AAC King Air / BN Defender 4000 order
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAC King Air / BN Defender 4000 order
I read on Wikipedia (so it must be true!) that the AAC ordered four King Air 350s in July 2007. I also read somewhere else (I think on Hansard) that the AAC were going to order four more Defender 4000s around the same time. Did both orders go ahead? Or were the King Airs ordered instead of the Defenders?
If they do go for King Airs, will they actually be flown by AAC, or will the RAF take them over given that they already operate King Airs?
If they do go for King Airs, will they actually be flown by AAC, or will the RAF take them over given that they already operate King Airs?
"'Fitting out' of (some) stuff being done at Blackbushe. Well, one of 'em is there, at least."
Not correct. The one at Blackbushe is a B200GT for SERCO/45 Sqn at Cranwell (the first of 2 new ones).
The ones at Hawarden are the four B300s that the original poster alludes to. These are more like USArmy Guardrail types than the multi-engined trainers operated from Cranwell.
There are 2 distinctly different orders/requirements.
Not correct. The one at Blackbushe is a B200GT for SERCO/45 Sqn at Cranwell (the first of 2 new ones).
The ones at Hawarden are the four B300s that the original poster alludes to. These are more like USArmy Guardrail types than the multi-engined trainers operated from Cranwell.
There are 2 distinctly different orders/requirements.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know if the Guardrail types will be operated by AAC or RAF?
I read that the B350 Guardrails are for an army role (presumably 651 sqn, alongside the Defenders). However, I can imagine the RAF might argue that the B350s are a bit big and heavy for AAC, and may argue that they are better suited to operating them, given that they already have plenty of B200s.
I also read about a year ago on Arrse that there was a plan to transfer the RAF Northolt Islanders to 651 Sqn, in return for ceding the Kingairs to RAF control. It would seem to be a fairly sensible plan.
I read that the B350 Guardrails are for an army role (presumably 651 sqn, alongside the Defenders). However, I can imagine the RAF might argue that the B350s are a bit big and heavy for AAC, and may argue that they are better suited to operating them, given that they already have plenty of B200s.
I also read about a year ago on Arrse that there was a plan to transfer the RAF Northolt Islanders to 651 Sqn, in return for ceding the Kingairs to RAF control. It would seem to be a fairly sensible plan.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again.....
So before we waste too much time .......Jointery is not going to happen I tell you, we must all think single service and colours of suits because that is the true measure of a capability (isn't it?) and because it is fixed wing, the AAC have no right (or ability) to expand a capability or skill just as the other 2 Services shouldn't look to do UAVs, Satellites or whatever the new military direction is.
Now if I am missing something and Teenie Weenies are not in a position to operate this capability (whether in and out of Northolt or in the 'Gan') then please enlighten me - I am all ears.
Remember all us 'blue suiters' that said the Army Air Corps couldn't operate Apache, remember that headline in RAF news just prior to the first AH deployment (CH47 making Afghanistan safe for the Apache!) that backfired when the Apache and AAC crews did deliver in spades (and has subsequently saved/protected many a CH47 I believe) and made us all in blue look real single service 'knobs' up our own 'bravados'?
What we should be saying is - great,new capability long over due and something that the guys on the frontline want here and now - how can we help, do we have something from our years of ISR experience to assist you guys get it into service.
Rather than, 'it should be mine and I want to fly it'. I have no love or loyalty to the AAC, but before shooting from the hip we should maybe get our argument/facts in place first - otherwise when we really do want to raise a red flag and say 'hang on fellas' you guys might not be the best people for this job etc then people will maybe listen rather than the all too common 'computer says no' approach.
So before we waste too much time .......Jointery is not going to happen I tell you, we must all think single service and colours of suits because that is the true measure of a capability (isn't it?) and because it is fixed wing, the AAC have no right (or ability) to expand a capability or skill just as the other 2 Services shouldn't look to do UAVs, Satellites or whatever the new military direction is.
