Army cuts - AAC going?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great innit 
Really very sad that a large majority of RAF undermine the credibility of their organisation....
As a crab, you'd obviously disagree.
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.
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.
The Army have always got on well with the RN, they share a very similar 'can do' ethic
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
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?
A few fah-pah demos apart, what do you actually see yourselves doing?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
A few fah-pah demos apart, what do you actually see yourselves doing?
As an aside, will Puma 2 have a reasonable SHOL (or infact any form of SHOL)?
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?
In any case, wasn't the Puma LEP chiefly geared towards hot/high operations?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
In any case, wasn't the Puma LEP chiefly geared towards hot/high operations?
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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).
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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!'
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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!'
I'll head you off at the pass re Wildcat. My answer would be a conclusive 'No, Wildcat is not a sound investment!'
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: At the bottom of our garden
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Nice to hear from you Tam - I hope you are well and in good spirits.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what stage does the AAC 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.