AAC - Today's Telegraph
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: TheDarkSide
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best bit of banter and mud slinging for a while..all the elements of a internet bar brawl...this is what PPRUNE used to be like
Just a thought...CGS might just have missed the point about AH in his letter..a bit of a Torygraph trap me thinks!
NO WAH 64 D's deployed to Iraq - is he relying on the performance of the US AH 64D as a combat indicator for the future of Land Warfare? The very ones that had the **** kicked out of them by small arms fire, because they were called upon to perform tasks that the aircraft were not designed for. Lesson learned from Op Anaconda in Afghanistan....clearly not.
FCR's were relegated to the off position..ineffective against AK47's, technicals and too time consumming and complicated for the close battle. If you spend £38M on an integrated fire control system to enable stand off shock firepower at mass target arrays on the dense battlefield..and then ask it to hover OGE at 150ft AGL to cover a house search..you might need to ask wether or not you have just brought too much sophistication.
"working to update our thinking" Mmmmm, ok..then just what is the AH's central role on the battlefield, when the future threat is low intensity, urban and HMG & RPG's from kitchen windows. Where is the Army's doctrine for AH? How much thinking is needed..the cheque was handed over in 1996. Or is there just a tadge of..."just what are we going to do with this?"
AH will deliver "radical changes"....I would suggest that the suicide fanatical human bomber will be the driver for that. AH comes complete with FCR / RFI and very expensive RF Hellfire..radical..perhaps not. Give me the names of any Iraqi Air Defender's who turned scopes on! Not a long list I would suggest. Besides there are much more capable platforms whose job it is to execute that task (EF3 & EF 18 G). I for one could not think of a future conflict where sophisticated RF SAM / SPAAGs might be used. (OK..China, FSU or N. Korea..I will give you those). So have we procured a dated capability that might prove to be a "costly mistake"?
"Light, fast moving intervention forces"..to self deploy the AH will require ferry tanks..ferry tanks on..weapons off..arrive in Monrovia to support SF / Peacekeepers..err..sorry JFComd need to wait for the ship or C17 with killing thingy's on board..but have a gun though. AH is a "HEAVY" weapon system / platform..a Harrier with rotor blades. Lots of motion lotion required and lots of ammo. Its why the US Marines did not want it, US SF avoid it and why it is organic to US Divisonal CONOPS and Div Logistics. This is why 16 Special Needs Bde do not understand it and the Army must realise IT must support it...the AAC can only fly it.
Carry on with the banter..but you cannot avoid the end state..if the AH is to return its investment..it must become a tri-service asset..with full joint communications, joint logistics and joint operations. The AAC must stop trying to emulate the GPR, become proffessional (and not just act with professionalism..there is a subtle difference) and therefore become central in operating the AH, in any future tri-service organisation (JAHF)....if it is to survive this decade.
Digging in now.......
Just a thought...CGS might just have missed the point about AH in his letter..a bit of a Torygraph trap me thinks!
NO WAH 64 D's deployed to Iraq - is he relying on the performance of the US AH 64D as a combat indicator for the future of Land Warfare? The very ones that had the **** kicked out of them by small arms fire, because they were called upon to perform tasks that the aircraft were not designed for. Lesson learned from Op Anaconda in Afghanistan....clearly not.
FCR's were relegated to the off position..ineffective against AK47's, technicals and too time consumming and complicated for the close battle. If you spend £38M on an integrated fire control system to enable stand off shock firepower at mass target arrays on the dense battlefield..and then ask it to hover OGE at 150ft AGL to cover a house search..you might need to ask wether or not you have just brought too much sophistication.
"working to update our thinking" Mmmmm, ok..then just what is the AH's central role on the battlefield, when the future threat is low intensity, urban and HMG & RPG's from kitchen windows. Where is the Army's doctrine for AH? How much thinking is needed..the cheque was handed over in 1996. Or is there just a tadge of..."just what are we going to do with this?"
AH will deliver "radical changes"....I would suggest that the suicide fanatical human bomber will be the driver for that. AH comes complete with FCR / RFI and very expensive RF Hellfire..radical..perhaps not. Give me the names of any Iraqi Air Defender's who turned scopes on! Not a long list I would suggest. Besides there are much more capable platforms whose job it is to execute that task (EF3 & EF 18 G). I for one could not think of a future conflict where sophisticated RF SAM / SPAAGs might be used. (OK..China, FSU or N. Korea..I will give you those). So have we procured a dated capability that might prove to be a "costly mistake"?
