Janes report on AAC
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The trouble is, it's all a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The AAC fought tooth and nail to win (and keep AH) in the early nineties partly to divest themselves of the "ash and trash" reputation that grew up around BAOR and GW1. Never mind that the ash and trash roles provided critical recce, comms and liaison functions to ever eager BG Commanders. At the start of the millenia along comes Apache, and the beginning of a serious teeth arm role for the first time. Not only is Apache wildly successful, thanks to Afghanistan it brings major changes in Army doctrine that fully validates the AAC in a combat role. So now everybody either wants to fly or employ AH to stay on the glitzy end of the battlefield.
Meanwhile, back in the hangar, Aviation budgets are blown left right and centre trying to keep enough Apaches operational. Tough decisions have to be made, the AAC have eschewed the importance of those recce, comms and liaison roles, allowing UAV and JHC to consolidate in those areas (don't underestimate the lack of a meaningful troop lift capability in the AAC's demise) and suddenly, they have no political support. Gazelle was always going (no point doing recce for a fire platform that outperforms it on every level) and the 5 Regt role is politically unsustainable long term. The SF have always done their own thing, either with or without the AAC on board, so there's no capital to be gained there, and as for Wildcat, well the Navy just did the same trick to the AAC that the RAF did to them with Harrier.
So it's Apache or nothing, it full on ops or full on training, its a small cadre of dedicated and talented individuals bringing a key capability to the battlefield. But it's certainly not a lot of things that made it such good fun.
Meanwhile, back in the hangar, Aviation budgets are blown left right and centre trying to keep enough Apaches operational. Tough decisions have to be made, the AAC have eschewed the importance of those recce, comms and liaison roles, allowing UAV and JHC to consolidate in those areas (don't underestimate the lack of a meaningful troop lift capability in the AAC's demise) and suddenly, they have no political support. Gazelle was always going (no point doing recce for a fire platform that outperforms it on every level) and the 5 Regt role is politically unsustainable long term. The SF have always done their own thing, either with or without the AAC on board, so there's no capital to be gained there, and as for Wildcat, well the Navy just did the same trick to the AAC that the RAF did to them with Harrier.
So it's Apache or nothing, it full on ops or full on training, its a small cadre of dedicated and talented individuals bringing a key capability to the battlefield. But it's certainly not a lot of things that made it such good fun.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was always a running joke in the infantry that the reason the Paras or Marines were sent was because their names were easy to remember! Princess of Wales Royal Regiment anyone?
From a political perspective, all they will see in the main, is a two helicopter fleet. Wildcat to the navy, AH to the RAF minister?
The smaller the organisation, the bigger the target. And a wonder around the ivory tower that is Wallop would suggest that there isn’t much to stand in the way of that flight of fancy.
From a political perspective, all they will see in the main, is a two helicopter fleet. Wildcat to the navy, AH to the RAF minister?
The smaller the organisation, the bigger the target. And a wonder around the ivory tower that is Wallop would suggest that there isn’t much to stand in the way of that flight of fancy.
Eh - so with Wildcat's exceptional mission systems and optics/laser/Seaspray radar (vs AH's poorer M-TADs/radar)... it's impotent as a recce/target cueing helo? But, oddly, it was fine on Gz with GOA? Seriously??
I'm not saying the Gaz was better - it was what it was in its day.
The shortcomings of the AH will be addressed in the E-model - we knew we were buying old technology from the US with the original AH but it has still shown its capabilities in anger.
and as for Wildcat, well the Navy just did the same trick to the AAC that the RAF did to them with Harrier.
Back on topic...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin,
Having a 'pop' at each others' services can be fun - but do be prepared for a rejoinder or two.
The RAFAT is, by my reckoning, one of the (if not the) largest military air display team in the world. The BBMF is also the largest government owned and operated 'heritage' collection in the world. I'm not sure that the RAF can really justify either or both. The USAF doesn't. The USN doesn't. Can't find another Air Force anywhere that keeps two such large teams going (but happy to be proved wrong). I love seeing them both, but honestly, if it's a choice between active Royal Marines and cuts to RAFAT and/or BBMF, then I'm afraid the RMs have to be the priority.
