JHC Helicopter Support Wing? If & when!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JHC Helicopter Support Wing? If & when!
In crewroom conversation over impending cuts, which I suspect is commonplace in many crewrooms nowadays, the subject of ground support elements of JHC raised some interesting points of debate.
JHC recently moved from Wilton to Andover but nobody appears to know why. Is anybody able to shed some logical light on that one?
TSW (Refuellers) were discussed, and as follow up, this is gleaned from the MOD website:
Yet they remain autonomous (Stafford based) to the other Ground Support elements of JHC. The RAF MAOT recently amalgamated with JHSU at Odiham but the Navy MAOT remain isolated at Yeovilton duplicating what the JHSU now do.
JADTEU are at Brize under the watchfull eye of the AWC and whilst I can understand that, I cannot understand why the JADTEU Training Wing is there at all as they only duplicate what JHSU Training Wing are teaching.
Surely the time has come for 'The highly specialised unit' within JHC to be a co-located Tri-Service 'Wing' in accordance with the ethos of jointery, and under the command of an SO3 on rotation between the interested stakeholders of JHC. I appreciate that no money is in the pot and that relocation costs money, but there are MOD Airfield estates mid way between Thames Valley (Benson & Odiham) and Middle Wallop and Yeovilton such as Colerne and Hullavington in which such a Wing could be established optimising the service provided to Army, Navy and Air Force, and in the long run saving a fortune. Indeed if someone had foresight beyond their own tiny area of responsibility, it could have included JHC HQ putting HQ on an airfield which must be a better idea than moving from town to town.
So colocate all ground support of JHC under an SO3. Wiltshire / Gloucestershire is equi distant between users and convenient for SPTA for exercises and Marchwood Docks for deployment. Close the RAF element of Stafford, and give Odiham a vacant hangar for additional Chinook. Actually doing jointery instead of just talking about it. Or is this all already history in a file labled Belvedere? What beyond individual service politics has prevented such a plan already being in place? TSW already has an SO3, meaning a new post would not be required and the Command Chain required is already in place although it could be trimmed and therefore save more money.
JHC recently moved from Wilton to Andover but nobody appears to know why. Is anybody able to shed some logical light on that one?
TSW (Refuellers) were discussed, and as follow up, this is gleaned from the MOD website:
They are a highly specialised unit within the Joint Helicopter Command, providing first- and second-line fuel support to battlefield helicopters across all three Services and are unique in their ability to receive, store, distribute and issue fuel to rotary aircraft in the field worldwide.
JADTEU are at Brize under the watchfull eye of the AWC and whilst I can understand that, I cannot understand why the JADTEU Training Wing is there at all as they only duplicate what JHSU Training Wing are teaching.
Surely the time has come for 'The highly specialised unit' within JHC to be a co-located Tri-Service 'Wing' in accordance with the ethos of jointery, and under the command of an SO3 on rotation between the interested stakeholders of JHC. I appreciate that no money is in the pot and that relocation costs money, but there are MOD Airfield estates mid way between Thames Valley (Benson & Odiham) and Middle Wallop and Yeovilton such as Colerne and Hullavington in which such a Wing could be established optimising the service provided to Army, Navy and Air Force, and in the long run saving a fortune. Indeed if someone had foresight beyond their own tiny area of responsibility, it could have included JHC HQ putting HQ on an airfield which must be a better idea than moving from town to town.
So colocate all ground support of JHC under an SO3. Wiltshire / Gloucestershire is equi distant between users and convenient for SPTA for exercises and Marchwood Docks for deployment. Close the RAF element of Stafford, and give Odiham a vacant hangar for additional Chinook. Actually doing jointery instead of just talking about it. Or is this all already history in a file labled Belvedere? What beyond individual service politics has prevented such a plan already being in place? TSW already has an SO3, meaning a new post would not be required and the Command Chain required is already in place although it could be trimmed and therefore save more money.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pumas are going in SDSR so no problem!
Disperse the TSW into the AAC and their Groundcrew can do it all (they are mostly in the same places), the chockheads are already going to be alongside them wildcat boys in VL.
Disperse the TSW into the AAC and their Groundcrew can do it all (they are mostly in the same places), the chockheads are already going to be alongside them wildcat boys in VL.
Moving TSW would cause the closure of Stafford HLS (Not the base, just the HLS). This is quite strategically placed and many have cause to thank their lucky stars for it's central position. Even the Chinook, which has pretty good legs has regularly used the site for fuel on Nat Stby callouts and en route across the Irish Sea.
As for being autonomous, I believe they also support the C130 fleet, and have supported JFH in the past. With the demise of the Harrier, then perhaps that is something that needs reviewing.
