Why no takers for an AAC exchange?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,132
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
We don't salute ours though. In fact we don't salute yours either.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Front Seater,
Agree entirely, with the proviso that I think the problem is much wider. It is the ethos of the Army's Officer Corps as much as the Army Air Corps that wholly abhors the idea of a regular officer being a specialist at anything. Because of this there appears to be a complete dichotomy over the experience required to be an effective Squadron Commander, where candidates who generally excel at the staff work can easily lose credibility over lack of relevant flying experience and knowledge. I don't think the Gunner/Cavalry mafia are quite ready to accept any Helicopter as a "tool of the trade", never mind something as capable and effective as an Apache.
Whilst using WO's and SNCO's in the "Specialist Aircrew" role gives them some structure and motivation (and stops a complete draining of a superb resource), it merely adds to the lie that the role of Officers in the AAC is as a kind of "bolt-on" adminstrative extra required to simply to sign off manning and training reports to DAAVn. Whatever their faults (too many to list here) at least the RAF understand that the correct and effective operation of strategic battle winning assets requires the use of professionals who are experts in their field. In their case it is an Officer Corps, but RAF Spec Aircrew is the mechanism by which they achieve the skill and experience levels required without penalising the career of those specialists (financially anyway).
Sad to see that in 2007 the Army still imbibes the principles of leadership it first used in 1914, but it will be difficult for any "lions" in the AAC (if there are any left) to win this battle with the "donkeys" in command.
Agree entirely, with the proviso that I think the problem is much wider. It is the ethos of the Army's Officer Corps as much as the Army Air Corps that wholly abhors the idea of a regular officer being a specialist at anything. Because of this there appears to be a complete dichotomy over the experience required to be an effective Squadron Commander, where candidates who generally excel at the staff work can easily lose credibility over lack of relevant flying experience and knowledge. I don't think the Gunner/Cavalry mafia are quite ready to accept any Helicopter as a "tool of the trade", never mind something as capable and effective as an Apache.
Whilst using WO's and SNCO's in the "Specialist Aircrew" role gives them some structure and motivation (and stops a complete draining of a superb resource), it merely adds to the lie that the role of Officers in the AAC is as a kind of "bolt-on" adminstrative extra required to simply to sign off manning and training reports to DAAVn. Whatever their faults (too many to list here) at least the RAF understand that the correct and effective operation of strategic battle winning assets requires the use of professionals who are experts in their field. In their case it is an Officer Corps, but RAF Spec Aircrew is the mechanism by which they achieve the skill and experience levels required without penalising the career of those specialists (financially anyway).
Sad to see that in 2007 the Army still imbibes the principles of leadership it first used in 1914, but it will be difficult for any "lions" in the AAC (if there are any left) to win this battle with the "donkeys" in command.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The solution for the British Army Air Corps might be a separate Warrant Officer Corps with opportunities for civilian as well as enlisted entry.
I haven't heard anything recently about this though.
Last edited by chafford5; 30th Jun 2007 at 17:56.
No - the solution is for DAAvn to push hard enough to make the rest of the green Army realise the AAC is different now and needs a different (and strangely similar to the RAF) career path for Officers.
This was obvious 10 years ago as AH was en route - now it is costing money and capability because Glasgow can't see the problem.
This was obvious 10 years ago as AH was en route - now it is costing money and capability because Glasgow can't see the problem.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or - wait for it - we could go properly Joint in the Battlefield Helicopter arena and all fight for the same company/organisation, with the same uniform, same Terms and Conditions, same career aspirations and options.
From the shop floor it would be so easy - it is only how the Genrals and Admirals sort out their one star career paths that would take some work.
As to what to do with the SNCOs and WOs - I think that the Fisheads had the right idea with 847 and run them all through an RCB/Officer selection equivalent - those that made the grade got commissioned, those that weren't up to it or didn't want the frontal lobotomy just 'timed out' on their careers and were natural wastage.
Just think of the pool of manpower and retention positive measures you would have then - no need for FRIs, or ill feeling because of different Terms and Conditions.
Once this was done then the Joint Helicopter officer can chose - if he wants a full on career, then standby for some Staff jobs (and lets be honest there are some very good and also experienced aviators (normally Crab/Fishead I am embarrassed to admit) that have the credibility to do shuffle paper work around Main Building and also command and lead their men on operations from the cockpit. If he wants a career solely in the cockpit then standby for many tours away and the usual squadron life (your life, you chose it, so stop whingeing) and then there is the 'bit of this and bit of that' B team that float in and out of staff/flying jobs - not thrusters, but still essential to the whole staff effort to get helicopters airborne and also giving them (and their families) a rest from the numerous op tours and exercises.
And if it is the rest of the green army that is stopping this transition or individuals looking at their future careers stopping (because funny old thing true Jointery will reduce the staff officers required, especially at the higher levels -then it is a pity as so much could be done so easily (I think the staff world call it a 'quick win'?).