Now if I am missing something and Teenie Weenies are not in a position to operate this capability (whether in and out of Northolt or in the 'Gan') then please enlighten me - I am all ears.
Remember all us 'blue suiters' that said the Army Air Corps couldn't operate Apache, remember that headline in RAF news just prior to the first AH deployment (CH47 making Afghanistan safe for the Apache!) that backfired when the Apache and AAC crews did deliver in spades (and has subsequently saved/protected many a CH47 I believe) and made us all in blue look real single service 'knobs' up our own 'bravados'?
What we should be saying is - great,new capability long over due and something that the guys on the frontline want here and now - how can we help, do we have something from our years of ISR experience to assist you guys get it into service.
Rather than, 'it should be mine and I want to fly it'. I have no love or loyalty to the AAC, but before shooting from the hip we should maybe get our argument/facts in place first - otherwise when we really do want to raise a red flag and say 'hang on fellas' you guys might not be the best people for this job etc then people will maybe listen rather than the all too common 'computer says no' approach.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army Air Corps fixed wing pilots are more than capable of flying fixed wing aircraft under all circumstances and in any theatre. Beavers were used extensively in the airways of many countries as are the Islanders.
I will never understand the mentality of some of you who think that all Army pilots are thick grunts who can only speak in 1 syllable words. Please, RAF, get over yourselves !!!!
I will never understand the mentality of some of you who think that all Army pilots are thick grunts who can only speak in 1 syllable words. Please, RAF, get over yourselves !!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny, I don't think the issue is whether or not AAC pilots could fly the KingAirs - of course they could, when trained to do so. I think the issue is more whether it is financially sensible to use AAC or RAF pilots in the role.
It is a fair bit of extra training to learn to fly a two-pilot Airways aircraft like the KingAir. In the AAC the KingAir 350 would be a career sidestep out of RW - indeed plank flying has sometimes been regarded as part of "resettlement" in AAC. Also, given the apparent shortage of AAC Apache pilots I would think the AAC would be reluctant to exacerbate the problem by streaming twenty or so of their pilots into a longish KingAir training progam. In the RAF, however, the Guardrail would just be part of the multi-engine career path, so the investment in training would be amortised over a longer career path, and they already have a pool of trained multi-engine pilots to pick from.
I guess the AAC historically got away with operating the Islanders as they are a lighter and simpler aircraft, single-pilot aircraft, which was used mainly in a liaison and light-surveillance role, and there were only a couple of them until the Defenders came along.
It will be interesting to see who gets primacy over the KingAirs - my guess is that they will go to the RAF.
It is a fair bit of extra training to learn to fly a two-pilot Airways aircraft like the KingAir. In the AAC the KingAir 350 would be a career sidestep out of RW - indeed plank flying has sometimes been regarded as part of "resettlement" in AAC. Also, given the apparent shortage of AAC Apache pilots I would think the AAC would be reluctant to exacerbate the problem by streaming twenty or so of their pilots into a longish KingAir training progam. In the RAF, however, the Guardrail would just be part of the multi-engine career path, so the investment in training would be amortised over a longer career path, and they already have a pool of trained multi-engine pilots to pick from.
I guess the AAC historically got away with operating the Islanders as they are a lighter and simpler aircraft, single-pilot aircraft, which was used mainly in a liaison and light-surveillance role, and there were only a couple of them until the Defenders came along.
It will be interesting to see who gets primacy over the KingAirs - my guess is that they will go to the RAF.
Last edited by richatom; 18th May 2008 at 07:24.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite funny to read these arguments because as Gnd said, this decision was taken over a year ago! If you don't know the outcome, it's probably because you don't need to!! (Don't bite too hard, that bit was ironic!)
Let's not kid ourselves that the decision as to who was to operate the aircraft had anything to do with operational capability. It had nothing whatsoever to do with capability and everything to do with single service politics. The outcome gave a little of something to each of the two services who contested ownership and interestingly now, both parties are struggling to arrive at the position that the 'carve up' requires.
