initially stated you wanted to add fuel to the fire.
The commander is the commander. He may be infantry, armoured, artillery or even aviation (its an arms corps thing). The task force/formation commander is nevertheless the commander and tasks ‘his’ assets.
When was the last time you served in an Air or Land Comd unit?
Sure, if you are a new pilot or number 3 in a formation of 8. But if you are S3, LO, OC or Tp comd, you must know and understand ground manoeuvre to be most effective. How do we shape those young guys to think and understand?
Perhaps that leads nicely into culture…. Do you wish to start?
From my point of view, I cannot deny your statement.
Which are you?
PAF –
Nice try.
AOTW –
but are you suggesting that an Army helicopter unit would accept more risk than a RAAF one?
You say
my discussion of my background was aimed at cutting through some of this hypothetical to and fro-ing
Unless the infantry commander has his own helicopters, ie part of his unit that he can task as he wants, there's going to be possible conflict between him wanting to do something on the one hand, and the aviators possibly thinking it's too risky on the other, be they green or blue uniformed.
unless things have changed drastically since I left
a background or otherwise in ground warfare makes little difference to how you shape up as a helicopter operator in the battlefield environment. If that's your contention, then I reckon it's a crock.
Perhaps that leads nicely into culture…. Do you wish to start?
Just to throw a bit of petrol on the fire...
I asked my father his opinion about the reasoning behind the decision to hand over rotary wing assets from RAAF to Army. He was a career Army officer (33 years), with 2 tours of Vietnam, was wounded a couple of times and awarded an MC, etc, so he was involved at the sharp end and frequently made use of helicopters in the battlefield. He reckons the decision has its origin in Vietnam and the experiences of his contemporaries who went on to lead the Army and the ADF. In his experience the US forces and Oz Army (Sioux) used there helicopters as "just another piece of battlefield equipment", whereas the RAAF were a bit more "conservative." As an example, he says it was a waste of time doing a recce with the RAAF because they would not fly below a certain height (1500 feet?) due to the risk from small arms fire. He remembers asking a US pilot to fly a HUEY at 100 feet and 90 knots, and the pilot replied "Sir, I'll give you 90 feet and 100 knots."
I asked my father his opinion about the reasoning behind the decision to hand over rotary wing assets from RAAF to Army. He was a career Army officer (33 years), with 2 tours of Vietnam, was wounded a couple of times and awarded an MC, etc, so he was involved at the sharp end and frequently made use of helicopters in the battlefield. He reckons the decision has its origin in Vietnam and the experiences of his contemporaries who went on to lead the Army and the ADF. In his experience the US forces and Oz Army (Sioux) used there helicopters as "just another piece of battlefield equipment", whereas the RAAF were a bit more "conservative." As an example, he says it was a waste of time doing a recce with the RAAF because they would not fly below a certain height (1500 feet?) due to the risk from small arms fire. He remembers asking a US pilot to fly a HUEY at 100 feet and 90 knots, and the pilot replied "Sir, I'll give you 90 feet and 100 knots."
Pass-the-Bozo,
Try to avoid being overly emotive with your points. The RAAF has done a great job in its role, as has the army. Like any organisation be it Woolworths, RAAF or Army, mistakes have been made and improvements are needed.
You probably need to get over the fact that the organisation you belong to no longer has rotary assets and will not get them back. If you would like to fly helicopters, it really is good fun, pop on down to the recruiting office and put in your transfer paperwork. I am sure the army would love to have you on board, then you can start influencing the organisation and implement some of the improvements you have in mind.
You will probably have to get over your apparent dislike of SSO's, nothing a couple of beers with some of 'Them' couldn't fix.
I get the impression from your hatred of the army that you are an ADFA Artist, struggle with your fitness and your slightly chubby ex-girlfriend was given a lovely seeing to by a dashingly handsome army aviator who happened to be an SSO.