And before people recount the Canadian experience then lets study their transition and see why it had its 'speed bumps' and lets look at the Aussies and see if theirs is truly working. With any luck we dont have to make the same mistakes that they did - and lets be honest with JHC already in place we are virtually there.
I would also be interested to hear from the Harrier boys and see if their Jointery has reduced operational effectiveness - it certainly solved the Harrier retention issue that started this whole FRI issue going back in the late 90s. But apart from RN ethos and history - all very important stuff - have the Sqns still produced the goods.
Whatever happens, whatever uniform we end up wearing, wherever we go - true jointery should not destroy ethos and tradition - a Joint Amphib Wing will always be commanded by someone that has pedigree in Amphib and therefore things like Taranto will always happen, the same goes for the RAF SH guys, whatever the uniform they will always have their Mess habits, Battle Britain pi$$ ups etc.
So what are we frightened of? From a bean counters perspective (and rarely do I put accountancy into any of my threads!) and also from operational capability - why aren't we becoming truly joined up?
From the shop floor it would be so easy - it is only how the Genrals and Admirals sort out their one star career paths that would take some work.
As to what to do with the SNCOs and WOs - I think that the Fisheads had the right idea with 847 and run them all through an RCB/Officer selection equivalent - those that made the grade got commissioned, those that weren't up to it or didn't want the frontal lobotomy just 'timed out' on their careers and were natural wastage.
Just think of the pool of manpower and retention positive measures you would have then - no need for FRIs, or ill feeling because of different Terms and Conditions.
Once this was done then the Joint Helicopter officer can chose - if he wants a full on career, then standby for some Staff jobs (and lets be honest there are some very good and also experienced aviators (normally Crab/Fishead I am embarrassed to admit) that have the credibility to do shuffle paper work around Main Building and also command and lead their men on operations from the cockpit. If he wants a career solely in the cockpit then standby for many tours away and the usual squadron life (your life, you chose it, so stop whingeing) and then there is the 'bit of this and bit of that' B team that float in and out of staff/flying jobs - not thrusters, but still essential to the whole staff effort to get helicopters airborne and also giving them (and their families) a rest from the numerous op tours and exercises.
And if it is the rest of the green army that is stopping this transition or individuals looking at their future careers stopping (because funny old thing true Jointery will reduce the staff officers required, especially at the higher levels -then it is a pity as so much could be done so easily (I think the staff world call it a 'quick win'?).
And before people recount the Canadian experience then lets study their transition and see why it had its 'speed bumps' and lets look at the Aussies and see if theirs is truly working. With any luck we dont have to make the same mistakes that they did - and lets be honest with JHC already in place we are virtually there.
I would also be interested to hear from the Harrier boys and see if their Jointery has reduced operational effectiveness - it certainly solved the Harrier retention issue that started this whole FRI issue going back in the late 90s. But apart from RN ethos and history - all very important stuff - have the Sqns still produced the goods.
Whatever happens, whatever uniform we end up wearing, wherever we go - true jointery should not destroy ethos and tradition - a Joint Amphib Wing will always be commanded by someone that has pedigree in Amphib and therefore things like Taranto will always happen, the same goes for the RAF SH guys, whatever the uniform they will always have their Mess habits, Battle Britain pi$$ ups etc.
So what are we frightened of? From a bean counters perspective (and rarely do I put accountancy into any of my threads!) and also from operational capability - why aren't we becoming truly joined up?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
why aren't we becoming truly joined up?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the ethos of the Army's Officer Corps as much as the Army Air Corps that wholly abhors the idea of a regular officer being a specialist at anything.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jointery a good idea?
Sorry mate,
When I walked past the Army/RN CIO's in 1988, I missed the door marked 'worst of all 3 services'.
If you think Jointery is a good idea, you obviously spend your days in a staff job at Wilton and not on the O boat.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong!
WM
When I walked past the Army/RN CIO's in 1988, I missed the door marked 'worst of all 3 services'.
If you think Jointery is a good idea, you obviously spend your days in a staff job at Wilton and not on the O boat.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong!
WM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jeep - you are right, it is just a matter of time....before JHC become 3 Group under Air Cmd. Makes complete sense if you ask me. Put a rotational 2star in as the Comd/AOC and there is no real change from the JHC. If the Army still aren't happy, let the AAC fill the top slot more frequently. Shouldn't really matter beacuse we all serve in the same **** holes under the same (well nearly) rules. I think you will find that you might actually get an SH/BH/AH Force that is better resourced if its not competing with Green army stuff fromthe LAND TLB.
For me - I'm leaving the RAF and joining the Army.......
HPT
For me - I'm leaving the RAF and joining the Army.......
HPT
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wokka,
We might not agree but I would be very interested to hear why you are so adamant that Jointery is wrong. Are you talking in general or specific incidents/experiences that have influenced your opinion?
And no I am not in a Staff job (dont make me laugh!) and if you are referring to the O boat being the RN helicopter carrier, then no that was one of the other AH Sqns (but I think they found the whole experience very rewarding and actually were saddened not to be doing more of the Fishead stuff).
