JHC Helicopter Support Wing? If & when!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think the runway at Colerne is still used, but some of the hangars have been removed. 21 Sig Regt (AS) is still there.
It makes sense to put all the JHC units in one place to me. What about Lyneham, when it closes?
Of course if such places hadn't been disposed of entirely, there would still be Little Rissington and Kemble.
It makes sense to put all the JHC units in one place to me. What about Lyneham, when it closes?
Of course if such places hadn't been disposed of entirely, there would still be Little Rissington and Kemble.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,132
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
From what I recall from last time a move was proposed for TSW (to Wittering when 85 (EL) Wing moved) the sticking points were the as already mentioned 24hr operating refuel site, but also the location of TSW at Stafford for ease of access to the main training areas they use. Those 'few guys and some LRs' (sweet Jesus 
) do a fair amount of travelling each year so that the growbag wearing classes don't have to splash Eau de Avtur on the flying gloves.
Whilst were on the subject of TSW and seeing as I'm quite a defensive ex-wing mong the comparison of tasks carried out by TSW and AAC refuellers is quite frankly laughable.
TSW can build and operate semi-permanent bulk and tactical fuel installations, operate the bulk fuellers that supply them, operate tac fuellers for mobile operations, supply a para-dropped capability and test all the avaition fuel sloshing around in that kit, plus any ground fuels to be tested thrown their way as well. Not bad for some stackers, slammers and a few techies.
The Army on the other hand requires many different corps and branches of those corps in order to carry out a similar but not equal range of tasks.
I'm not doubting the ability of Army units to provide their bits of what TSW does, its just with TSW you have it all under one command and ready to go rather than having to bring together elements who quite often have other concerns than avaition support, pet ops (the guys who build and operate BFIs for the Army) are a fine example of this, as they are more concerned with ground fuels handling, which are a damn sight easy to chuck about.
Compared to flying fuels handling is not rocket science, but would you be happy flying with Avtur issued from a Marine Dieso and water contaminated pillow tank, via a pipeline in which two filter systems were bypassed before the product is top loaded a refueller and sent on it merry way to your aircraft? This is exactly what happened when folk who were used to dealing with ground fuels were left without RAF supervision (we weren't contacted as they 'didn't need us') on a major fuels exercise somewhere hot a few years back, resulting in two VC10s, a Timmy and three Wessexes being grounded and the important Middle East staging point having to de-bulk, service, flush and re-bulk two thirds of its refueller fleet.
As I say, avaition fuel handling isn't rocket science, but it needs more care than chucking about Dieso. You chaps can't roll to the side of the road when fuel contaimination knackers your engine so wouldn't you rather the best care be taken over your go-juice rather than the cheapest or most cap-badge loyal care?
) do a fair amount of travelling each year so that the growbag wearing classes don't have to splash Eau de Avtur on the flying gloves.Whilst were on the subject of TSW and seeing as I'm quite a defensive ex-wing mong the comparison of tasks carried out by TSW and AAC refuellers is quite frankly laughable.
TSW can build and operate semi-permanent bulk and tactical fuel installations, operate the bulk fuellers that supply them, operate tac fuellers for mobile operations, supply a para-dropped capability and test all the avaition fuel sloshing around in that kit, plus any ground fuels to be tested thrown their way as well. Not bad for some stackers, slammers and a few techies.
The Army on the other hand requires many different corps and branches of those corps in order to carry out a similar but not equal range of tasks.
I'm not doubting the ability of Army units to provide their bits of what TSW does, its just with TSW you have it all under one command and ready to go rather than having to bring together elements who quite often have other concerns than avaition support, pet ops (the guys who build and operate BFIs for the Army) are a fine example of this, as they are more concerned with ground fuels handling, which are a damn sight easy to chuck about.
