Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Army cuts - AAC going?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Army cuts - AAC going?

Old 8th Jul 2012, 10:12
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 78
Posts: 641
I love it when the crabs take a pot at the Army and then go all prickly and hurt when the Army return the favour! What a pointless thread this has turned into, again!
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 10:30
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Great innit

Really very sad that a large majority of RAF undermine the credibility of their organisation....

but to come on PPRuNe and describe the RAF as a bunch of self-serving c***s is out of order and frankly deserves such a tag.
As a crab, you'd obviously disagree.


The Army have always got on well with the RN, they share a very similar 'can do' ethic
Yep tend to agree. Percy and Jack speak the same sort of language.

A theory might be that helicopter aviators in the Navy and Army are seen to be at the top of their game whereas RAF heli types are seen as failed FJ pilots by their peers hence their chippyness? I dont agree with that theory because at the coalface/in the cockpit, we are all pretty much the same. Its only once you look at the higher echelons, you see the larger divisions. RAF are perceived to be very PR and marketing savvy to the extent of stitching up their counterparts in other services.

Higher up:

RAF - everything FJ
RN - everything that floats
Army - marching up and down and cocktail parties.

Quite cheap shots using examples of heroism to win an argument on here. Lets see how quickly some forget the bond of who supports who once we've left Helmand.
wg13_dummy is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 10:31
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 51
Posts: 319
The crabs seem to be taking the Army's response to their banter a little personally. They shouldn't. It's not that we don't think you do a decent job, it's more that we simply don't like you.
Chicken Leg is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 10:44
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,698
And quite what will the Hairy Arm Corps find to do with itself once the UK leaves Afghanistan?

A few fah-pah demos apart, what do you actually see yourselves doing?
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 10:48
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
And quite what will the Hairy Arm Corps find to do with itself once the UK leaves Afghanistan?

A few fah-pah demos apart, what do you actually see yourselves doing?
Prob find ourselves sat on top of one of them there big boats bobbing around the ogsplosh along side those naval types 'projecting power and diplomacy'.....




As an aside, will Puma 2 have a reasonable SHOL (or infact any form of SHOL)?
wg13_dummy is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 10:53
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Give a rest girls, you sound like a bunch of 5 year olds playing Top Trumps.
This is the sort of shite that the media loves to pick up on.
TheWizard is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 11:02
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,698
The dynamics of helicopter operations from rolling/pitching/heaving platforms are quite complex, so if no shipborne helicopter operating requirements have been specified for the Puma HC Mk 2, then it will be of little use whilst bobbing up and down on the briny.

In any case, wasn't the Puma LEP chiefly geared towards hot/high operations?
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 11:16
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
The dynamics of helicopter operations from rolling/pitching/heaving platforms are quite complex, so if no shipborne helicopter operating requirements have been specified for the Puma HC Mk 2, then it will be of little use whilst bobbing up and down on the briny.

In any case, wasn't the Puma LEP chiefly geared towards hot/high operations?
Kinda limits its potential employment. Good if we're called to stop those pesky flip flops up in them there hills, not so good (as FCOC suggests) if we are involved in an Op that requires some form of Lit M. Do you think it was a bit of an oversight not to specify LEP to have a SHOL? Or was it drawn up in haste to preserve an airframe? If we have another ELLAMY type op, the Pumas will be on the sidelines with the half time oranges and a sick note from matron? 16 million per airframe well spent.... Does that limit RAF SH involvement somewhat?
wg13_dummy is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 13:50
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,698
Once 'them' in the MoD-box get their heads out of their sandaholic, helicopter-centric mind set and return to a more in-depth view of national requirements, the need for aircraft such as all those Chinooks and the AAC's AH-64s will surely come into question?

As will the need for 8 C-17s, 23-ish A400....'Fat Lass' and some ageing C-130Js, given there'll be 9 Voyagers available to....do what?
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 14:08
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 49
When I saw the title of this thread I wondered how long it would take to degenerate into the normal Army vs RAF slanging match!