Do some more reading in to events in Afghanistan (and Iraq) and view the performances by US Army, Marines, UK AAC and AAAvn and seriously ask yourself would the level of performance be enhanced if it was all being done by the world's Air Forces. Also do some more research in to the aviation tasking system in the ADF. Useful education is a wonderful thing, we can all learn.
Try to avoid being overly emotive with your points. The RAAF has done a great job in its role, as has the army. Like any organisation be it Woolworths, RAAF or Army, mistakes have been made and improvements are needed.
You probably need to get over the fact that the organisation you belong to no longer has rotary assets and will not get them back. If you would like to fly helicopters, it really is good fun, pop on down to the recruiting office and put in your transfer paperwork. I am sure the army would love to have you on board, then you can start influencing the organisation and implement some of the improvements you have in mind.
You will probably have to get over your apparent dislike of SSO's, nothing a couple of beers with some of 'Them' couldn't fix.
I get the impression from your hatred of the army that you are an ADFA Artist, struggle with your fitness and your slightly chubby ex-girlfriend was given a lovely seeing to by a dashingly handsome army aviator who happened to be an SSO.
Do some more reading in to events in Afghanistan (and Iraq) and view the performances by US Army, Marines, UK AAC and AAAvn and seriously ask yourself would the level of performance be enhanced if it was all being done by the world's Air Forces. Also do some more research in to the aviation tasking system in the ADF. Useful education is a wonderful thing, we can all learn.
MarkSix, g'day, hope you're getting along well, and full credit to your Dad's experiences - fair points he makes, by the sounds of it.
Griffinblack;
The 'ownership' aspect of the helicopters and who accepts the risk has to be a contentious issue, even though it's ultimately the taxpayer who does own them. I don't agree that Army helicopter operators would be more willing to take on risky jobs than RAAFies in a similar role - I can't see the CO of 5Avn being any more keen to waste a couple of his helicopters and crews than a RAAF CO would have been. I agree that the more complicated system of command and control necessitated by joint operations could make it harder to get a go-ahead on a risky task than a single-service environment, so there would probably be more opportunities for a task to be knocked back in the former case.
However, as I mentioned before, the exercise scenario (for what it's worth) used to be RAAF helicopters tasked by the TACP, so the BALO would be advising the ground commander and issuing tasks direct to the units. Whether that would have changed in real operations, I don't know.
"When was the last time you served in an Air or Land Comd unit?"
My last Army support task was my last RAAF flight, (Caribou, Sep 01), so I'm not that far out of touch yet (although some may say I wasn't ever really in touch). That posting included a bunch of Army tasking, as well as 6 months in Timor over 3 trips, so it was related to the kind of thing we're talking about.
My last operational Army helicopter job was in 1995, so a while back, but as I've said a few times, the land warfare background of the guys taking over the reins didn't, in my experience, give them any particular advantage over anyone else. What can I say? It's counter to your suggestion, but that's how I see it.
Quotes:
(Me) I don't expect people to know how many rivets in the tail boom, but they should know their stuff properly before being let loose with a crew and pax.
(You) I totally agree. But this includes technical and tactical aspects in equal amounts.
Not sure what you're getting at with this - it's air tactics in support of the ground battle that were important in the kind of flying we're talking about, and the RAAF had that going pretty well. Helicopter crews needed an appreciation of the current, expected and desired progress of the land battle, but you don't need to have gone to Duntroon to get that.
Well, that's about it from me - can't see the helicopters going back the other way any time soon so it's all a bit academic.
Griffinblack;
The 'ownership' aspect of the helicopters and who accepts the risk has to be a contentious issue, even though it's ultimately the taxpayer who does own them. I don't agree that Army helicopter operators would be more willing to take on risky jobs than RAAFies in a similar role - I can't see the CO of 5Avn being any more keen to waste a couple of his helicopters and crews than a RAAF CO would have been. I agree that the more complicated system of command and control necessitated by joint operations could make it harder to get a go-ahead on a risky task than a single-service environment, so there would probably be more opportunities for a task to be knocked back in the former case.