"Light, fast moving intervention forces"..to self deploy the AH will require ferry tanks..ferry tanks on..weapons off..arrive in Monrovia to support SF / Peacekeepers..err..sorry JFComd need to wait for the ship or C17 with killing thingy's on board..but have a gun though. AH is a "HEAVY" weapon system / platform..a Harrier with rotor blades. Lots of motion lotion required and lots of ammo. Its why the US Marines did not want it, US SF avoid it and why it is organic to US Divisonal CONOPS and Div Logistics. This is why 16 Special Needs Bde do not understand it and the Army must realise IT must support it...the AAC can only fly it.
Carry on with the banter..but you cannot avoid the end state..if the AH is to return its investment..it must become a tri-service asset..with full joint communications, joint logistics and joint operations. The AAC must stop trying to emulate the GPR, become proffessional (and not just act with professionalism..there is a subtle difference) and therefore become central in operating the AH, in any future tri-service organisation (JAHF)....if it is to survive this decade.
Digging in now.......
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MuffC,
You have far too much insight my friend! but well said anyway...
I agree that some sort of Joint chain will be required to get best use out of Apache or any AH force, and accept that 'Jointery' will be the way of the future in many arenas - but it will only work if the Army stop using 'Jointery' as a means of imposing their ethos on the other services. What works well for them does NOT work well for the RAF (and I imagine for RN / RM as well) - they need to understand this, and also that other services have the expertise they need to operate AH effectively.
I wouldn't pretend to know the first thing about soldiering, so why does the Army purport to be 'experts' in the field of aviation? Take advice from those in the know, and more importantly, listen to it! - drop the 'we're in charge, we'll do things our way' attitude. We are all on the same team, after all!
You have far too much insight my friend! but well said anyway...
I agree that some sort of Joint chain will be required to get best use out of Apache or any AH force, and accept that 'Jointery' will be the way of the future in many arenas - but it will only work if the Army stop using 'Jointery' as a means of imposing their ethos on the other services. What works well for them does NOT work well for the RAF (and I imagine for RN / RM as well) - they need to understand this, and also that other services have the expertise they need to operate AH effectively.
I wouldn't pretend to know the first thing about soldiering, so why does the Army purport to be 'experts' in the field of aviation? Take advice from those in the know, and more importantly, listen to it! - drop the 'we're in charge, we'll do things our way' attitude. We are all on the same team, after all!
Grimweasle, I believe that the majority of RAF helo pilots are failed jet jocks as you can't join with the intention of going rotary. Whereas there are very few AAC pilots who have even tried let alone failed the SAS course.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG,
Not true - you can express your intentions to join any particular ac type at any stage of trg or selection - you even get a space on your paperwork to rank your preferences (FJ/RW/ME).
Very few failed FJ mates end up on rotary - if they've failed FJ they probably wouldn't fair much better on the SH force. Most of them get dumped on the AT fleet!!
(at least that's how it was when I joined / went through trg many moons ago - the goalposts are never static).
Besides, being a 'failed' FJ mate means you have not met (usually by a narrow margin) what is arguably the highest standard required in the aviation world, anywhere in the world. Nothing to be TOO ashamed of..........
Not true - you can express your intentions to join any particular ac type at any stage of trg or selection - you even get a space on your paperwork to rank your preferences (FJ/RW/ME).
Very few failed FJ mates end up on rotary - if they've failed FJ they probably wouldn't fair much better on the SH force. Most of them get dumped on the AT fleet!!
(at least that's how it was when I joined / went through trg many moons ago - the goalposts are never static).
Besides, being a 'failed' FJ mate means you have not met (usually by a narrow margin) what is arguably the highest standard required in the aviation world, anywhere in the world. Nothing to be TOO ashamed of..........
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Teetering head, Thank You..... We are Tri-Service and we treat each other.... ALL ranks, as intelligent individuals. ****** me!! It works!! Well it would if it wasn't for the bloody navy and army. J for joke.
PS. I have three weeks left in the RAF, anyone got any jobs because I haven't......
PS. I have three weeks left in the RAF, anyone got any jobs because I haven't......
You know, one of the main tenets of this thread (on the RAF side anyway) is that the AAC still has a 'soldiers first' policy.