When I transferred it used to be that the AAC was indeed looked upon by the RAF as an organisation that played at flying. Thankfully over the last ten years the Corps has changed beyond all recognition (I have watched this happen) and believe me, we don't think we're perfect (far from it) but I have heard many compliments from friends in the RAF and RN about our professionalism and work ethic. I wonder how many people that have posted have recent operational experience and have actually worked together at JHF(A) in Helmand? On a personal level I think we work bloody well with our Crab and Fish Head brothers and sisters but wether intended or not the initial post did sound like someone taking great pleasure in a perceived demise of Army Aviation.

Anybody who has been fully briefed on Army 2020 will know that with the CSP the Apache has a stable future and is valued for it's contribution to the battlefield (CGS in particular is keen for continued development of the platform).

As for value for money? Well on my last tour the Apache accounted for over 80% of EKIA in TFH as well as the deterrant factor which is difficult to put a price on (particularly during escort of Tricky) - so probably not bad for a Corps that takes the quoted 60% of the Army's budget?

Peace out.

Last edited by The Cryptkeeper; 8th Jul 2012 at 14:13.
The Cryptkeeper is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 14:33
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
If we have another ELLAMY type op, the Pumas will be on the sidelines with the half time oranges and a sick note from matron? 16 million per airframe well spent.... Does that limit RAF SH involvement somewhat?
An asset does not have to be able to do everything, that's why we have the three services with a variety of aircraft and capabilities.

The Puma HC2 is entering service to provide a more capable platform than its predecessor in providing battlefield helicopter support in a wider variety of operating environments. If that battlefield turns out to be the littoral, that's when the grey machines of the Navy should kick in to action.

So, does Puma 2 limit RAF SH involvement? No, that's what the Navy is for (in this case).
MAD Boom is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 15:32
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
An asset does not have to be able to do everything, that's why we have the three services with a variety of aircraft and capabilities.

The Puma HC2 is entering service to provide a more capable platform than its predecessor in providing battlefield helicopter support in a wider variety of operating environments. If that battlefield turns out to be the littoral, that's when the grey machines of the Navy should kick in to action.

So, does Puma 2 limit RAF SH involvement? No, that's what the Navy is for (in this case).
On your first point, do you not think in these times of tight budgets and limited resources that our newly purchased platforms should be as flexible and 'multi role' as possible?

Wider variety as in 'hot and high'? Its only giving it a fairly specific increase in capability in a reasonably narrow operating area. Shame it'll miss out on the current op.

Your last point does suggest it will limit SH involvement as whatever the Puma HC 2 cant do, we'll use CHF Merlins instead.


Taking a completely independent point of view (ie as a taxpayer), do you think the cost to upgrade the Puma and its return of service is money well spent?

I'll head you off at the pass re Wildcat. My answer would be a conclusive 'No, Wildcat is not a sound investment!'
wg13_dummy is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 15:53
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
On your first point, do you not think in these times of tight budgets and limited resources that our newly purchased platforms should be as flexible and 'multi role' as possible?
Absolutely. however I don't see the Apache or Wildcat able to lift an ISO container or carry a significant number of troops. Not very flexible or multi-role; in which case the army relies on using RAF SH.

The Puma was never been designed to carry out ship-borne operations, and the upgrade was never going to change that.

Shame it'll miss out on the current op.
It's not over yet, and I'll believe the 2014 withdrawal when I see it. Governments have been known to change their minds.

Your last point does suggest it will limit SH involvement as whatever the Puma HC 2 cant do, we'll use CHF Merlins instead.
In the littoral environment, yes. And when the army require a covert insert at night into a small, urban HLS, I very much doubt JHC will send anything other than the Puma. No asset is able to do everything; find me one that can, and procure that instead.

Taking a completely independent point of view (ie as a taxpayer), do you think the cost to upgrade the Puma and its return of service is money well spent?