However, as I mentioned before, the exercise scenario (for what it's worth) used to be RAAF helicopters tasked by the TACP, so the BALO would be advising the ground commander and issuing tasks direct to the units. Whether that would have changed in real operations, I don't know.
"When was the last time you served in an Air or Land Comd unit?"
My last Army support task was my last RAAF flight, (Caribou, Sep 01), so I'm not that far out of touch yet (although some may say I wasn't ever really in touch). That posting included a bunch of Army tasking, as well as 6 months in Timor over 3 trips, so it was related to the kind of thing we're talking about.
My last operational Army helicopter job was in 1995, so a while back, but as I've said a few times, the land warfare background of the guys taking over the reins didn't, in my experience, give them any particular advantage over anyone else. What can I say? It's counter to your suggestion, but that's how I see it.
Quotes:
(Me) I don't expect people to know how many rivets in the tail boom, but they should know their stuff properly before being let loose with a crew and pax.
(You) I totally agree. But this includes technical and tactical aspects in equal amounts.
Not sure what you're getting at with this - it's air tactics in support of the ground battle that were important in the kind of flying we're talking about, and the RAAF had that going pretty well. Helicopter crews needed an appreciation of the current, expected and desired progress of the land battle, but you don't need to have gone to Duntroon to get that.
Well, that's about it from me - can't see the helicopters going back the other way any time soon so it's all a bit academic.
G'Day AOTW,
You'd have a laugh if you knew where I was now.
I didn't remember you as being such an argumentative little bugger.
I'm still in awe of you after watching you argue with Sikorsky's chief test pilot over helicopter aerody!
You'd have a laugh if you knew where I was now.
I didn't remember you as being such an argumentative little bugger.
I'm still in awe of you after watching you argue with Sikorsky's chief test pilot over helicopter aerody!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAF –
Take a mothers little helper and have a nice lie down. You’re a little emotional and illogical, perhaps you can form a coherent argument and re-engage.
Doors off -
Hahahahahaha. Stop baiting the crabs!!!! It’s fun does not advance the argument.
AOTW –
Good post.
Take a mothers little helper and have a nice lie down. You’re a little emotional and illogical, perhaps you can form a coherent argument and re-engage.
Doors off -
Hahahahahaha. Stop baiting the crabs!!!! It’s fun does not advance the argument.
AOTW –
Good post.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Out There
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
PAF,
First of all this:
Then:
So which is it, should ADG's be RAAF or Army? Looks like all you really want to do is beat whichever drum supports your argument at the time. I guess you're another prime example of over a decade of being told 'you're the cream of the crop', you start to believe that it's true, that you can only ever be right. Unfortunately for your brethren in blue, you're the type of guy that gives them a bad reputation and everyone else the $hit$.
S64.
First of all this:
Then:
Yeah, sounds like the RAF have it wrong and Australian Army Aviation are correct. People in blue suits definitely don't understand ground maneuver :
I guess if he were Army he would have performed better due to his enhanced understanding of "ground maneuver" and been awarded a VC.
I guess if he were Army he would have performed better due to his enhanced understanding of "ground maneuver" and been awarded a VC.
So which is it, should ADG's be RAAF or Army? Looks like all you really want to do is beat whichever drum supports your argument at the time. I guess you're another prime example of over a decade of being told 'you're the cream of the crop', you start to believe that it's true, that you can only ever be right. Unfortunately for your brethren in blue, you're the type of guy that gives them a bad reputation and everyone else the $hit$.
S64.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I can't see the CO of 5Avn being any more keen to waste a couple of his helicopters and crews than a RAAF CO would have been."
From one who has been on the greasy side of those things (81-89 repairing avionics for USMC), it all depends on what the definition of "waste" is... and on one's definition of "acceptable risk" and "possibility of success", now doesn't it?