On the subject of musicians the RAF is, as I type, actively recruiting for its own musicians. Lots of slots available, according to the website. The blurb makes no mention of the types of secondary roles the RAF musician is required to carry out, but I'm sure they do some, just as the RM musicians do. Perhaps the RAF could cut back on its own musicians to keep the RAFAT and BBMF going?
The point here is that uninformed inter service mud slinging gets none of us anywhere. Let's be nice to each other, shall we?
Best regards as ever to the RAFAT, BBMF, Royal Marines and musicians (whatever cloth they wear).
Engines
Having a 'pop' at each others' services can be fun - but do be prepared for a rejoinder or two.
The RAFAT is, by my reckoning, one of the (if not the) largest military air display team in the world. The BBMF is also the largest government owned and operated 'heritage' collection in the world. I'm not sure that the RAF can really justify either or both. The USAF doesn't. The USN doesn't. Can't find another Air Force anywhere that keeps two such large teams going (but happy to be proved wrong). I love seeing them both, but honestly, if it's a choice between active Royal Marines and cuts to RAFAT and/or BBMF, then I'm afraid the RMs have to be the priority.
On the subject of musicians the RAF is, as I type, actively recruiting for its own musicians. Lots of slots available, according to the website. The blurb makes no mention of the types of secondary roles the RAF musician is required to carry out, but I'm sure they do some, just as the RM musicians do. Perhaps the RAF could cut back on its own musicians to keep the RAFAT and BBMF going?
The point here is that uninformed inter service mud slinging gets none of us anywhere. Let's be nice to each other, shall we?
Best regards as ever to the RAFAT, BBMF, Royal Marines and musicians (whatever cloth they wear).
Engines
Nigerian In Law
The trouble is, it's all a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The AAC fought tooth and nail to win (and keep AH) in the early nineties partly to divest themselves of the "ash and trash" reputation that grew up around BAOR and GW1. Never mind that the ash and trash roles provided critical recce, comms and liaison functions to ever eager BG Commanders. At the start of the millenia along comes Apache, and the beginning of a serious teeth arm role for the first time. Not only is Apache wildly successful, thanks to Afghanistan it brings major changes in Army doctrine that fully validates the AAC in a combat role. So now everybody either wants to fly or employ AH to stay on the glitzy end of the battlefield.
Meanwhile, back in the hangar, Aviation budgets are blown left right and centre trying to keep enough Apaches operational. Tough decisions have to be made, the AAC have eschewed the importance of those recce, comms and liaison roles, allowing UAV and JHC to consolidate in those areas (don't underestimate the lack of a meaningful troop lift capability in the AAC's demise) and suddenly, they have no political support. Gazelle was always going (no point doing recce for a fire platform that outperforms it on every level) and the 5 Regt role is politically unsustainable long term. The SF have always done their own thing, either with or without the AAC on board, so there's no capital to be gained there, and as for Wildcat, well the Navy just did the same trick to the AAC that the RAF did to them with Harrier.
So it's Apache or nothing, it full on ops or full on training, its a small cadre of dedicated and talented individuals bringing a key capability to the battlefield. But it's certainly not a lot of things that made it such good fun.
Meanwhile, back in the hangar, Aviation budgets are blown left right and centre trying to keep enough Apaches operational. Tough decisions have to be made, the AAC have eschewed the importance of those recce, comms and liaison roles, allowing UAV and JHC to consolidate in those areas (don't underestimate the lack of a meaningful troop lift capability in the AAC's demise) and suddenly, they have no political support. Gazelle was always going (no point doing recce for a fire platform that outperforms it on every level) and the 5 Regt role is politically unsustainable long term. The SF have always done their own thing, either with or without the AAC on board, so there's no capital to be gained there, and as for Wildcat, well the Navy just did the same trick to the AAC that the RAF did to them with Harrier.
So it's Apache or nothing, it full on ops or full on training, its a small cadre of dedicated and talented individuals bringing a key capability to the battlefield. But it's certainly not a lot of things that made it such good fun.
