To all RW personnel. What are your opinions of JHC?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all RW personnel. What are your opinions of JHC?
I would like to know what people's opinions of JHC are? There seemed to be a fair amount of unease over the past couple of years regarding our illustrious command and I am now wandering if, with a change of CO, peoples impressions/experiences have improved?
The change of CO never really makes a difference. RAF/Army/RN the result is the same.
A risk averse organisation, with too many layers of management, little in the way of leadership, no budget and an ambition to micromanage everything to the point where the wheels fall off.
Apart from that, it's great.
MGD
A risk averse organisation, with too many layers of management, little in the way of leadership, no budget and an ambition to micromanage everything to the point where the wheels fall off.
Apart from that, it's great.
MGD
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the 'purple' training base has proven that when the three services are colocated with a common aim, the single service problems get diluted to the point where they are no longer a factor.
However 'colocated' and 'common aim' are very important words in that paragraph. The cross pollination of rotary members albeit a one way street to a blue uniform should assist in future jointery. A big problem is that JHC is neither one thing or the other and therefore will rank low in the budget priority list of any individual service, in short, sucking the hind one.
I overheard a conversation recently suggesting that within a decade it will be the fourth service. Perhaps such a status is needed sooner rather then later. Along with more 'purple' airbases.
So thats what happened to the Chinook at Abingdon the other year 
However 'colocated' and 'common aim' are very important words in that paragraph. The cross pollination of rotary members albeit a one way street to a blue uniform should assist in future jointery. A big problem is that JHC is neither one thing or the other and therefore will rank low in the budget priority list of any individual service, in short, sucking the hind one.
I overheard a conversation recently suggesting that within a decade it will be the fourth service. Perhaps such a status is needed sooner rather then later. Along with more 'purple' airbases.
micromanage everything to the point where the wheels fall off.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A risk averse organisation, with too many layers of management, little in the way of leadership, no budget and an ambition to micromanage everything to the point where the wheels fall off.
At the end of the day, "Joint" means "Army", which means "on a shoestring" which means "unsustainable."
You can keep purple. JHC is a sham of a mockery of a mockery of a sham. It's 3 single service organisations under 1 "Joint" umbrella with 3 sets of single service rules in 1 "Joint" rulebook. It's about as "joint" as North and South Korea...
I think there's much more chance of JHC disolving than of it becoming a "4th service". Well, we can only hope...
I think that the 'purple' training base has proven that when the three services are colocated with a common aim, the single service problems get diluted to the point where they are no longer a factor.
So thats what happened to the Chinook at Abingdon the other year
The British Army go back to running Attack Aviation, an area in which they excell. The RAF go back to managing SH, something they do very well, and the RN go back to floating about pretending the world is flat. Jointery is all well and good, but if you look at JHFA, do we need a Gazelle Pilot or a Navy Observer attempting to micromanage Chinook Ops, second guessing the experienced captain who has the whole picture? Or an SH mate overly involved in the running of the Apache program, making decisions based on very limited experience?
Most of the people in JHC (all 3 services) are very capable, but we mis-employ them out of their area of expertise just to fit in with the JHC ethos. It's pants.
I would be very surprised if JHC sees it's 15th anniversary. Not to mention a little dissappointed.
Most of the people in JHC (all 3 services) are very capable, but we mis-employ them out of their area of expertise just to fit in with the JHC ethos. It's pants.
I would be very surprised if JHC sees it's 15th anniversary. Not to mention a little dissappointed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that I have unleashed a monster in mingundiplomat!
Surely the simple solution to what people are saying here is give us more aircrew, groundcrew, helicopters and money. I think it has been proven that the soldiers on the ground need tanks, FJ support and aircraft carriers some of the time but they need helicopter support all of the time.
They can even save money by returning all those Sqn Ld pilots hunting for promotion to their old sqns. Another idea would be to discourage people changing things just because they need to look like they are doing something so they too can get promoted.
Oh and 1 more thing. We work bloody hard, how about bringing back the opportunity to play hard as well.
Surely the simple solution to what people are saying here is give us more aircrew, groundcrew, helicopters and money. I think it has been proven that the soldiers on the ground need tanks, FJ support and aircraft carriers some of the time but they need helicopter support all of the time.
They can even save money by returning all those Sqn Ld pilots hunting for promotion to their old sqns. Another idea would be to discourage people changing things just because they need to look like they are doing something so they too can get promoted.
Oh and 1 more thing. We work bloody hard, how about bringing back the opportunity to play hard as well.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not make JHC the 3rd Gp under Air Command. This would ensure a more 'joined up' Air structure and would probably mean it would get looked after better than is currently the case under LAND. Leave a Fishhead or Pongo as the the 2* to keep the single services happy and the RAF could hold the 1* DComd slot.
HPT
HPT
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would ensure a more 'joined up' Air structure
The only thing that needs to happen with JHC is to ensure the 'C' actually means Command. As has been said, it doesnt operate like a command, it operates as a Quango with pointless layers of 'management'.