The commander whose men are the ones in dire need of the "air support/medevac/lift out" is probably going to rate their risk a little heavier than someone else's aircrew's risk, while a "different service" commander loaning his aircrew and helo out to aid someone else's men is likely to reverse the weightings.
The Army commander is not disregarding the safety of the aircrew even a smidgeon (in his mind), he just has a greater sense of urgency about his own men's needs.
This is NOT usually a deliberate, conscious decision... this weighting mostly happens on the subconscious, emotional level.
This is simply a fact of human nature... you care more about those you know personally, or who you have been given specific responsibility for.
Does this mean the ground commander is more correct... or correct more times?
Not necessarily, but as the one "on the ground", you feel more comfortable relying on the commander "in our own service" than that "different service" commander.
Once again, a subconscious, emotional level thing more than a rational opinion based on experience.
You may have great support from "those other guys" 95% of the time, but one bad experience (or one mis-percieved as bad) can outweigh dozens of good experiences.
I do know that both the US Army and the USMC ground elements feel & claim that Army rotary-wing and USMC fast jet & rotary-wing air support is pressed more closely and persistently than USN & USAF air support is... correct or not, that is what they feel.
Thus an Army in command of the ADF wants the helos on the "Army's team", right or wrong.
Of course, the aircrew are now "his men" as well, now aren't they... so the same dynamic will keep him from "wasting" them, won't it?
From one who has been on the greasy side of those things (81-89 repairing avionics for USMC), it all depends on what the definition of "waste" is... and on one's definition of "acceptable risk" and "possibility of success", now doesn't it?
The commander whose men are the ones in dire need of the "air support/medevac/lift out" is probably going to rate their risk a little heavier than someone else's aircrew's risk, while a "different service" commander loaning his aircrew and helo out to aid someone else's men is likely to reverse the weightings.
The Army commander is not disregarding the safety of the aircrew even a smidgeon (in his mind), he just has a greater sense of urgency about his own men's needs.
This is NOT usually a deliberate, conscious decision... this weighting mostly happens on the subconscious, emotional level.
This is simply a fact of human nature... you care more about those you know personally, or who you have been given specific responsibility for.
Does this mean the ground commander is more correct... or correct more times?
Not necessarily, but as the one "on the ground", you feel more comfortable relying on the commander "in our own service" than that "different service" commander.
Once again, a subconscious, emotional level thing more than a rational opinion based on experience.
You may have great support from "those other guys" 95% of the time, but one bad experience (or one mis-percieved as bad) can outweigh dozens of good experiences.
I do know that both the US Army and the USMC ground elements feel & claim that Army rotary-wing and USMC fast jet & rotary-wing air support is pressed more closely and persistently than USN & USAF air support is... correct or not, that is what they feel.
Thus an Army in command of the ADF wants the helos on the "Army's team", right or wrong.
Of course, the aircrew are now "his men" as well, now aren't they... so the same dynamic will keep him from "wasting" them, won't it?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One comment to add to my previous statements on attitudes and "pressing attacks more closely".
The A-6E Intruder (all-weather heavy attack jet, for those not familiar with US equipment) has something I have not seen on any other aircraft: externally mounted "bolt-on" armor plates for the engines... which are issued to each squadron, and with which they periodically fly in order to get used to how they affect performance.
At least... each USMC squadron has them... I saw them in VMA(AW)-242's hangar, have helped load & unload VMA(AW)-121's armor during our 1985-1987 deployments (to Korea & the Arabian Gulf) aboard CV-61 Ranger, and have seen both squadron's aircraft flying with them.
I never saw any armor at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington (the USN's West coast A-6E/EA-6B base), nor did the USN A-6E squadron on Ranger (VA(AW)-145) bring any with them!
Just some food for thought...
The A-6E Intruder (all-weather heavy attack jet, for those not familiar with US equipment) has something I have not seen on any other aircraft: externally mounted "bolt-on" armor plates for the engines... which are issued to each squadron, and with which they periodically fly in order to get used to how they affect performance.