And if you dont see Jointery as the way forward, what is your proposal, ideas and suggestions?
We might not agree but I would be very interested to hear why you are so adamant that Jointery is wrong. Are you talking in general or specific incidents/experiences that have influenced your opinion?
And no I am not in a Staff job (dont make me laugh!) and if you are referring to the O boat being the RN helicopter carrier, then no that was one of the other AH Sqns (but I think they found the whole experience very rewarding and actually were saddened not to be doing more of the Fishead stuff).
And if you dont see Jointery as the way forward, what is your proposal, ideas and suggestions?
Guest
Posts: n/a
JHC was set up to standardise procedures across the 3 services. Has it done this?
They have skimmed round the periphery in the greatest traditions of Nu Labour without actually solving any problems. Most of the major issues are still unresolved.
The JHC flying order book is sacrosant even though much of it is ass covering.
Examples.
Enter JHC in 2000, the swim test becomes annual (like I have forgotten how to swim in 12 months).
The Arctic Survival Training we used to do under the direction of the Pathfinders becomes difficult, as the RN have written into the FOB that a JWI/AWI must carry out such trg.
It is, in short, a self licking lillipop full of many meaningless SO2 posts. This is not an Army/RN rant, as many of our own (RAF) SO2's are just as zealous at imposing meaningless directives.
WM
They have skimmed round the periphery in the greatest traditions of Nu Labour without actually solving any problems. Most of the major issues are still unresolved.
The JHC flying order book is sacrosant even though much of it is ass covering.
Examples.
Enter JHC in 2000, the swim test becomes annual (like I have forgotten how to swim in 12 months).
The Arctic Survival Training we used to do under the direction of the Pathfinders becomes difficult, as the RN have written into the FOB that a JWI/AWI must carry out such trg.
It is, in short, a self licking lillipop full of many meaningless SO2 posts. This is not an Army/RN rant, as many of our own (RAF) SO2's are just as zealous at imposing meaningless directives.
WM
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HPT,
How the devil are you old chap? Did you know Army Standards has a fishead inbound? How about that for progress? Who knows, perhaps a crab on AH next. Small steps but still a march towards the RFC.
Wokka,
Small beer mate. All those regs you dont like can be changed if they are ****e, just follow the correct process.
If you really want something to moan about, explain why the future lynx wont be able to ground taxi even though its got wheels. Would you want a wheeled helicopter without the ability to ground taxi? Imagine having the capability to do a running takeoff but having to hover into position first.
Could some fishy type explain to this poor pongo why you would need to castor and harpoon at the same time? Genuinely interested in that one.
Jeep
How the devil are you old chap? Did you know Army Standards has a fishead inbound? How about that for progress? Who knows, perhaps a crab on AH next. Small steps but still a march towards the RFC.
Wokka,
Small beer mate. All those regs you dont like can be changed if they are ****e, just follow the correct process.
If you really want something to moan about, explain why the future lynx wont be able to ground taxi even though its got wheels. Would you want a wheeled helicopter without the ability to ground taxi? Imagine having the capability to do a running takeoff but having to hover into position first.
Could some fishy type explain to this poor pongo why you would need to castor and harpoon at the same time? Genuinely interested in that one.
Jeep
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes its odd that the Army buy more Future Lynx than the Navy and yet it seems to suit a life on the ocean wave much better than that of the old landlubber!
Not much use on our present engagements unless you wish to anchor your assets of Kuwait.
Not much use on our present engagements unless you wish to anchor your assets of Kuwait.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not deceive ourselves on this - the reason why the Fort Rucker exchange has gone to a WO1 and why the Aussie Blackhawk exchange is the same is for the simple reason that the Corps does not have enough Captains to send on these exchange tours and fulfill the numerous Adjutant, Ops Officer and other Staff jobs.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Imagine having the capability to do a running takeoff but having to hover into position first
Thread Starter
F Lynx
Strange seeing 'future' and 'Lynx' in the same sentence. Why not buy some NH-90 or even Augustas to replace the MK.9 'wheezing wheely bins' rather than shoring up wastelands and getting another half assed product.
On another note, and this is something normally 'discussed' over a few wets :why not let the Army operate all Helicopters ? That way the RAF can concentrate on providing fast air and AT and can spend the pitiful helo budget on a VC10/tanker/ replacement and some more predators?
On another note, and this is something normally 'discussed' over a few wets :why not let the Army operate all Helicopters ? That way the RAF can concentrate on providing fast air and AT and can spend the pitiful helo budget on a VC10/tanker/ replacement and some more predators?
Last edited by Stitchbitch; 7th Jul 2007 at 14:24. Reason: spulling mestkesa
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"On another note, and this is something normally 'discussed' over a few wets :why not let the Army operate all Helicopters ?"
Because to the "Brown" powers that be all air assets are simply a variation on a four tonner......ergo they would simply f@ck it up.
And purple is merely a shade of green
Because to the "Brown" powers that be all air assets are simply a variation on a four tonner......ergo they would simply f@ck it up.
And purple is merely a shade of green