RAAF/Army Relations - History
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Out There
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree with some of you points, especially regarding standardising training amongst the services, but where does it start and where does it stop?
Should RAN and RAAF (and SSO) officers be expected to attend RMC for 18 months so as they all start on the same level playing field? Or should there be a new course where everyone starts out the same and does the same training in the first six months and then they diverge from there? Where should it start, if it doesn’t start from day one will Officers from all three services really be of equal standard?
I do agree with the pilot training theme, but then you will get those that insist everyone should be at single pilot ops fighter standard, just incase we need to surge. What bullsh*t. What we do need is an across the board standard, where guys are streamed early (think NATO flight training). Out of curiosity how often do guys go from a multi-crew aircraft to jets??? It would also greatly reduce the delusion that RAAF pilots have that they are better trained, therefore better pilots, than their Army counterparts
Maybe once we all seem to be on a level playing field we can look at sending RAAF on COAC. I’d love to see a current RAAF knuck present his concept of supporting fires plan to his Army peers and his assessing officer. But then again isn’t that why they have JTACs? So maybe in the future an ACO. But then you would still have the same problem. They don’t really understand why they are there (to support guys on the ground). It is not their fault though, it is the whole organisational culture of the RAAF. They do not understand in simple terms why they exist.
Before it all starts, I would like to clarify that I don’t dislike the RAAF per se. I have some good friends in the RAAF, and the capability they provide (when they do) is excellent. The problem I have is the RAAF culture. They are here as warfighters and to support warfighters, not purely to build hours before their ROSO is up and they head on over the QF or CX
The rant continues.
S64
Should RAN and RAAF (and SSO) officers be expected to attend RMC for 18 months so as they all start on the same level playing field? Or should there be a new course where everyone starts out the same and does the same training in the first six months and then they diverge from there? Where should it start, if it doesn’t start from day one will Officers from all three services really be of equal standard?
I do agree with the pilot training theme, but then you will get those that insist everyone should be at single pilot ops fighter standard, just incase we need to surge. What bullsh*t. What we do need is an across the board standard, where guys are streamed early (think NATO flight training). Out of curiosity how often do guys go from a multi-crew aircraft to jets??? It would also greatly reduce the delusion that RAAF pilots have that they are better trained, therefore better pilots, than their Army counterparts
Maybe once we all seem to be on a level playing field we can look at sending RAAF on COAC. I’d love to see a current RAAF knuck present his concept of supporting fires plan to his Army peers and his assessing officer. But then again isn’t that why they have JTACs? So maybe in the future an ACO. But then you would still have the same problem. They don’t really understand why they are there (to support guys on the ground). It is not their fault though, it is the whole organisational culture of the RAAF. They do not understand in simple terms why they exist.
Before it all starts, I would like to clarify that I don’t dislike the RAAF per se. I have some good friends in the RAAF, and the capability they provide (when they do) is excellent. The problem I have is the RAAF culture. They are here as warfighters and to support warfighters, not purely to build hours before their ROSO is up and they head on over the QF or CX
The rant continues.
S64
Last edited by Super 64; 22nd Jul 2010 at 07:25.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair go...
It would also greatly reduce the delusion that RAAF pilots have that they are better trained, therefore better pilots, than their Army counterparts
Because of this Army Avn will always be seen as lesser pilots. The fact that Army Avn also let people who have failed basic flying training (because they could not cut it), and return for a second go (instructor had it in for them, honest, they'll tell you), bypass it altogether as one or two have done (COMD's favorites) or switch to Army because they failed 2FTS (the fish John West reject), does not go unnoticed.
Maybe once we all seem to be on a level playing field we can look at sending RAAF on COAC. I’d love to see a current RAAF knuck present his concept of supporting fires plan to his Army peers and his assessing officer.
I know.... how about we get a Blackhawk pilot as Mission Commander on a LFE plan and brief the OCA, STK, AWACS and Tanker plan,?? hilarious.......wait..... how about an artillery officer? they do COAC and own offensive fires......they would'nt have a clue....I would even go as far as having all Blackhawk and Chinook pilots attend LOAC as all they really do is combat support anyway.