Compared to flying fuels handling is not rocket science, but would you be happy flying with Avtur issued from a Marine Dieso and water contaminated pillow tank, via a pipeline in which two filter systems were bypassed before the product is top loaded a refueller and sent on it merry way to your aircraft? This is exactly what happened when folk who were used to dealing with ground fuels were left without RAF supervision (we weren't contacted as they 'didn't need us') on a major fuels exercise somewhere hot a few years back, resulting in two VC10s, a Timmy and three Wessexes being grounded and the important Middle East staging point having to de-bulk, service, flush and re-bulk two thirds of its refueller fleet.
As I say, avaition fuel handling isn't rocket science, but it needs more care than chucking about Dieso. You chaps can't roll to the side of the road when fuel contaimination knackers your engine so wouldn't you rather the best care be taken over your go-juice rather than the cheapest or most cap-badge loyal care?
Good Old TSW
Helpful Stacker makes good points.
Interestingly, the RAF picks its TSW guys and gals mostly from those with a bit of experience in the basic trade and they are usually SACs. If the Army followed the same process, the entire refuelling mob would be at least lance corporal (bit like the RMP here).
At Stafford, where the Army now hold sway, they still cannot get their heads around the fact that the SACs (M & F of course) can show a clean pair of heels in every respect (fitness included) to Army lance jacks/jackesses.
The RAF Regt recently introduced the rank of lance corporal for fire group leaders to denote their extra skills/responsibilities etc and to let the Army know that these guys knew what they were about. Perhaps the RAF ought to look at its LAC/SAC/SAC Tech progression again.
Interestingly, the RAF picks its TSW guys and gals mostly from those with a bit of experience in the basic trade and they are usually SACs. If the Army followed the same process, the entire refuelling mob would be at least lance corporal (bit like the RMP here).
At Stafford, where the Army now hold sway, they still cannot get their heads around the fact that the SACs (M & F of course) can show a clean pair of heels in every respect (fitness included) to Army lance jacks/jackesses.
The RAF Regt recently introduced the rank of lance corporal for fire group leaders to denote their extra skills/responsibilities etc and to let the Army know that these guys knew what they were about. Perhaps the RAF ought to look at its LAC/SAC/SAC Tech progression again.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good answers regarding the TSW perspective but two consequences spring to mind:
1) The UK Armed Forces Plc operations are no longer concentrated on regular exercises as nowadays we are operationally focused. As that situation will remain for many years regardless of political spin, SPTA remains the primary location for SH supported exercises and the mean topic of this thread, getting the support teams to live and work together has much merit.
2) If the Army and TSW are duplicating tasks then they too should amalgamate into one team, centrally located and subject to a combined training / evaluation / development / standards process. Optimising efficiency and saving money without adding to the workload burden.
As previous posters have alluded to, there are SH support members protective of their own areas of responsibility wearing blinkers with regard to system based best practice. What surprises me is that JHC is ten years old+ and only now is this debate being discussed. Does nobody at JHC HQ have the dynamic PQs to grip this and sort it.
Hyperthetical situation: Aid to civil power task (floods for example) JHC task a Chinook sqn and in turn pass the brief to Helicopter Support Wing Operations. Net result a sleeping giant well rehearsed in short notice and self sufficient deployment roll in short time and before the day is out a fully operating airhead is up and running based on a school premises. 24 hour support ops follow on maximising task efficiency. All conducted under a default (and known to all) chain of command. Rather then many little egos squabbling over importance in counter productive mini battles. It is the differance between a spider in his web ready to strike and a chimpanzees tea party, and gets my vote
1) The UK Armed Forces Plc operations are no longer concentrated on regular exercises as nowadays we are operationally focused. As that situation will remain for many years regardless of political spin, SPTA remains the primary location for SH supported exercises and the mean topic of this thread, getting the support teams to live and work together has much merit.
2) If the Army and TSW are duplicating tasks then they too should amalgamate into one team, centrally located and subject to a combined training / evaluation / development / standards process. Optimising efficiency and saving money without adding to the workload burden.