However, there is more than one rotary type, and all the posts so far seem to be from a Lynx perspective, whether RM or Army.
Finally, JHC has sucked up more an more assets over the last 10 years, which aren't always utilisied in an efficient manner. Why should TSW automatically be absorbed into the Army?
I do see some synergies with the REME/AAC FARP crews, but at present they are an RAF asset who provide excellent support to all 3 services.
Before slashing something that has worked for a number of years, just because it isn't truly purple, I suggest we all take a deep breath and calm down.
Agree with regard to MAOTS/JATEU.
Vec - If you don't know what TSW do, you are obviously some form of spanner. Who refuels you at Bastion?????????
As for being autonomous, I believe they also support the C130 fleet, and have supported JFH in the past. With the demise of the Harrier, then perhaps that is something that needs reviewing.
However, there is more than one rotary type, and all the posts so far seem to be from a Lynx perspective, whether RM or Army.
Finally, JHC has sucked up more an more assets over the last 10 years, which aren't always utilisied in an efficient manner. Why should TSW automatically be absorbed into the Army?
I do see some synergies with the REME/AAC FARP crews, but at present they are an RAF asset who provide excellent support to all 3 services.
Before slashing something that has worked for a number of years, just because it isn't truly purple, I suggest we all take a deep breath and calm down.
Agree with regard to MAOTS/JATEU.
Vec - If you don't know what TSW do, you are obviously some form of spanner. Who refuels you at Bastion?????????
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JHC Airbase Hullavington gets my vote. No resident aircraft but a useable airfield from which every aspect of SH support could originate from. If 21 Signal Regt at Colerne still support JHC then they are already nearby at Colerne. Shawbury or a TSW det at Shawbury could provide Esso/Shells finest in the midlands. Such a base could have any section/unit/troop with 'Tactical' in its title located at one place.
Bottom line must be that duplicated effort is a waste of time and money, so agree fully with amalgamation of assets, and actually I believe that the helicopter element of JADTEU could easily be incorporated geographically if not by Command Chain. For that matter the airdrop boys would be closer to the trial drop locations freeing up 2 hangars at BZN for future brize.
That Hullavington was an RAF airfield and is now an Army base means that ownership would be balanced without legacy issues. Not sure who the present incumbants there are but the location is perfect for UK based tasking and conveniently close to BZN and Cirencester for deployment facilities. Thinking as I type; perhaps Cirencester is suitable. Therefore: Hullavington - Colerne - Cirencester are all possible locations. Suggest that Tactical Air Traffic Control provide ATC service as such a playpen for rotary mates would be like a jam jar for wasps.
So obviously a good idea, it will never happen. FWIW I have in the past been detached with 24 Bge and a lot of helicopters to Hullavington and recall it being a good base for SPTA Ops to be based at. Sometimes short term expense is a recipe for long term savings, and this suggestion has merit.
Ref TSW, in the past they have been worth their weight in gold, especially Op Banner. I for one would not like to see them disbanded although I do believe that relocation would be better for all. A permanent 24 hour refuel base at Hullavington and dets at Shawbury or Cosford would be perfect. 2010 is not the year for tradition or sentiment, and this is a logical outlook.
Bottom line must be that duplicated effort is a waste of time and money, so agree fully with amalgamation of assets, and actually I believe that the helicopter element of JADTEU could easily be incorporated geographically if not by Command Chain. For that matter the airdrop boys would be closer to the trial drop locations freeing up 2 hangars at BZN for future brize.
That Hullavington was an RAF airfield and is now an Army base means that ownership would be balanced without legacy issues. Not sure who the present incumbants there are but the location is perfect for UK based tasking and conveniently close to BZN and Cirencester for deployment facilities. Thinking as I type; perhaps Cirencester is suitable. Therefore: Hullavington - Colerne - Cirencester are all possible locations. Suggest that Tactical Air Traffic Control provide ATC service as such a playpen for rotary mates would be like a jam jar for wasps.
So obviously a good idea, it will never happen. FWIW I have in the past been detached with 24 Bge and a lot of helicopters to Hullavington and recall it being a good base for SPTA Ops to be based at. Sometimes short term expense is a recipe for long term savings, and this suggestion has merit.