Your comments on what the ADF are really here to do, "Support the troops on the ground" is valid and just, but the RAAF, and all those who fly in it are the best at what they do, which is employ airpower in support of the WHOLE ADF.
May as well have a go at the Navy for being on the ocean and not supporting the troops on the ground.
Picture Clara......
Super 64 - open invite to visit 82WG
Super 64,
I am more than happy to host you at 82WG at a time of your choosing.
We can bring you up to speed on what RAAF personnel are up to on real world ops at the moment, and how we intend to support the 'war fighter'.
Think 4SQN and 5FLT.
PM me if you wish, and depending on your bona-fides we might even come and see you one day.
Your call.
I am more than happy to host you at 82WG at a time of your choosing.
We can bring you up to speed on what RAAF personnel are up to on real world ops at the moment, and how we intend to support the 'war fighter'.
Think 4SQN and 5FLT.
PM me if you wish, and depending on your bona-fides we might even come and see you one day.
Your call.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Boys & Girls,
Herewith some readout on a brief meeting yesterday with Bob Baldwin, Shadow Portfolio – Defence Personnel &Science with his military advisor/minder present. Both appear totally brainwashed by the Defence regime in Canberra.
The Liberal Party seems maybe more in thrall to the big arms conglomerates than the Labor Party and handcuffed to the defence industry policy that governs all Australian military capabilities planning, although BB mentioned that the Bushmaster vehicle is about the only hardware produced that is generating a productivity return through foreign military sales. The Liberals seem determined to hive off DMO into a separate corporate entity as recommended in the Mortimer Report which in my view will only reinforce the murky nexus between big arms business and the DMO, further isolating the military from the acquisition processes.
I opined there seems a conflict of interest with DMO having presence on the highest level capabilities committee, but he responded along lines military ambitions have to be kept in check and the turnover of military staff within DMO has been a major cause of their acquisition planning problems(?). Sounded like Defence spin to me and veiled criticism of the military.
I raised capability gaps and issues with Tiger, MRH90, LHDs; all projects approved by the Howard Government. He reckons there are no significant problems with these helos as he saw the French operating MRH90 in Afghanistan, although he did not offer any insight into how that aircraft is performing. Earlier, he had mentioned that you would struggle to find a politician who knows anything about military hardware (really!!!).
Chinooks were mentioned with me stating that just 7 CH-47F will only provide 3 or 4 on line to cope with all of Army heavy lift requirements. He seemed a bit ambivalent re that opinion but then mentioned they will be able to embark 2 Chinook on the LHDs and move them around to wherever required. He and his advisor seemed to think the LHD will be able to do all things regionally, irrespective of cost.
I raised the escalating running costs for the ADF and particularly helos including Seahawk, Blackhawk, Tiger, MRH90, MH-60S. When I challenged the decision to shed the Iroquois instead of reserve storage, they more or less shrugged off the huge operating costs differential. They seem religiously committed to Project Air9000 concerning helicopters and will fore-seeably have to spend more big money to acquire an Iroquois replacement downstream, as a civvy Defence entity informed me was intended a couple of years back. So the big spend juggernaut could roll on, without accountability, although there may be an economic reality check somewhere downstream.
One bright spot; the Liberals will apparently commit to fairer indexation of military pensions if elected to office and that election promise might force a 'me too' response from Gillard & Co. BB reckons it is a $4.8billion commitment.
Please consider just as feedback on my impressions. The better part of the day was a nice hotel lunch with my wife and methinks we should have just gone to the pub in lieu of my wasting time with Bob Baldwin.
Images still being generated for some other posts and will emerge soon.
Herewith some readout on a brief meeting yesterday with Bob Baldwin, Shadow Portfolio – Defence Personnel &Science with his military advisor/minder present. Both appear totally brainwashed by the Defence regime in Canberra.
The Liberal Party seems maybe more in thrall to the big arms conglomerates than the Labor Party and handcuffed to the defence industry policy that governs all Australian military capabilities planning, although BB mentioned that the Bushmaster vehicle is about the only hardware produced that is generating a productivity return through foreign military sales. The Liberals seem determined to hive off DMO into a separate corporate entity as recommended in the Mortimer Report which in my view will only reinforce the murky nexus between big arms business and the DMO, further isolating the military from the acquisition processes.