I'll head you off at the pass re Wildcat. My answer would be a conclusive 'No, Wildcat is not a sound investment!'
Find a replacement for less before the end of 2012 and you can ditch Puma 2. Until then, the upgrade remains a sound choice to prolong the life of a well-proven platform at minimal expense to the tax-payer.
MAD Boom is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2012, 21:58
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 51
Posts: 386
MAD Boom, comparing the WAH-64 with SH does you a disservice.
Is their role not more closely akin to that of an FJ CAS asset (or a flying tank) as opposed to that of a support heli. For that Ivan had it fairly well nailed with their Mil 24s.

Admittedly it has lifted Royal into a hot LZ, but in fairness the Harrier & Tornado couldn't do that nor lift an USL.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 04:05
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 322
Riggers

I don't believe you said that. It was funny though. Hope you're doing well meole.

Tam Macklin

Last edited by hihover; 9th Jul 2012 at 04:07.
hihover is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 22:47
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
MAD Boom, comparing the WAH-64 with SH does you a disservice.
Is their role not more closely akin to that of an FJ CAS asset (or a flying tank) as opposed to that of a support heli. For that Ivan had it fairly well nailed with their Mil 24s.
Completely agree, Sir.

My point was made in extremis; merely trying to explain that an asset is designed in a certain role to fulfil certain tasks such as the AH in the CAS role as you suggest. No asset can do everything, so I stand by my point that the Puma 2 needs a SHOL capability as much as the AH is required to carry USLs.

The Puma 2 is as flexible as it needs to be. Outside of it's traditional SH role, there will be another asset available for the task.

Last edited by MAD Boom; 9th Jul 2012 at 22:48. Reason: spelling!!
MAD Boom is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2012, 23:48
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 49
Posts: 1,759
As an experienced SH operator who has busted a gut on every occasion for the guys on the ground, particularly in the FOB's; I don't think this thread is covering anyone in glory right now.

Before the other side commences, I have been pulled out the clag several times by the AH, including one particular night when my ring was ticking like a clock and a certain QHI [named after a former Met Commissioner] went above and beyond to help us into PB Argylle.

Can we stop the dick measuring now? We all do our utmost in our particular specialisations, so lets leave the politics to the SO1's and above and respect each other for what we bring - whether it be SH/AH or maritime.

This whole thread has become a little unedifying.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 05:10
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
MGD,

Couldn't agree more, and I was really surprised to see Beags get embroiled as well?

Sadly, this whole thread provides tax payers and politicians alike with the belief that 3 individual Services delivering Battlefield Helicopters is now not viable or value for money.

3 goldfish in a bowl, one from each service, all 3 involved with helicopters, with the water (funding from treasury) getting less each year.

Not all of the goldfish will survive.

Just as the Army has seen its regiments and battalions amalgamate, isn't it time that the AAC saves the overall Army budget further and also amalgamate, either with us and AIR or through a truly Joint Forces Command?

At what stage does the AAC become unsustainable and not viable (from a funding perspective), not in professionalism or in the delivery of battlefield capability, but purely in size?

Last edited by MaroonMan4; 10th Jul 2012 at 05:23.
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 09:38
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: At the bottom of our garden
Posts: 4
Wizard, you may have put your finger close to a profound truth: that it is not possible for some Crabair Chaps and Grunt Futtocks to talk to one another in a manner befitting intelligent aviators, at least not in these columns. Superior amusement on a rainy day though....

Nice to hear from you Tam - I hope you are well and in good spirits.
riggersnr is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2012, 12:25
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 78
Posts: 535
At what stage does the AAC become unsustainable
At the same time the FAA and the RAF Regt become unsustainable?
How does amalgamating the AAC with the RAF or RN attract savings? The capability is still required, regardless of colour of uniform, and it is delivered much more effectively by the same coloured uniform. It ain't broke so don't fix it.
Genstabler is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.