NEO
Last edited by Nigerian Expat Outlaw; 3rd Oct 2017 at 16:49. Reason: Karnt shpell
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'The RAFAT is, by my reckoning, one of the (if not the) largest military air display team in the world. The BBMF is also the largest government owned and operated 'heritage' collection in the world. I'm not sure that the RAF can really justify either or both. The USAF doesn't. The USN doesn't. Can't find another Air Force anywhere that keeps two such large teams going (but happy to be proved wrong). I love seeing them both, but honestly, if it's a choice between active Royal Marines and cuts to RAFAT and/or BBMF, then I'm afraid the RMs have to be the priority.'
Well done Engines for understanding what Defence is all about - something that many, many on here don't have a slightest grasp of.
No names but it is pretty clear.
'Spot on. Apache took the AAC from poor relation to Number 1 in the Hit Parade with a bullet. But everything has a price, particularly in this era of austerity'
...and the shiny toy syndrome meant that did not have their eye on the ISR ball that allowed the RA through the defence. They should have grabbed it with both talons.
Well done Engines for understanding what Defence is all about - something that many, many on here don't have a slightest grasp of.
No names but it is pretty clear.
'Spot on. Apache took the AAC from poor relation to Number 1 in the Hit Parade with a bullet. But everything has a price, particularly in this era of austerity'
...and the shiny toy syndrome meant that did not have their eye on the ISR ball that allowed the RA through the defence. They should have grabbed it with both talons.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
the RN version is what you are describing, not the AAC version. There is no Seaspray radar and the 'exceptional' mission system is seriously hampered by the lack of processing power (one was removed to save money and the other barely copes). It doesn't have the endurance of either the Lynx or the Gazelle and it can barely lift the skin off a rice pudding.:
In an Army bereft of ISR you'd think a Recce Helicopter would be an easy sell. Yet, whilst everyone of varying services are (understandably) obsessed by UH-60, that is not where we are (yet).
In other news, the US Army is reportedly regretting cutting its recce heli... US Army Says It Badly Needs A Scout Helicopter After Junking The Ones It Had
In an Army bereft of ISR you'd think a Recce Helicopter would be an easy sell.
The problem with the Wildcat in the army recce role is its configuration. While the above-the-nose sensor turret is ideal for scanning a maritime horizon, it's not so ideal for when you're hovering over a jungle and need to look down, say.
The radar is a role fit
Can you point to a single occasion when the AH1 Wildcat has had it fitted
An armed recce helo for overland use needs the sensors mounted above the rotor so that the aircraft doesn't have to be exposed when terrain masking - can the Wildcat do that??????? That ball thing is just in the wrong place.
I'm sure it is a good naval helicopter but that's it (and that is what is was designed for)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Priorities?
Wildcat will come good eventually we just need a “ruddy good war” to fix it first because only then does money become available. AH didn’t arrive in the state it is now, Afghan helped.
As for the WC radar I’m no expert but I know a bit on EW. When I challenged a well informed individual about the chin radar rather than a mast he was adamant it no longer needs to be atop the mast as modern software can filter a lot of the ground clutter out. I’m no engineer, I don’t know but I do know AESA plus some processors can do wonders. It could be something unique on the battlefield in the land environment. A SAR that can cut around at high speed with relative LO characteristics. Surely worthwhile to a Div or Bde commander?
But we haven’t got it so ...meh. Make do with a camera, hardly as useful disappointingly.
But what grinds my gears is-
The saddest thing I find for the AAC is that it appears to lack a big direction or end state. The axe is swinging but other than AH there isn’t much to justify what we intend to do in 10-20 years. Just a bit more of the same if they’ll let us.
We are in for big changes there is the transition from D model AH to E, MFTS, end of Gz, FW to RAF, eventually 212 changing over and by the way Lynx and some of its missions are dead for the AAC but not defence. It saves money fine but what effects are we to deliver in the peer plus/peer enemy environment. The AAC is part of the deterrence and modern capability piece.
If this was all going on to enable an Avn force that can use, hunt and kill UAS, protect or kill HVTs in a Div or Bde fight then it would make sense. Unfortunately to my humble gaze we appear to be getting salami sliced with not much of a corner to claim as our own.
Rant complete, record target as DR1P.
As for the WC radar I’m no expert but I know a bit on EW. When I challenged a well informed individual about the chin radar rather than a mast he was adamant it no longer needs to be atop the mast as modern software can filter a lot of the ground clutter out. I’m no engineer, I don’t know but I do know AESA plus some processors can do wonders. It could be something unique on the battlefield in the land environment. A SAR that can cut around at high speed with relative LO characteristics. Surely worthwhile to a Div or Bde commander?