I opined there seems a conflict of interest with DMO having presence on the highest level capabilities committee, but he responded along lines military ambitions have to be kept in check and the turnover of military staff within DMO has been a major cause of their acquisition planning problems(?). Sounded like Defence spin to me and veiled criticism of the military.
I raised capability gaps and issues with Tiger, MRH90, LHDs; all projects approved by the Howard Government. He reckons there are no significant problems with these helos as he saw the French operating MRH90 in Afghanistan, although he did not offer any insight into how that aircraft is performing. Earlier, he had mentioned that you would struggle to find a politician who knows anything about military hardware (really!!!).
Chinooks were mentioned with me stating that just 7 CH-47F will only provide 3 or 4 on line to cope with all of Army heavy lift requirements. He seemed a bit ambivalent re that opinion but then mentioned they will be able to embark 2 Chinook on the LHDs and move them around to wherever required. He and his advisor seemed to think the LHD will be able to do all things regionally, irrespective of cost.
I raised the escalating running costs for the ADF and particularly helos including Seahawk, Blackhawk, Tiger, MRH90, MH-60S. When I challenged the decision to shed the Iroquois instead of reserve storage, they more or less shrugged off the huge operating costs differential. They seem religiously committed to Project Air9000 concerning helicopters and will fore-seeably have to spend more big money to acquire an Iroquois replacement downstream, as a civvy Defence entity informed me was intended a couple of years back. So the big spend juggernaut could roll on, without accountability, although there may be an economic reality check somewhere downstream.
One bright spot; the Liberals will apparently commit to fairer indexation of military pensions if elected to office and that election promise might force a 'me too' response from Gillard & Co. BB reckons it is a $4.8billion commitment.
Please consider just as feedback on my impressions. The better part of the day was a nice hotel lunch with my wife and methinks we should have just gone to the pub in lieu of my wasting time with Bob Baldwin.
Images still being generated for some other posts and will emerge soon.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 23rd Jul 2010 at 00:54.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rocket Attack Vung Tau Airfield, 22 Apr 68
The following imagery has been referred to in previous posts this thread and is offered just for interest and historical awareness. There were 2 x 122mm rocket attacks on that day with minimal casualties on the airfield if I recall correctly. The first image is the RAAF hangar shared by Nos 9 & 35 Squadrons which had been constructed by a RAAF Airfield Construction Squadron sadly since disbanded. 9SQN Iroquois revetments are at top right of the picture.
The next image is a USAF Caribou destroyed by an enemy 122mm rocket. The 9/35 hangar was about 70 or so metres from the tip of the left tailplane.
The third image is self-explanatory illustrating the enemy rocket flight path just across the edge of the RAAF hangar where the 9SQN night dustoff crew were accommodated.
I am baling out of this thread now and I trust that enough has been said to dispel or at least diminish much of the mythology and misinformation maligning the RAAF and 9SQN since the end of Vietnam War involvement in 1971.
I will now focus on compiling a few threads for the Aviation History & Nostalgia forum to create broader awareness of some aspects of the Vietnam campaign and they should begin appearing a week or so downstream.
For Megan re your post #34; these intended new posts will embrace helo formation flying practices.
'Bye for now.
I will now focus on compiling a few threads for the Aviation History & Nostalgia forum to create broader awareness of some aspects of the Vietnam campaign and they should begin appearing a week or so downstream.
For Megan re your post #34; these intended new posts will embrace helo formation flying practices.
'Bye for now.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 26th Jul 2010 at 04:35.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Oz
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhere for BR71 et al to play
This thread: The ideal place to mull over lost opportunities like the transfer of RW to Army; the failure to see the UH1 as the answer to AAAvn's problems; the disgraceful attempt to modernise the ADF RW fleet.
Australian Army Aviation - the place for people who want to discuss contemporary issues facing members of the organisation.
Australian Army Aviation - the place for people who want to discuss contemporary issues facing members of the organisation.