As previous posters have alluded to, there are SH support members protective of their own areas of responsibility wearing blinkers with regard to system based best practice. What surprises me is that JHC is ten years old+ and only now is this debate being discussed. Does nobody at JHC HQ have the dynamic PQs to grip this and sort it.
Hyperthetical situation: Aid to civil power task (floods for example) JHC task a Chinook sqn and in turn pass the brief to Helicopter Support Wing Operations. Net result a sleeping giant well rehearsed in short notice and self sufficient deployment roll in short time and before the day is out a fully operating airhead is up and running based on a school premises. 24 hour support ops follow on maximising task efficiency. All conducted under a default (and known to all) chain of command. Rather then many little egos squabbling over importance in counter productive mini battles. It is the differance between a spider in his web ready to strike and a chimpanzees tea party, and gets my vote
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I agree with Old-Duffer, having spent what was then a fairly average ten years as an SAC I know that in terms of skills, experience and maturity I was a very different person at the beginning and end of my service. All well and good when working within your own section but out and about there was nothing to differentiate between those who knew what they were doing and those fresh out of the box.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Odiham
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD, you took the words out of my mouth.
If we are not involved in exercises anymore I would like to know why currently we found ourselves on MRX/OPTAG, in fact I would suggest that now that we are seeing some spare capacity with the Mk3, this one is quickly swallowed up by tasking.
I must say that operating regularly with TSW and JHSS (new JHSU), more often than not they can't do enough to help you. I have not experienced the little empire building people mentioned. But then all I do is request for a service which is more or less delivered every time.
If we are not involved in exercises anymore I would like to know why currently we found ourselves on MRX/OPTAG, in fact I would suggest that now that we are seeing some spare capacity with the Mk3, this one is quickly swallowed up by tasking.
I must say that operating regularly with TSW and JHSS (new JHSU), more often than not they can't do enough to help you. I have not experienced the little empire building people mentioned. But then all I do is request for a service which is more or less delivered every time.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interestingly, the RAF picks its TSW guys and gals mostly from those with a bit of experience in the basic trade and they are usually SACs. If the Army followed the same process, the entire refuelling mob would be at least lance corporal (bit like the RMP here).
It's an age old debate, with the RAF counting promotions, and the Army making determinations based on whether the guy is an NCO or not. The same debate occurs wrt WO2s and Flight Sergeants. No Warrant=not equivalent.
Suffice to say, a lance-jack can (in theory) discipline an SAC.
And be crap with fuels.
The same debate occurs wrt WO2s and Flight Sergeants. No Warrant=not equivalent.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up where we belong
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur, although I have never ever heard anyone debate this issue.
There is no equivalent to WOII in the RAF. If you look on the NATO rank chart, the RAF ladder is blank alongside the RN/Army WOII.
You need to get out more, the last major debate (at AFB level) was about 5 years ago. It remains a much discussed source of irritation amongst FS working in tri-Service environments.
If that's all you have to worry about mate, I suggest it is you who needs to get out more. Not only are the NATO ranks quite clear, but I don't have time to get into p1ssing contests with WOII's. It doesn't irritate me, I just try and reason with them, or pass it up the chain.
I've found most to be receptive when there is an urgency of need and you offer them a workable solution to achieve a task, whether it be a resupply or casevac. Perhaps rearranging pencils is different.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word has it that the colocation (relocation?) of helicopter suppport assets has been discussed at high levels and that it is the Army 
(Regimental levels rather then HQ Land) who oppose it. Sadly the source of this rumour could not specify if it was particular real-estate or ownership & responsibility that was being opposed. Sounds like common sense could yet prevail, assuming it not yet to be dead in the water. Another month or so and speculation should be a thing of the past for it is sounding like JHC have this one on the boil.
(Regimental levels rather then HQ Land) who oppose it. Sadly the source of this rumour could not specify if it was particular real-estate or ownership & responsibility that was being opposed. Sounds like common sense could yet prevail, assuming it not yet to be dead in the water. Another month or so and speculation should be a thing of the past for it is sounding like JHC have this one on the boil.