At least... each USMC squadron has them... I saw them in VMA(AW)-242's hangar, have helped load & unload VMA(AW)-121's armor during our 1985-1987 deployments (to Korea & the Arabian Gulf) aboard CV-61 Ranger, and have seen both squadron's aircraft flying with them.
I never saw any armor at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington (the USN's West coast A-6E/EA-6B base), nor did the USN A-6E squadron on Ranger (VA(AW)-145) bring any with them!
Just some food for thought...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I have been lurking in the wings on this thread for a while - and it is like de ja vue from some threads that appeared (and from time to time still do) here on Prune having a good slagging match between Services.
Most is banter, some is harsh and the rest is just ill informed, arrogant, jealous ranting.
However, recently rounds going both way in an Operational theatre that has not only 'pressed to test' the whole Joint thing but also the air/land integration (at the tactical/shop floor level).
I do not see any posts from the 'Patriot' callsigns or the 'cabbage and potato dressed group' - who are doing a superb job and really supporting the customer on the ground. This is where it counts.
I am not for one moment saying that the UK template of the Joint Helicopter Command is a role model - it has some significant work to do, but I really hope that you put all this bitching behind you as when it counts the indications from this thread are that you all need to pull together you will have so much superflous rubbish to wade through before you recognise that you are all in it together. I thought that it was us Pommies that whinged!
One thing is for sure that if you do not unite together and keep the historical mud slinging to friendly banter then in a climate of tight budgets, NAO reports and high operational tempos you will be swallowed up by those that are united and know exactly what they want out of a budget/procurement (I am sure that the RAN or the Gunners would just love to exploit any cracks appearing in the 'winged community').
You have so much going for you - ABCCC,C17, JSF, ARH Tiger, UAVs, MRH 90, new ships - a real spend fest as you come back into the sphere of a credible world wide defence capability (and dont just push your SF and medics on Ops).
So pull together - train together (hard I know when you are geographically based so far apart!), that way - when it happens (i.e. Contact Wait Out) - you will be able to fight together.
If I get this this thread right it is all about ownership of of a light fixed wing capability - an air taxi/limted movement of men/material?I would suggest that you want to start looking at your ARH/CH 47 integration and your rotary wing/infantry integration and your Air Component (CAS)/Land Component (ARH/Infantry) integration and prioritise the King Air debate to lower in the stack. The King Air debate could be done be done by readers of Flight International or Aviation Week as a Christmas competition, the Joint integrated battle takes all - the Staff College graduates, the old and bold specialist aviators and most importantly the bloke/girl on the ground in harms way calling you in and more than likely danger close.
Just a thought and observation?
I have been lurking in the wings on this thread for a while - and it is like de ja vue from some threads that appeared (and from time to time still do) here on Prune having a good slagging match between Services.
Most is banter, some is harsh and the rest is just ill informed, arrogant, jealous ranting.
However, recently rounds going both way in an Operational theatre that has not only 'pressed to test' the whole Joint thing but also the air/land integration (at the tactical/shop floor level).
I do not see any posts from the 'Patriot' callsigns or the 'cabbage and potato dressed group' - who are doing a superb job and really supporting the customer on the ground. This is where it counts.
I am not for one moment saying that the UK template of the Joint Helicopter Command is a role model - it has some significant work to do, but I really hope that you put all this bitching behind you as when it counts the indications from this thread are that you all need to pull together you will have so much superflous rubbish to wade through before you recognise that you are all in it together. I thought that it was us Pommies that whinged!
One thing is for sure that if you do not unite together and keep the historical mud slinging to friendly banter then in a climate of tight budgets, NAO reports and high operational tempos you will be swallowed up by those that are united and know exactly what they want out of a budget/procurement (I am sure that the RAN or the Gunners would just love to exploit any cracks appearing in the 'winged community').
You have so much going for you - ABCCC,C17, JSF, ARH Tiger, UAVs, MRH 90, new ships - a real spend fest as you come back into the sphere of a credible world wide defence capability (and dont just push your SF and medics on Ops).
