AAC Rotary Training
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ewe,
I really agree with your sentiment - the AAC is good value for money - in what it does. But i do need to bring you up on your statement that you can compare Apache & Tornado. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about which is best at all - they are both sets of truly dedicated and professional aviators, but although they do both deliver ordnance, the reach, speed, quantities and effects are worlds apart. I don't think many (but the most-hardened 'Crab-Haters') would disagree.
I really agree with your sentiment - the AAC is good value for money - in what it does. But i do need to bring you up on your statement that you can compare Apache & Tornado. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about which is best at all - they are both sets of truly dedicated and professional aviators, but although they do both deliver ordnance, the reach, speed, quantities and effects are worlds apart. I don't think many (but the most-hardened 'Crab-Haters') would disagree.
Hmmn. Reach and speed I'll give you but quantities and effects? I think you'l find that there is a fairly equal comparison there, especially effect. A 500lb bomb has it's place but also a Hellfire missile can have a similar effect and the 30mm gun can often do the job where a smart bomb would best be described as a blunt tool.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ch240 - a fight between the AAC - FAA - RAF now there's a thought......saves money all around; cost of deploying, no nasty sand to b*gger up the kit, no extra pay for time away from home, enemy easy to locate and clearly recognisable, not many on each side so shouldn't last too long, no need to involve the yanks........why hasn't someone thought of this before?
I think we should all buy Ch240 a drink!
I think we should all buy Ch240 a drink!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in 2005 AAC Apache's S/Sgts & Sgts, RAF Tornado's Flt Lt's & Flt Lt's
I think that a lot of this is viewpoint. The Army wonder why the RAF commissions so many of their aircrew and the RAF wonders why the Army don't commission their's. From the light blue perspective we could say that it shows how much we value a group of very skilled and capable professionals. Slightly more cynically you could say that commissioning someone is one way of making them feel more valued so they will stay rather than leave. The minimal extra cost of running an officer is vastly offset by the huge training costs. So in reality officers could well be cheaper if you take a long term view. Additionally as Apache/Tornado crews are generally a bunch of pretty bright and switched on individuals why handicap their ability to make very senior rank by making them start as NCOs? Or all the above could be bollox.
Would be interested on hearing the AAC view on why they don't commission as many?
(ps if you really think that Tornado and Apache are the same then you are the exception that proves the "bright and switched on" rule)
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It's worth throwing into the mix that our green chums tend to want to keep technical expertise in the ranks, while the response in the dark and light blue is to commission those who show some nous and ability coupled with confidence.
A quick look at the numbers going through BRNC, RMAS and Cranwell with former ranker service will show that the Army has a very different take on the usefulness of former service in the ranks among the officers. They do tend to catch up with some in their later NCO service, but quite late, which limits their promotion prospects.
A quick look at the numbers going through BRNC, RMAS and Cranwell with former ranker service will show that the Army has a very different take on the usefulness of former service in the ranks among the officers. They do tend to catch up with some in their later NCO service, but quite late, which limits their promotion prospects.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was always led to believe that we had officers for one reason, that was to lead and be responsible for their men. It was really frustrating to work with some RAF officers who quite plainly couldn't give a f**k about their men and were only interested in the pointy thing out on the pan. That said, I subsequently met some Army officers with a similar attitude, but then I had the rank to do something about it.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mover, I think you may have a good point; the Crabs appear to rely much more on management than leadership; they would say that they are a more technical service and I suppose that they don't need the same degree of leadership compaired to those in regular and direct contact with the enemy. What is clear is that each of the 3 services does have a different approach to it's people. I have met some fisheads and crabs who wouldn't relish being led in the army leadership manner - I guess that's one of the reasons we have 3 services
Last edited by Odigron; 7th Nov 2011 at 12:23.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have met quite a few ex army folk who didn't like the Army style of leadership either, in fact they disliked it so much they moved to the light blue and had a thoroughly enjoyable and far more civilised time 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you have to use pejorative words like Crab? You'll find that you can have a much more grown up conversation if you avoid crab/fishhead/pongo.
Interesting that there are no further points on the cost piece.
The officer question raises more points. Are we saying that officers are only officers to lead men? Maybe. Then aircrew who have no potential could "just" be SNCOs (but shouldn't SNCOs be able to lead as well??) Does responsibility make any difference, both in terms of 100s of millions worth of kit and the employment of weapons (which aren't the same as firing an SA-80 or firing an arty piece, IMHO). Perhaps as they don't lead men (?) all aircrew could have an entirely different rank structure, neither officer nor NCO? We could call them specialist aircrew or professional aviators!! Remember this is service agnostic, but if you want to be efficient (cheap) then you don't put someone through training for a complex weapons system such as Tornado or Apache and only have them operate it for 5 years - you do it forever, perhaps with a few short breaks to broaden knowledge bases.
Hd Land at DCDC has an "interesting" view of leadership in the 3 services; they are all of course different, but he clearly is very proud of Army leadership but doesn't get RAF leadership (he doesn't openly sneer but it is close).
Interesting that there are no further points on the cost piece.
The officer question raises more points. Are we saying that officers are only officers to lead men? Maybe. Then aircrew who have no potential could "just" be SNCOs (but shouldn't SNCOs be able to lead as well??) Does responsibility make any difference, both in terms of 100s of millions worth of kit and the employment of weapons (which aren't the same as firing an SA-80 or firing an arty piece, IMHO). Perhaps as they don't lead men (?) all aircrew could have an entirely different rank structure, neither officer nor NCO? We could call them specialist aircrew or professional aviators!! Remember this is service agnostic, but if you want to be efficient (cheap) then you don't put someone through training for a complex weapons system such as Tornado or Apache and only have them operate it for 5 years - you do it forever, perhaps with a few short breaks to broaden knowledge bases.
Hd Land at DCDC has an "interesting" view of leadership in the 3 services; they are all of course different, but he clearly is very proud of Army leadership but doesn't get RAF leadership (he doesn't openly sneer but it is close).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have met some fisheads and crabs who wouldn't relish being led in the army leadership manner - I guess that's one of the reasons we have 3 services
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost?
Well as SNCO aircrew on PES, I am lucky to take home in excess of £60k per year so I don't see the AAC as being classed as "value for money" as I am sure it would be much cheaper to have a turn over of young officers who in the majority never reach PES/PAS status.
With regards the effect at the sharp end? Well we each have our own benefits as Libya proved.
With regards the effect at the sharp end? Well we each have our own benefits as Libya proved.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you have to use pejorative words like Crab? You'll find that you can have a much more grown up conversation if you avoid crab/fishhead/pongo.
Surely, on these boards it should be "crab/wafu/pongo". 
crab/wafu/smurfhat
or
crab/wafu/bluetac-head
or
crab/wafu/lard-arsed, big-wallet, "that's enough about you, let's talk about me" tosser.