Admin Guru's Shiny Purple Future
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: teeing it up on the 16th
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I apologise in advance for being slightly tipsy after another politically fuelled session at happy hour. . .Firstly, I am duty bound to apologise for some inaccuracies in my first post. Apparently the SHAR has a GR3 airframe, not a GR1. Also, G Khan has a point about AAC pilots. My comment referred to getting everyone up to a common level of skills for joint Ops - the Army and RAF must have their own slightly different specialisations that need integrating. As for the Army pilots, they should of course have the opportunity to undergo further training for a commission if they wish.
I'm amazed that you find Purple Ops such a far fetched idea. For the information of FJJP, the Canadian forces are indeed a combined operation and they have not reverted to single service. Maybe someone who has recently done the Maple Flag exercise can comment to confirm this.
I'm also amazed that many people seem so anti-jointery and its consequences. Surely it is the way forward? Many PPruners seem to thrive on slagging off each others services - not very productive, an attitude like that is it? On a similar note, why just shoot the messenger with "you ****." Combined Ops are a reality, and I thought it might make an interesting discussion about whether we should make the next step to the "Royal British Forces."
Ed Winchester, thanks for holding back recently. I'm now more than happy for you to comment on my Forum.
I'm amazed that you find Purple Ops such a far fetched idea. For the information of FJJP, the Canadian forces are indeed a combined operation and they have not reverted to single service. Maybe someone who has recently done the Maple Flag exercise can comment to confirm this.
I'm also amazed that many people seem so anti-jointery and its consequences. Surely it is the way forward? Many PPruners seem to thrive on slagging off each others services - not very productive, an attitude like that is it? On a similar note, why just shoot the messenger with "you ****." Combined Ops are a reality, and I thought it might make an interesting discussion about whether we should make the next step to the "Royal British Forces."
Ed Winchester, thanks for holding back recently. I'm now more than happy for you to comment on my Forum.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG
[Sigh] It's with the unease of foreboding and the disquiet of being 'suckered in' that I reply.
[quote] I also see a need for a specific command to be created, simply responsible for the movement and organisation of the Forces. It could be seen as a sort of 'Supply Command', and could look after everything from getting troops into the back of Hercs, to shipping missiles and bombs down to the Gulf.
<hr></blockquote>
It's called the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) and it was formed in Apr 99 (if I remember the year correctly). The bit of DLO reponsible for the movement of equipment and personnel is the Defence Transport Movement Agency (DTMA) and is based at DLO Andover. Rather laughingly at the time, the MoD magazine 'Focus' ran an interview with the newly appointed Chief of Defence Logistics who had gone from army cpl to 2- (or 3-) star, captioning a photo of him as [quote] The new purple head of logistics. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <hr></blockquote>
As for your comments on the Canadian forces, people are referring to the fact that several years ago, they joined completely; single uniform, joint command structure, logistics et al. However, they found that morale, service identity, retention and recruitment all suffered significantly. As a result, whilst they maintain more jointery than we do, they have pulled back from the brink and now have 3 services again in all but name. Instead, Canadian military savings came from more radical methods that, whilst I have never been FJ (to my relief <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ), I would never want to see enacted within the RAF.
[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: opso ]</p>
[Sigh] It's with the unease of foreboding and the disquiet of being 'suckered in' that I reply.
[quote] I also see a need for a specific command to be created, simply responsible for the movement and organisation of the Forces. It could be seen as a sort of 'Supply Command', and could look after everything from getting troops into the back of Hercs, to shipping missiles and bombs down to the Gulf.
<hr></blockquote>
It's called the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) and it was formed in Apr 99 (if I remember the year correctly). The bit of DLO reponsible for the movement of equipment and personnel is the Defence Transport Movement Agency (DTMA) and is based at DLO Andover. Rather laughingly at the time, the MoD magazine 'Focus' ran an interview with the newly appointed Chief of Defence Logistics who had gone from army cpl to 2- (or 3-) star, captioning a photo of him as [quote] The new purple head of logistics. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <hr></blockquote>
As for your comments on the Canadian forces, people are referring to the fact that several years ago, they joined completely; single uniform, joint command structure, logistics et al. However, they found that morale, service identity, retention and recruitment all suffered significantly. As a result, whilst they maintain more jointery than we do, they have pulled back from the brink and now have 3 services again in all but name. Instead, Canadian military savings came from more radical methods that, whilst I have never been FJ (to my relief <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ), I would never want to see enacted within the RAF.