So pull together - train together (hard I know when you are geographically based so far apart!), that way - when it happens (i.e. Contact Wait Out) - you will be able to fight together.
If I get this this thread right it is all about ownership of of a light fixed wing capability - an air taxi/limted movement of men/material?I would suggest that you want to start looking at your ARH/CH 47 integration and your rotary wing/infantry integration and your Air Component (CAS)/Land Component (ARH/Infantry) integration and prioritise the King Air debate to lower in the stack. The King Air debate could be done be done by readers of Flight International or Aviation Week as a Christmas competition, the Joint integrated battle takes all - the Staff College graduates, the old and bold specialist aviators and most importantly the bloke/girl on the ground in harms way calling you in and more than likely danger close.
Just a thought and observation?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark Six,
I was probably there with the RAAF when your father was in country and could well have known him.
I also flew briefly with the US Army. The US Army lost more helos in accidents in the RSVN than they did to enemy fire. I am at a loss to see what sort of a recce you could conduct at 100feet/90knots.
I was not Air Force and was critical of some of the dictatorial attitudes RAAF Senior Officers had to Army requirements. However at an operator level the Army, particularly the SAS, had nothing but praise for RAAF support.
In a book written about 1RAR's experience in RSVN a sentence in essence reads "when the face in the cockpit was sporting a beard we knew the job would be done right".
In a later part of my mil career I was instrumental in developing Naval Aviation tactics in support of SAS Bass Straight oil rig protection.
Comments passed to me at the time were that Army received more co-operative support from Naval Air than they did from Air Force. The Brits had the same experience earlier in places such as Borneo.
GAGS
E86
I was probably there with the RAAF when your father was in country and could well have known him.
I also flew briefly with the US Army. The US Army lost more helos in accidents in the RSVN than they did to enemy fire. I am at a loss to see what sort of a recce you could conduct at 100feet/90knots.
I was not Air Force and was critical of some of the dictatorial attitudes RAAF Senior Officers had to Army requirements. However at an operator level the Army, particularly the SAS, had nothing but praise for RAAF support.
In a book written about 1RAR's experience in RSVN a sentence in essence reads "when the face in the cockpit was sporting a beard we knew the job would be done right".
In a later part of my mil career I was instrumental in developing Naval Aviation tactics in support of SAS Bass Straight oil rig protection.
Comments passed to me at the time were that Army received more co-operative support from Naval Air than they did from Air Force. The Brits had the same experience earlier in places such as Borneo.
GAGS
E86
Last edited by eagle 86; 19th Dec 2006 at 23:02.
Eagle 86,
No argument with any of your points. I think my father was just making the point that the Americans were happy to do pretty much whatever was asked of them when it came to utilising their helicopters and supporting the Army.
I also remember the line about the bearded face - must have read the same book. You won't get any argument from me regarding Naval support for the SAS either- I had the pleasure of flying the Wessex in Bass Strait in formation at night on cyalume sticks. Was that your idea?!
No argument with any of your points. I think my father was just making the point that the Americans were happy to do pretty much whatever was asked of them when it came to utilising their helicopters and supporting the Army.
I also remember the line about the bearded face - must have read the same book. You won't get any argument from me regarding Naval support for the SAS either- I had the pleasure of flying the Wessex in Bass Strait in formation at night on cyalume sticks. Was that your idea?!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New South Wales
Age: 55
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it about time that I add that the RAAF were good at operating rotary assests along as it wasn't on the week end, public holiday's, at night or in the wet!
Seriously, I've spent 22 years looking after these rotary wing beasties for both pussers and the army and am more than happy with the way both of these services operate. I know that I dont have the "operational experience" of the aircraft that some of you have, but I definately have the deployed experience to say that from my experiences everyone did their jobs professionally and displayed all the attributes that all of you want in a professional military helicopter pilot. I have worked in tri-service enviroments on operations and can happily say that everyone did want was asked, no matter who was in charge, and every task was achieved. With all the cooperation and "networking" we all do, we have been and always will be a big happy family in the rotary wing world. Don't deny it, our world is very small and everyone knows everyone, and the cooperation between the three services with helicopters has been a very successful and friendly.