The original aspirations of the JHC was to make it almost like the 'fourth service' but in reality it just became another layer of bureaucracy and a place where people 'disappeared' for a couple of years for no apparent reason.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WG13
Why would it be step in the wrong direction?
Are you saying that in the days before the JHC the SH Force was not serving the Army? Also, the rest of the RAF seem to be doing a pretty good job of supporting the Army, whether it be dropping bombs or doing other tasks.
Why have 2 command structures involved in running Air support when one can do it?
HPT
Why would it be step in the wrong direction?
Are you saying that in the days before the JHC the SH Force was not serving the Army? Also, the rest of the RAF seem to be doing a pretty good job of supporting the Army, whether it be dropping bombs or doing other tasks.
Why have 2 command structures involved in running Air support when one can do it?
HPT
Gentleman Aviator
I think that the 'purple' training base has proven that when the three services are colocated with a common aim, the single service problems get diluted to the point where they are no longer a factor.
...... but to No 22 (Training) Group RAF ........
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the edge of reality.
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that JHC is staffed by, on the whole, experienced SH and SH mates who want nothing more that to provide the best service possible to the front line and protect our interests for the future.
Yes, we are cash strapped, who isn't (stand fast Typhoo, CVS and FRES - all 3 services DO need to look to the future). If you need something out of JHC, or feel it is wrong, then voice your opinion, you will be listened to.
Yes, we are cash strapped, who isn't (stand fast Typhoo, CVS and FRES - all 3 services DO need to look to the future). If you need something out of JHC, or feel it is wrong, then voice your opinion, you will be listened to.
What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that JHC is staffed by, on the whole, experienced SH and SH mates who want nothing more that to provide the best service possible to the front line and protect our interests for the future.
Yes, we are cash strapped,
voice your opinion, you will be listened to.
Your post is unoffensive but very idealistic. Outside of JHC HQ, the streams do not flow with lemonade, and the clouds are not made of marshmallow. However, it is very possible that those you ask tell you this is the case.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean borderline bankrupt.
I wonder what public opinion towards OOA would be if they appreciated the cost of it, and how much could be diverted back into the economy if we withdrew from the world police game.
* Judgement made in the fact that the economy is now costing jobs and thus the economy is doomed to get even worse with rising unemployment.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: behind a desk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A mighty fine organisation!
Runs like a well oiled machine and economically too.
I'd be surprised to find any genuine criticism hitting these pages on a subject that has not been previously identified and is therefore the focus of work in progress or a study.
Inter-service rivalry is put aside and offers an ideal opportunity to see how the other services go about their business. It also offers us the opportunity to change our old established ways and introduce best practice across the board.
I can't think of a good example off the top of my head right now but I'm sure over the years something has happened, somewhere that somebody is pleased with.
Runs like a well oiled machine and economically too.
I'd be surprised to find any genuine criticism hitting these pages on a subject that has not been previously identified and is therefore the focus of work in progress or a study.
Inter-service rivalry is put aside and offers an ideal opportunity to see how the other services go about their business. It also offers us the opportunity to change our old established ways and introduce best practice across the board.
I can't think of a good example off the top of my head right now but I'm sure over the years something has happened, somewhere that somebody is pleased with.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
And there we have the official answer. In writing. Everything is lovely. Nice to hear it, excellent. 
But what's it really like?
But what's it really like?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JHC?
Hmmh.....
I do believe that who is in charge does make a difference.
I do believe that the other 2 Services are now 'paying' to bring the AAC up to a 'warfighting' professional aviation community and not just a flying club (less 57 & historically NI).
I do believe that future JHFs should consist of (and be led by) JHC - in that there is not really enough 'command' going on. Also when they have to command a frontline organisation then their staff work just might be a bit more focussed rather than paper based as they see first hand the consequences and results of their decisions back in Wilton.
I do believe that JHC should say no and force the Govts hand - the fisheads Sea King should have been replaced years ago, and the Puma not far behind. And yet saying, 'yes' and putting crews into difficult positions lacks moral courage. IMHO if JHC had said no in the past (with justifiable reasons) then with NATO and theatre commanders crying out for helicopters/lift then the money would have been made availible for a rapid procurement (increased buy of other SH). Sadly those who want careers have allowed that moral courage to be tainted and hence both Puma and Sea King linger on. Putting a 'band aid' over the Sea King with 'gucci' blades or de-rating engines (Swiss Des style!) is still not delivering the capability that the young servicemen and women require when they need to do their job.
I dont believe that all JHC Staff Officers are mahogny bomber desk wollers - but I do believe that some see the SO2/SO1 position as a possible promotion job and therefore allow this to cloud their judgement.
I do believe that JHF HQs is the way ahead and any training or operation that does not put all of the assets under one 'command' roof will be very inefficient and less effective.
I do believe that DHFS is creating a young pilot that eats, breathes and thinks Joint (on the personal level with mates in the bar) - it is up to us on the shop floor to foster and encourage that friendship.