[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: opso ]</p>
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG - I suggets you get your facts straight. I recently served with a Canadian exchange officer, in light blue uniform, who informed me that whilst the Army and Air Force retain the same ranks and rank braid, they have reverted to single service colour uniforms. Whilst the Army and Air Force used common rank structure, the Canadian Navy never lost their Navy rank terminology.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G.Khan, before DLO, DTMA's function was done by JTMS in MoD (Joint Transport and Movements Specialists, I believe) which was set up as a 'one-stop shop' - which it never was, but then again, DTMA isn't either. Prior to that all air movement was done through HQ 38 Gp's Mov Ops; 4 offices remarkably enough called Mov Ops 1 to Mov Ops 4.
Before that it was probably Transport Command, but I don't remember that too well. BEagle...?
[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: opso ]</p>
Before that it was probably Transport Command, but I don't remember that too well. BEagle...?
[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: opso ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG does it again!! But I can't resist the bait and have to bite.. .. .For once our pencil wielding warrior has a point - lots of time is wasted in single service willy waving at the expense of a truly 'joined - up' solution to defence problems. I think it is getting better, though, and although probably heresy on PPrune, joint service staff college is probaly a good start(the bar is always the best place to get to understand someone!). .. .However, I do think each indivual service has unique strengths and would hate to see indiviual service weaknesses imposed on us all... for instance, as a northern comprehensive school oik come good, I would hate to see the class-ridden, discriminatory approach of some areas of the British Army visited on the other services. - Jointery means changing to fit in as much as other people changing to fit in with you so be beware(see SHAR debate!). .. .As a final shot, and at the risk of being unfashionable, the MoD is full of poor sods who would rather be flying trying - to make a difference from the inside against great odds... have a little sympathy!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Propping up the bar...
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that you may have over-reached your own fishing ability with this one AG. Its much to close to a good idea (in parts) for anyone to ever believe its a serious suggestion. I especially like the idea of computerised claims forms etc - anything that eases the undoubtedly high workload at SHQ must be good.. .. .However, I do think that we need more integration between the forces. For example, as already mentioned, the Harrier and SH forces could benefit from living and training more with the Army, but being run by them? I quite fancy SH myself and while I'd be more than happy happy working with the AAC, if I wanted to join the Army then I would have done.. .. .All in all, nice try but I'm afraid you are in danger of becoming a slightly more worthwhile contributer to this site. DAMN!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admin Guru Strikes again!!. .Just want to put one point to bed in the hope that it never wakes up again. This talk of GR7's going over to the army. I've never heard such a pile of doggy doo in all my life. The only thing the Harrier has in common with the Army is a nine-line CAS brief. After that, the commonality ends. Any mud with a UHF radio can peform CAS (some better, some worse), so why not go the whole hog? Let's all go Army! AG can then expand his little empire to allow for the increase in claims, charge paperwork etc etc Carry on the discussion, but stop blahing about the Harrier/Army commonality. It just don't exist!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vertical at the merge
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jump Jump John - For a UAS Stude you have a very high opinion of yourself. Perhaps your name should be Jumped Up John. . .Maybe once you get in and fly SH or whatever, then your posts might be worthwhile contributions!. .Admin guru may be outlandish in his suggestions but your pomposity is huge for one so junior. I bet you are senior stude!. .. . <img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif" alt="" />. . . . <small>[ 04 March 2002, 16:21: Message edited by: Fox_4 ]</small>
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: teeing it up on the 16th
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad I'm the subject of discussions at happy hour, but I'm not "Dixie" Dean! Anyway, I have never been on a boat and am actually quite prone to sea-sickness.. .. .Also glad that I've had some more sensible replies after the initial unprovoked berating. This I find hard to take, especially from the like of Jumped up John.. .Surely Jackonicko has something to comment on jointery; he must have done some reporting on the successes of the project. I also fail to believe that BEagle hasn't encountered any examples of this in his lengthy career.. .I look forward to some more replies on this forum - it is a large topic and one worthy of some attention.. . . . <small>[ 05 March 2002, 20:51: Message edited by: Admin Guru ]</small>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The dark side...
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joint service ops have their individual ups and downs. Yes an almalgamated force is desirabe so all services can operate from a single doctrine, however the current tri service format provides a level of "competition" i.e. each service can strive to better the other, thereby lifting each others standards as a matter of pride. In an environment with no rival organisation to be judged against, standards could slip.. .. .Purple is NOT the new black.