As for the tactics, warfighting, landwarfare etc, its my hubble opinion that because alot of this is experience gained from various overseas countries and at home, being UK, US or other, each service has been trained for a purpose by others and knows their jobs well without needing to know what everyone else has to do or is doing.
If you want to what a sh#t fight is like, have a read of the book by the retired USAF Colonel who was in charge of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the tradegy at Desert 1, now thats a book that will open your eyes to your original question about who should operate helicopter! Try having an operation with marines, army, navy and airforce trying to operate together in this example!
Seriously, I've spent 22 years looking after these rotary wing beasties for both pussers and the army and am more than happy with the way both of these services operate. I know that I dont have the "operational experience" of the aircraft that some of you have, but I definately have the deployed experience to say that from my experiences everyone did their jobs professionally and displayed all the attributes that all of you want in a professional military helicopter pilot. I have worked in tri-service enviroments on operations and can happily say that everyone did want was asked, no matter who was in charge, and every task was achieved. With all the cooperation and "networking" we all do, we have been and always will be a big happy family in the rotary wing world. Don't deny it, our world is very small and everyone knows everyone, and the cooperation between the three services with helicopters has been a very successful and friendly.
As for the tactics, warfighting, landwarfare etc, its my hubble opinion that because alot of this is experience gained from various overseas countries and at home, being UK, US or other, each service has been trained for a purpose by others and knows their jobs well without needing to know what everyone else has to do or is doing.
If you want to what a sh#t fight is like, have a read of the book by the retired USAF Colonel who was in charge of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the tradegy at Desert 1, now thats a book that will open your eyes to your original question about who should operate helicopter! Try having an operation with marines, army, navy and airforce trying to operate together in this example!
I had the pleasure of being on Kangaroo 1, whereby the RAAF provided support to the Army and others. At the end of each day, the RAAF returned to Rocky and headed off to the motel for a good night's sleep, aided by a few bottles of anaesthetic.
Come time for K2, the grunts had moaned long and hard about the RAAF being in a motel, so this time, we were in tents on the airfield, with Thunderboxes dug just next to the perimeter road, which elicited a few catcalls from passing motorists. Not as good as a motel, but we still slept. But still the grunts moaned.
Eventually, the RAAF choppers were encamped with the army lads. Which was a seriously bad idea. This was the dawning of lots of night ops and NVGs, but sadly, the aircrews could not get sleep in a tent in an active army camp during the day. Result, tired aircrew flogging around in the dark. Result, one Huey smeared over a hillside and lots of dead people.
Lots of finger pointing, but the Streakers Defence was used :
"It seemed like a good idea at the time."
The ADF has pulled the Streakers Defence plenty of times since then, and one person's good idea is another's definition of stupidity.
It has been that way forever, and will probably continue to be.
Come time for K2, the grunts had moaned long and hard about the RAAF being in a motel, so this time, we were in tents on the airfield, with Thunderboxes dug just next to the perimeter road, which elicited a few catcalls from passing motorists. Not as good as a motel, but we still slept. But still the grunts moaned.
Eventually, the RAAF choppers were encamped with the army lads. Which was a seriously bad idea. This was the dawning of lots of night ops and NVGs, but sadly, the aircrews could not get sleep in a tent in an active army camp during the day. Result, tired aircrew flogging around in the dark. Result, one Huey smeared over a hillside and lots of dead people.
Lots of finger pointing, but the Streakers Defence was used :
"It seemed like a good idea at the time."
The ADF has pulled the Streakers Defence plenty of times since then, and one person's good idea is another's definition of stupidity.
It has been that way forever, and will probably continue to be.