I do believe that JHC HQ is risk averse and stifling training. If in doubt write a rule or regulation to cover their @rses sat comfortably in their offices. Train hard fight easy is being lost in the sea of Duty Of Care, Risk Management, Political Correctness etc. There is now a big 'delta' to 'operational' training and getting out of the back of a C17/C130 on Ops.
I do believe that standards and operational training should be exactly that - standardised. JHC is allowing each Service to Standardise itself when if ever there was a requirement for Joint standards (both pure flying and warfare/combat/tactics) now is the time.
I do believe in JHC but it is very inefficient and could cut its superflous paper work and staff effort considerably if it really worked out what its job is.
I do believe that single service mentality has to stop - there is not enough of us to go around and therefore we need to take the good and the bad from each service and recognise our weaknesses and strengths and openly draw on them. The moment we withdraw behind our single service bastions (forgive the pun) then we are saving nothing but losing a lot. I know that 10 years ago my operation in the Amphib role was cuff and bluff compared to what the Fisheads have taught me - same goes to the Pongos that have really assisted me understand what a Main Effort REALLY is (compared to staff college manual) etc etc. Hopefully we have returned this knowledge by assisting our Army and RN colleagues with COMAOs, RWOETU and TLT etc.
If we really are going to say to Gordon and Swiss Des - Oi, enough is enough, either pay up for new equipment or we stop (before a nasty accident happens), then we will have to be united behind one voice. Harry Stait at Odiham or Benson or the Fishead Boss alone at Yeovs will be lost in the noise.
Whereas a 2 star that has a united and coherent team behind him - all the way to the shop floor will stand a much better chance (providing moral courage outweighs that flashing career caption!).
That is what I believe - but I know I am wrong on many occasions
Hmmh.....
I do believe that who is in charge does make a difference.
I do believe that the other 2 Services are now 'paying' to bring the AAC up to a 'warfighting' professional aviation community and not just a flying club (less 57 & historically NI).
I do believe that future JHFs should consist of (and be led by) JHC - in that there is not really enough 'command' going on. Also when they have to command a frontline organisation then their staff work just might be a bit more focussed rather than paper based as they see first hand the consequences and results of their decisions back in Wilton.
I do believe that JHC should say no and force the Govts hand - the fisheads Sea King should have been replaced years ago, and the Puma not far behind. And yet saying, 'yes' and putting crews into difficult positions lacks moral courage. IMHO if JHC had said no in the past (with justifiable reasons) then with NATO and theatre commanders crying out for helicopters/lift then the money would have been made availible for a rapid procurement (increased buy of other SH). Sadly those who want careers have allowed that moral courage to be tainted and hence both Puma and Sea King linger on. Putting a 'band aid' over the Sea King with 'gucci' blades or de-rating engines (Swiss Des style!) is still not delivering the capability that the young servicemen and women require when they need to do their job.
I dont believe that all JHC Staff Officers are mahogny bomber desk wollers - but I do believe that some see the SO2/SO1 position as a possible promotion job and therefore allow this to cloud their judgement.
I do believe that JHF HQs is the way ahead and any training or operation that does not put all of the assets under one 'command' roof will be very inefficient and less effective.
I do believe that DHFS is creating a young pilot that eats, breathes and thinks Joint (on the personal level with mates in the bar) - it is up to us on the shop floor to foster and encourage that friendship.
I do believe that JHC HQ is risk averse and stifling training. If in doubt write a rule or regulation to cover their @rses sat comfortably in their offices. Train hard fight easy is being lost in the sea of Duty Of Care, Risk Management, Political Correctness etc. There is now a big 'delta' to 'operational' training and getting out of the back of a C17/C130 on Ops.
I do believe that standards and operational training should be exactly that - standardised. JHC is allowing each Service to Standardise itself when if ever there was a requirement for Joint standards (both pure flying and warfare/combat/tactics) now is the time.
I do believe in JHC but it is very inefficient and could cut its superflous paper work and staff effort considerably if it really worked out what its job is.
I do believe that single service mentality has to stop - there is not enough of us to go around and therefore we need to take the good and the bad from each service and recognise our weaknesses and strengths and openly draw on them. The moment we withdraw behind our single service bastions (forgive the pun) then we are saving nothing but losing a lot. I know that 10 years ago my operation in the Amphib role was cuff and bluff compared to what the Fisheads have taught me - same goes to the Pongos that have really assisted me understand what a Main Effort REALLY is (compared to staff college manual) etc etc. Hopefully we have returned this knowledge by assisting our Army and RN colleagues with COMAOs, RWOETU and TLT etc.
If we really are going to say to Gordon and Swiss Des - Oi, enough is enough, either pay up for new equipment or we stop (before a nasty accident happens), then we will have to be united behind one voice. Harry Stait at Odiham or Benson or the Fishead Boss alone at Yeovs will be lost in the noise.
Whereas a 2 star that has a united and coherent team behind him - all the way to the shop floor will stand a much better chance (providing moral courage outweighs that flashing career caption!).
That is what I believe - but I know I am wrong on many occasions
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 13th Jul 2008 at 05:18.