Shaping the UK's Helicopter Force Post-Afghanistan
Errrr.....are there some other types that should be in that list even if they are not RAF Helicopters?
Last edited by SASless; 9th Aug 2013 at 17:25.
Beags,
Your sums look good, but I shouldn't fret re their employment. Successive govts have managed to find uses for them! Additionally, there is a lot of training required to refresh atrophied skills - particularly jungle/arctic environments and certain tactical disciplines. Don't forget, unlike most FW aircraft, RW have a massive part to play in any national crisis - extreme weather, floods, disease, let alone anything more nefarious. With the loss of MilSAR this capability will be even more important in the future.
SASLEss,
Beagle mentions only RAF RW (less the 20-odd SAR Sea King 3/3As due to retire by 2016). To the list needs to be added 22 Merlin Mk4 (3/3A transferred to the FAA and modified for ship use), 60-odd Wildcats, a slack handful of Gazelle/Lynx 9A (OSD late this decade) and the AH.
Your sums look good, but I shouldn't fret re their employment. Successive govts have managed to find uses for them! Additionally, there is a lot of training required to refresh atrophied skills - particularly jungle/arctic environments and certain tactical disciplines. Don't forget, unlike most FW aircraft, RW have a massive part to play in any national crisis - extreme weather, floods, disease, let alone anything more nefarious. With the loss of MilSAR this capability will be even more important in the future.
SASLEss,
Beagle mentions only RAF RW (less the 20-odd SAR Sea King 3/3As due to retire by 2016). To the list needs to be added 22 Merlin Mk4 (3/3A transferred to the FAA and modified for ship use), 60-odd Wildcats, a slack handful of Gazelle/Lynx 9A (OSD late this decade) and the AH.
With an almost exclusively Chinook RAF RW force in a few years, perhaps the time has come to scrap DHFS and run helicopter training on the same type used on the front-line.
Why waste hours on Squirrel and Griffin when you then have to teach all the same stuff again on an OCU?
This will allow the full-crew training idea to be implemented right from the outset.
Yes I know Chinook hours are more expensive but what else are we going to do with all those aircraft (unless we invade somewhere else)?
Why waste hours on Squirrel and Griffin when you then have to teach all the same stuff again on an OCU?
This will allow the full-crew training idea to be implemented right from the outset.
Yes I know Chinook hours are more expensive but what else are we going to do with all those aircraft (unless we invade somewhere else)?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle mentions only RAF RW (less the 20-odd SAR Sea King 3/3As due to retire by 2016). To the list needs to be added 22 Merlin Mk4 (3/3A transferred to the FAA and modified for ship use), 60-odd Wildcats, a slack handful of Gazelle/Lynx 9A (OSD late this decade) and the AH.
Why not go straight from the Squirrel to the Chinook?
As I have opined in the past.....Folks...a helicopter is a helicopter is a helicopter.
The real difference is the operational use of the machine and training for that.
Young, fresh, keen as mustard, new co-pilots can quickly learn to fly the bigger machine and with not a lot of training can fit into an experienced crew with not a lot of bother.....assuming the experienced crew is willing/required to mentor the new guy.
The hard part of learning how to fly the Chinook is understanding how small it is.....along with how big it is.
I realize in a shrinking military organization....there is going to be some Turf protecting going on....but sometimes commonsense has to used. The RAF certainly has figured out a way to complicate matters at the expense of efficiency and cost it would appear....but at least it justifies all those manning points I guess.
Before you squawk....the US Army is pretty good at doing the same thing.
A young BlackHawk pilot friend of mine told me of all the "Qualifications" she has to achieve before flying in Afghanistan......the process was to the point it would make the Australian CAA blush and I used to think they were the most extreme in the World.
As I have opined in the past.....Folks...a helicopter is a helicopter is a helicopter.
The real difference is the operational use of the machine and training for that.
Young, fresh, keen as mustard, new co-pilots can quickly learn to fly the bigger machine and with not a lot of training can fit into an experienced crew with not a lot of bother.....assuming the experienced crew is willing/required to mentor the new guy.
The hard part of learning how to fly the Chinook is understanding how small it is.....along with how big it is.
I realize in a shrinking military organization....there is going to be some Turf protecting going on....but sometimes commonsense has to used. The RAF certainly has figured out a way to complicate matters at the expense of efficiency and cost it would appear....but at least it justifies all those manning points I guess.
Before you squawk....the US Army is pretty good at doing the same thing.
A young BlackHawk pilot friend of mine told me of all the "Qualifications" she has to achieve before flying in Afghanistan......the process was to the point it would make the Australian CAA blush and I used to think they were the most extreme in the World.