But we haven’t got it so ...meh. Make do with a camera, hardly as useful disappointingly.
But what grinds my gears is-
The saddest thing I find for the AAC is that it appears to lack a big direction or end state. The axe is swinging but other than AH there isn’t much to justify what we intend to do in 10-20 years. Just a bit more of the same if they’ll let us.
We are in for big changes there is the transition from D model AH to E, MFTS, end of Gz, FW to RAF, eventually 212 changing over and by the way Lynx and some of its missions are dead for the AAC but not defence. It saves money fine but what effects are we to deliver in the peer plus/peer enemy environment. The AAC is part of the deterrence and modern capability piece.
If this was all going on to enable an Avn force that can use, hunt and kill UAS, protect or kill HVTs in a Div or Bde fight then it would make sense. Unfortunately to my humble gaze we appear to be getting salami sliced with not much of a corner to claim as our own.
Rant complete, record target as DR1P.
Ricorigs
it already had, in the guise of the Mk9A which could easily have had an EO capability added.
Otherwise, I think your feelings are reflected exactly in crewrooms across the Corps.
Briefly back to Politely (the Wildcat guru) - can you tell me what use a 2 hour endurance is at sea? It's not a great deal of use over land but for a helo designed to go out on station for an hour it rather limits its ability.
There is mention of aux fuel tanks extending the endurance to 4:30 - are they a standard fit for the RN ones? If so, there goes your 800kgs of lift capacity.
Wildcat will come good eventually we just need a “ruddy good war” to fix it
Otherwise, I think your feelings are reflected exactly in crewrooms across the Corps.
Briefly back to Politely (the Wildcat guru) - can you tell me what use a 2 hour endurance is at sea? It's not a great deal of use over land but for a helo designed to go out on station for an hour it rather limits its ability.
There is mention of aux fuel tanks extending the endurance to 4:30 - are they a standard fit for the RN ones? If so, there goes your 800kgs of lift capacity.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an Army bereft of ISR you'd think a Recce Helicopter would be an easy sell.
If the Army wish ISR, and persistent ISR at that, there are other, far more effective ways of delivering that than wildcat....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Front page of today’s Times....
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...vamp-pjrmx7pw9
The army’s air force is to shrink by almost a quarter in a cost-cutting measure that will change the shape of military aviation.
The Army Air Corps (AAC), which provides surveillance and combat support and once included Prince Harry in its ranks, is set to lose five squadrons and 400 posts. Senior sources questioned whether the reduction in staffing and aircraft would take the unit below “critical mass”, opening up the possibility of the AAC being split between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, 60 years after it was formed. “It’s goodbye, goodbye,” said a senior former officer, adding that the AAC traditionally felt that it had a raw deal: “The Army Air Corps has always felt on the hind tit and being kicked by the rest of the army.”
The plans, which have yet to be finalised, are part of a revamp of the army to cut costs and improve efficiency. They will also be influenced by the mini review of defence that will conclude in December. “It is a proposal that looks likely to be implemented,” a military source said.
Under the Army 2020 Refine plan, 400 jobs out of the 1,700 staff roles in the AAC will go. In addition about 200 of 2,000 attached support posts provided by the Royal Mechanical and Electrical Engineers, Royal Logistic Corps and Adjutant General’s Corps will be erased. A source said that affected personnel would be moved into other areas of the army so that the move would not result in redundancies.
Planned structural alterations mean that any plans to rebuild two additional squadrons to fly the Wildcat attack helicopter will be scrapped. Instead only 661 and 659 squadrons will continue to operate the aircraft, which is also flown by the Royal Navy. A third squadron will be a training and conversion unit. Plans to purchase additional Wildcat helicopters to equip 657 squadron, which supports Britain’s special forces, have also been ditched. The Times reported last month that the unit would lose its Lynx Mk9A helicopters next year, but at the time a Ministry of Defence source insisted that the aircraft would be replaced. This is no longer the case.