Still, days to do...........
Let's not kid ourselves that the decision as to who was to operate the aircraft had anything to do with operational capability. It had nothing whatsoever to do with capability and everything to do with single service politics. The outcome gave a little of something to each of the two services who contested ownership and interestingly now, both parties are struggling to arrive at the position that the 'carve up' requires.
Still, days to do...........
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a fair bit of extra training to learn to fly a two-pilot Airways aircraft like the KingAir.
In the AAC the KingAir 350 would be a career sidestep out of RW - indeed plank flying has sometimes been regarded as part of "resettlement" in AAC.
Also, given the apparent shortage of AAC Apache pilots I would think the AAC would be reluctant to exacerbate the problem by streaming twenty or so of their pilots into a longish KingAir training progam.
In the RAF, however, the Guardrail would just be part of the multi-engine career path, so the investment in training would be amortised over a longer career path, and they already have a pool of trained multi-engine pilots to pick from.
Maroonman4, absoloutley spot on. If only more were to think along your lines.
Chicken leg, check your PMs mate.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13_dummy's points are all accurate, but I was keen not to rise to the bait!
Without wanting to add to the willy waving, it is true that some parties have a very outdated view of what the AAC do and are capable of; particularly within the FW fraternity. I heard a story recently about an individual in a prominent training position who was making similar points to those above about how AAC pilots would struggle to cope with the complexity of the KA with all it's integrated avionics and glass panel. He was then shown around the Defender and quickly apologised for his earlier ignorance. It's fair to say that many people outside of the Corps still believe that the AAC are only capable of operating Gazelle type aircraft and anything more complicated is beyond their wit. I suppose it suits certain parties to continue to promote that view.
Without wanting to add to the willy waving, it is true that some parties have a very outdated view of what the AAC do and are capable of; particularly within the FW fraternity. I heard a story recently about an individual in a prominent training position who was making similar points to those above about how AAC pilots would struggle to cope with the complexity of the KA with all it's integrated avionics and glass panel. He was then shown around the Defender and quickly apologised for his earlier ignorance. It's fair to say that many people outside of the Corps still believe that the AAC are only capable of operating Gazelle type aircraft and anything more complicated is beyond their wit. I suppose it suits certain parties to continue to promote that view.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about this - AAC get all Harriers and they will give back the inferior types (FW), all the attack aircraft under one roof? Seems sensible as the AAC is the custodian of the AH rotary already.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ask me?
This is no longer about pilots or aircraft as bases seem to be the key driver here. What I mean is the collecting of as many aircraft as possible at our key bases should help keem them open. So our masters will continue to squabble over whom gets what, which shouldnt necessitate us lot at grass roots from needing to join in.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opsec gentlemen please
I don't wish to try and put a stop to this lively debate but can you think about opsec. As someone who will be utilizing the capabilty of these aircraft from the ground I would like to advise pruners to stick to the airframe debate only. This is before it drifts into the inevitable about tasking and current operations etc.
Cheers
H
Cheers
H
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't wish to try and put a stop to this lively debate but can you think about opsec. As someone who will be utilizing the capabilty of these aircraft from the ground I would like to advise pruners to stick to the airframe debate only. This is before it drifts into the inevitable about tasking and current operations etc.
Cheers
H
Cheers
H
No one has breeched opsec and I'm pretty sure those that are in the know, will not. Those that are not, will merely guess or speculate.
Do you really think it will drift into 'the inevitable' about tasking and current ops? Other threads dont so why should this one? One good thing about the mil forum is that those that may have opsec sensitive info do not post it on here. It polices itself. You barging in offering 'advice' appears to be nothing more than 'look at me, I know something important and I'm letting you all know I know something important'.
The only information that has been posted on here is what is publicly available on the wiki. A fact that the thread starter pointed out in his initial post. No one has confirmed or denied.....apart from you really.