Gentleman Aviator
Surely the most important point of using a small (= cheap) helo is to weed out early those who won't make it to the big (= expensive) ones.
Fellow QHIs at every level will probably agree (always a bold statement!) that most of those chopped lacked "capacity" rather than motor skills. If they can't hack the "wetware" use on a puddle jumper they'll never hack a big one.
And whilst it is possible to teach crew management on a Squirrel, it's easier on a Griffin, with .... er ... crew. Did we (RAF) not at one time send ab initios straight from Gazelle to Puma?
Fellow QHIs at every level will probably agree (always a bold statement!) that most of those chopped lacked "capacity" rather than motor skills. If they can't hack the "wetware" use on a puddle jumper they'll never hack a big one.
And whilst it is possible to teach crew management on a Squirrel, it's easier on a Griffin, with .... er ... crew. Did we (RAF) not at one time send ab initios straight from Gazelle to Puma?
Biggus, probably through recent history (and that includes the time before the desert - before 2003), along with the advent of the Joint Expeditionary Force as one of the likely key tenets for the future direction of Defence.
Last edited by MG; 11th Aug 2013 at 08:11.
Crab,
I think JHC's rationale to look at training is designed to take hours away from the expensive front line types - particularly Chinook. The CPF 'top up' for Chinook hours will soon run dry and I imagine that a further round of 'economies' will drive JHC to further reduce costs associated with flying FL platforms - there is little sea room to reduce any other costs. My read of AVM Dixon's statement is that if you have the same aircraft as the RW trainer (ie all new pilots already qualified on it...) scattered through the front line you can transfer basic skills flying (IF, GH etc) from the FL type to the cheaper alternative - perhaps even saving Stn Execs from being current on the FL type. As a bonus, these platforms would be available for NVG recces and light comms work, and provide a further 'pot' of airframes for national contingency. Much like the Gazelles in the past, the 'tick' on the smaller airframe could be used as a carrot to incentivise crews to stay.
The Squirrel (or equivalent..) is pretty tricky to teach rearcrew skills on though...
I think JHC's rationale to look at training is designed to take hours away from the expensive front line types - particularly Chinook. The CPF 'top up' for Chinook hours will soon run dry and I imagine that a further round of 'economies' will drive JHC to further reduce costs associated with flying FL platforms - there is little sea room to reduce any other costs. My read of AVM Dixon's statement is that if you have the same aircraft as the RW trainer (ie all new pilots already qualified on it...) scattered through the front line you can transfer basic skills flying (IF, GH etc) from the FL type to the cheaper alternative - perhaps even saving Stn Execs from being current on the FL type. As a bonus, these platforms would be available for NVG recces and light comms work, and provide a further 'pot' of airframes for national contingency. Much like the Gazelles in the past, the 'tick' on the smaller airframe could be used as a carrot to incentivise crews to stay.
The Squirrel (or equivalent..) is pretty tricky to teach rearcrew skills on though...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taught rearcrew on the Eurocopter AS355 Ecureuil 2 (Twin Squirrel), a situation that was at the time a last resort to complete an FCO sponsored task within a limited timeframe.
To do it we had to remove the fwd left seat and at no time could pilot & QHCI & student crewman all be on the right side together due to CofG issues. Putting a 'balance person' in the LHS was a none starter. The short version of this story is that practical crewman training in these helicopters is a none starter beyond Navigation training.
However students graduating from basic trainer to advance skills on their operational type has already been done: (In 105 flying hours)
Fast track rotary wing training/
To do it we had to remove the fwd left seat and at no time could pilot & QHCI & student crewman all be on the right side together due to CofG issues. Putting a 'balance person' in the LHS was a none starter. The short version of this story is that practical crewman training in these helicopters is a none starter beyond Navigation training.
However students graduating from basic trainer to advance skills on their operational type has already been done: (In 105 flying hours)
Fast track rotary wing training/
Anyone looked West to see how the US Military does this....as they have a few helicopters too you know.
The US Army does Primary flight training in the Jet Ranger....then Studes move onto the FL aircraft they are to be assigned.
National Guard and Reserve Units have replaced some FL aircraft with EC-145 derivatives.
Is that not what you guys are talking about except you are trying to featherbed as many levels of QHI's and the like as possible?
The US Army does Primary flight training in the Jet Ranger....then Studes move onto the FL aircraft they are to be assigned.
National Guard and Reserve Units have replaced some FL aircraft with EC-145 derivatives.
Is that not what you guys are talking about except you are trying to featherbed as many levels of QHI's and the like as possible?