Ref TSW, in the past they have been worth their weight in gold, especially Op Banner. I for one would not like to see them disbanded although I do believe that relocation would be better for all. A permanent 24 hour refuel base at Hullavington and dets at Shawbury or Cosford would be perfect. 2010 is not the year for tradition or sentiment, and this is a logical outlook.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSW are a niche capability and their leadership have in the past been their own worst enemy (FRPs instead of FARPs anyone?). They are also far superior to the AAC for aviation fuel handling and I say that as someone who has worked with both and I'm certainly no fanboy of TSW. JHC has moved to Andover - I presume the OP knows that HQ LF has also moved to Andover. Not a big secret that one - makes sense seeing as they are closing the old site.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vec - If you don't know what TSW do, you are obviously some form of spanner. Who refuels you at Bastion?????????
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikipedia regarding Hullavington.
Today the barracks of the site (east of the airfield) is used as the home of 9 Supply Regiment Royal Logistic Corps and it was renamed in 2003 Buckley Barracks after the VC winner John Buckley[2].
The airfield, West of the main barracks, is still referred to as "Hullavington" after its RAF origins. In 1992 and 1993, two Volunteer Gliding Schools moved in and to this date they still operate mirror circuits using the 'Viking' - a modified version of the civilian Grob Twin Astir II. These being 625VGS[3] and 621VGS[4]. Although the two VGS fly cadets, they are run by staff from the RAF VR/T, and as such, it still gets referred to as "RAF Hullavington" despite being officially decommissioned when the base was handed over to the Royal Logistic Corps in 2003. Each VGS has a different set of experienced flight staff and instructors, with many being former cadets themselves.
The two VGS operate conventional winch-launched gliders every Saturday and Sunday, and throughout courses which they both run in public holidays. Solo flights are very common with each VGS, and soaring is seen done by the instructors and graded pilots in the summer. Despite the two schools operating gliders solely, the airfield is NOT a public one, and is still considered military, operating two different radio frequencies ("Hullavington Radio" for 625VGS and "Western Radio" for 621VGS). Aircraft in the area should contact Lyneham before operating nearby the area of Hullavington. The aircraft very rarely operate outside of 1500ft, but occasionally on a good day they will soar up to 6000ft.
Throughout the week, the airfield is used by mainly the Army Air Corps and the Royal Air Force for parachute drop training, and by the 9th Supply Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps as storage space using the airfield's hangars.
The airfield, West of the main barracks, is still referred to as "Hullavington" after its RAF origins. In 1992 and 1993, two Volunteer Gliding Schools moved in and to this date they still operate mirror circuits using the 'Viking' - a modified version of the civilian Grob Twin Astir II. These being 625VGS[3] and 621VGS[4]. Although the two VGS fly cadets, they are run by staff from the RAF VR/T, and as such, it still gets referred to as "RAF Hullavington" despite being officially decommissioned when the base was handed over to the Royal Logistic Corps in 2003. Each VGS has a different set of experienced flight staff and instructors, with many being former cadets themselves.
The two VGS operate conventional winch-launched gliders every Saturday and Sunday, and throughout courses which they both run in public holidays. Solo flights are very common with each VGS, and soaring is seen done by the instructors and graded pilots in the summer. Despite the two schools operating gliders solely, the airfield is NOT a public one, and is still considered military, operating two different radio frequencies ("Hullavington Radio" for 625VGS and "Western Radio" for 621VGS). Aircraft in the area should contact Lyneham before operating nearby the area of Hullavington. The aircraft very rarely operate outside of 1500ft, but occasionally on a good day they will soar up to 6000ft.
Throughout the week, the airfield is used by mainly the Army Air Corps and the Royal Air Force for parachute drop training, and by the 9th Supply Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps as storage space using the airfield's hangars.
The same people who conduct the rearming.... the same people who conduct the maintenance.... the engineers do it... or sometimes (and I know this may be a shock to some people) the Aircrew do it....its not hard...the Aircrew are qualified to Flight Service so why not let them do it....
Certainly the other spots used by the CH, SK and Merlin (amongst other coalition aircraft) were manned by TSW. They also managed the fuel farm you used to drive past.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2010 is not the year for tradition or sentiment
I presume the OP knows that HQ LF has also moved to Andover
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sitting on the toilet of Europe.... the UK
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JHC recently moved from Wilton to Andover but nobody appears to know why. Is anybody able to shed some logical light on that one?
To me it makes sence that all HQ's are on one base. Just like all IPT's are to be housed in Abbey Wood....It gets my vote.
Standing by for incoming.
"All Commands i.e Infantry, Engineers etc etc are all going to be housed in the same location. Thus all able to fuction as one....After all JHC's main purpose is to provide suppoet the the Army isn't it.
To me it makes sence that all HQ's are on one base. Just like all IPT's are to be housed in Abbey Wood....It gets my vote.
Standing by for incoming."
I have no doubt this will be followed, in a few years, by a full integration of all military Rotorcraft aircrews into one centre and under one system, lets call it "Army"...