In other changes, an entire fleet of 34 Gazelle observation helicopters, operated by 655 squadron from Northern Ireland, has had its out-of-service date brought forward to next year, Tim Ripley, who wrote about the AAC shake up in Jane’s Defence Weekly, said. A contingent of fixed-wing Islander and Defender aircraft also operated by 651 squadron, will be handed over to the RAF. These moves will result in an entire regiment, 5 Regiment Army Air Corps, which comprises 651 and 655 squadrons, being disbanded, Jane’s reported.......
An army spokesman said: “The examination of aviation structures as part of the army structural change work to implement SDSR15 is ongoing. Final decisions on structures, locations and personnel numbers are not expected until the end of the year.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...vamp-pjrmx7pw9
The army’s air force is to shrink by almost a quarter in a cost-cutting measure that will change the shape of military aviation.
The Army Air Corps (AAC), which provides surveillance and combat support and once included Prince Harry in its ranks, is set to lose five squadrons and 400 posts. Senior sources questioned whether the reduction in staffing and aircraft would take the unit below “critical mass”, opening up the possibility of the AAC being split between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, 60 years after it was formed. “It’s goodbye, goodbye,” said a senior former officer, adding that the AAC traditionally felt that it had a raw deal: “The Army Air Corps has always felt on the hind tit and being kicked by the rest of the army.”
The plans, which have yet to be finalised, are part of a revamp of the army to cut costs and improve efficiency. They will also be influenced by the mini review of defence that will conclude in December. “It is a proposal that looks likely to be implemented,” a military source said.
Under the Army 2020 Refine plan, 400 jobs out of the 1,700 staff roles in the AAC will go. In addition about 200 of 2,000 attached support posts provided by the Royal Mechanical and Electrical Engineers, Royal Logistic Corps and Adjutant General’s Corps will be erased. A source said that affected personnel would be moved into other areas of the army so that the move would not result in redundancies.
Planned structural alterations mean that any plans to rebuild two additional squadrons to fly the Wildcat attack helicopter will be scrapped. Instead only 661 and 659 squadrons will continue to operate the aircraft, which is also flown by the Royal Navy. A third squadron will be a training and conversion unit. Plans to purchase additional Wildcat helicopters to equip 657 squadron, which supports Britain’s special forces, have also been ditched. The Times reported last month that the unit would lose its Lynx Mk9A helicopters next year, but at the time a Ministry of Defence source insisted that the aircraft would be replaced. This is no longer the case.
In other changes, an entire fleet of 34 Gazelle observation helicopters, operated by 655 squadron from Northern Ireland, has had its out-of-service date brought forward to next year, Tim Ripley, who wrote about the AAC shake up in Jane’s Defence Weekly, said. A contingent of fixed-wing Islander and Defender aircraft also operated by 651 squadron, will be handed over to the RAF. These moves will result in an entire regiment, 5 Regiment Army Air Corps, which comprises 651 and 655 squadrons, being disbanded, Jane’s reported.......
An army spokesman said: “The examination of aviation structures as part of the army structural change work to implement SDSR15 is ongoing. Final decisions on structures, locations and personnel numbers are not expected until the end of the year.”
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: dark side off the sea!!
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NCO Pilots
I have been reading this with great interest. What is going to happen with the NCO pilot Cadre is it going to go the same way as the Royal Marines and Commissioned only Pilots and NCO crewman.?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Ricorigs it already had, in the guise of the Mk9A which could easily have had an EO capability added.
Otherwise, I think your feelings are reflected exactly in crewrooms across the Corps.
Briefly back to Politely (the Wildcat guru) - can you tell me what use a 2 hour endurance is at sea? It's not a great deal of use over land but for a helo designed to go out on station for an hour it rather limits its ability.
There is mention of aux fuel tanks extending the endurance to 4:30 - are they a standard fit for the RN ones? If so, there goes your 800kgs of lift capacity.
Otherwise, I think your feelings are reflected exactly in crewrooms across the Corps.
Briefly back to Politely (the Wildcat guru) - can you tell me what use a 2 hour endurance is at sea? It's not a great deal of use over land but for a helo designed to go out on station for an hour it rather limits its ability.
There is mention of aux fuel tanks extending the endurance to 4:30 - are they a standard fit for the RN ones? If so, there goes your 800kgs of lift capacity.
So that 2 hour endurance will be really useful then...............