To me it makes sence that all HQ's are on one base. Just like all IPT's are to be housed in Abbey Wood....It gets my vote.
Standing by for incoming."
I have no doubt this will be followed, in a few years, by a full integration of all military Rotorcraft aircrews into one centre and under one system, lets call it "Army"...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt this will be followed, in a few years, by a full integration of all military Rotorcraft aircrews into one centre and under one system, lets call it "Army"...
JHC did not have to be embedded with Army Commands, and that it has potentially sends the wrong signals. It would be better on a purple ethos airfield as has been suggested above.
Rigga may as well have gone as far as anticipating 'UK Defence Force Plc' and for all our sakes I hope that idea never sees the light of day. No doubting it could though, but then we would have to stop pretending we were important on the world stage.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may be some good reasons for combining everything at one location but I suggest that doing so merely for the sake of being 'Joint' is foolish. I echo too other people's responses about the utility of Stafford HLS.
In particular, I would defend against CHF's MAOT being removed from Yeovilton.
1. We use MAOT on three nights of the week every week in order to enable us (all 4 squadrons) to conduct night loads and circuits at remote sites in the local area. I suggest that this alone is reason enough to retain RN/RM MAOT at Yeovilton.
2. The vast majority of those in MAOT are otherwise based at Yeovilton as Aircrewman etc - in these increasingly stretched times I suggest that anything that assists in retaining experience and knowledge is paramount. Moving people away for no significant gain (save 'Jointery' and a promotion) is counterproductive.
3. We are talking about a handful of blokes and a couple of LR - pray tell just how much that is really going to save financially vs the reduction in assistance to our 4 very over-stretched squadrons in conducting night flying?
4. I assume that other units in JHC use their MAOTs in a similar way, I suggest therefore that they remain in place too.
SW
In particular, I would defend against CHF's MAOT being removed from Yeovilton.
1. We use MAOT on three nights of the week every week in order to enable us (all 4 squadrons) to conduct night loads and circuits at remote sites in the local area. I suggest that this alone is reason enough to retain RN/RM MAOT at Yeovilton.
2. The vast majority of those in MAOT are otherwise based at Yeovilton as Aircrewman etc - in these increasingly stretched times I suggest that anything that assists in retaining experience and knowledge is paramount. Moving people away for no significant gain (save 'Jointery' and a promotion) is counterproductive.
3. We are talking about a handful of blokes and a couple of LR - pray tell just how much that is really going to save financially vs the reduction in assistance to our 4 very over-stretched squadrons in conducting night flying?
4. I assume that other units in JHC use their MAOTs in a similar way, I suggest therefore that they remain in place too.
SW
Last edited by Something witty; 25th Jul 2010 at 21:09. Reason: Spelling Biffery
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I think that the Canadians set the precident on that theory; and it proved a disaster
Maybe the answer is a more mission driven structure where the 'customers" get to control their support assets - but hey, isn't that what JHC was supposed to do? The single most notable achievment of JHC seems to have been to stop a bunch of under-employed staff types loitering aimlessly about the corridors of real power (Abbey Wood) by letting them do their shopping in that nice Waitrose in Salisbury instead for a few years.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those are all valid points from Something witty but they reflect the tasks that we undertake today. In the future we will have no Royal Marines ... In the future we will have no Amphibious capability....in the future we will have withdrawn from the sandpit(s). Therefore, why would we need individual MAOT's?
Vec,
you, and a few others are a little guilty of jumping the gun on SDSR. Let's wait and see what happens.
And that's not a dig, but your last post suggests you already know the results.
you, and a few others are a little guilty of jumping the gun on SDSR. Let's wait and see what happens.
And that's not a dig, but your last post suggests you already know the results.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. We use MAOT on three nights of the week every week in order to enable us (all 4 squadrons) to conduct night loads and circuits at remote sites in the local area. I suggest that this alone is reason enough to retain RN/RM MAOT at Yeovilton.
IMHO the truth lays more in self preservation and a reluctance to be involved in the 'joint' party by persons embedded into the Somerset community. A shame really for RM MAOT have some important soldiering (commando) skills to share that the light blue brothers do not have, therefore they could enhance rather then simply extend the present set-up.
I see that BZN based JADTEU Trg Wg are keeping their heads down; which is not surprising as having recently cancelled in toto one of their commitments they now only do HHI and Abseil instruction, both of which require helicopters and of course BZN has plenty of those....Not. Were they to move to ODH, the savings in flying hours alone should see the Trg Wg removed from the AWC cloak behind which they hide.
Duplication of effort
Unecessary expense
Time for change