It dropped that a long time ago. Sure we still go for runs etc, and learn how to shoot weapons - nothing wrong with that in a prone to capture job, is there? After all the RAF do a conduct after capture course too, but wouldn't it be so much better if you could move your lardy @rses fast enough not to get caught in the first place?
And I love all this stuff about the Army being clueless when it comes to complex weapon systems and logistics etc - because the Army just doesn't have any missiles or complex weapon systems at all does it? I suppose you chaps think that the log chain for Harrier is so much harder than even a single Artillery Regiment? No idea, have you?
The trouble is that the most blinkered single-service service is indeed the RAF. Have a look at yourselves! Bang for buck, you just don't return anywhere near the amount of investment as the Army has consistently for decades. Fact is, you lot cost a hell of a lot more money in capitation rates alone, take a Sqn Ldr doing the same job as an AAC Sgt. (or not, in the case of Lynx 5).
As a taxpayer, why should I want a helo pilot who costs me twice as much as another, just because one is in the RAF? At least the Fish heads can claim to bring some better breeding to the job, but you lot?
Time and again in SAMA, I watched the RAF perform textbook sight-picture approaches into XMG, fly over the border, drop men off in a water meadow despite advice not to do so (Puma up to the door in water - thanks v much station commander), fire off GPMG rounds into a 25,000 Ltr fuel tank - having been 'keen' enough to actually load his weapon - I mean has there ever been a more ironic job title than Loadie?
And all this at much greater cost and fewer task lines flown than the fraction of AAC people across the road.
If I was the defence minister I'd cut you lot to shreds. And don't even get me started on Typhoon - you want to see poor logistics? Typhoon's is a complete disaster and the RAF brass know it. Why doesn't the Telegraph research a bit on that?
Stop trying to pretend that efficiency = poor flight safety.
Stop pretending that you are worth the money as if you were all latter-day Douglas Baders.
Start employing NCO aircrew.
Remember that men everywhere do indeed say that that was your finest hour and that when the annals of battle are written they still will.
Don't make the rest of them a sad epitaph to that.
It dropped that a long time ago. Sure we still go for runs etc, and learn how to shoot weapons - nothing wrong with that in a prone to capture job, is there? After all the RAF do a conduct after capture course too, but wouldn't it be so much better if you could move your lardy @rses fast enough not to get caught in the first place?
And I love all this stuff about the Army being clueless when it comes to complex weapon systems and logistics etc - because the Army just doesn't have any missiles or complex weapon systems at all does it? I suppose you chaps think that the log chain for Harrier is so much harder than even a single Artillery Regiment? No idea, have you?
The trouble is that the most blinkered single-service service is indeed the RAF. Have a look at yourselves! Bang for buck, you just don't return anywhere near the amount of investment as the Army has consistently for decades. Fact is, you lot cost a hell of a lot more money in capitation rates alone, take a Sqn Ldr doing the same job as an AAC Sgt. (or not, in the case of Lynx 5).
As a taxpayer, why should I want a helo pilot who costs me twice as much as another, just because one is in the RAF? At least the Fish heads can claim to bring some better breeding to the job, but you lot?
Time and again in SAMA, I watched the RAF perform textbook sight-picture approaches into XMG, fly over the border, drop men off in a water meadow despite advice not to do so (Puma up to the door in water - thanks v much station commander), fire off GPMG rounds into a 25,000 Ltr fuel tank - having been 'keen' enough to actually load his weapon - I mean has there ever been a more ironic job title than Loadie?
And all this at much greater cost and fewer task lines flown than the fraction of AAC people across the road.
If I was the defence minister I'd cut you lot to shreds. And don't even get me started on Typhoon - you want to see poor logistics? Typhoon's is a complete disaster and the RAF brass know it. Why doesn't the Telegraph research a bit on that?
Stop trying to pretend that efficiency = poor flight safety.
Stop pretending that you are worth the money as if you were all latter-day Douglas Baders.
Start employing NCO aircrew.
Remember that men everywhere do indeed say that that was your finest hour and that when the annals of battle are written they still will.
Don't make the rest of them a sad epitaph to that.
Waste of Money in RAF
Some terms and Ranks used in Flying Units of the RAF:
Flight Commander (ie one in charge of a flight) = Squadron Leader (Not Flt Lt)
Squadron Commander (ie Officer in charge of a sqn) = Wing Commander (Not Sqn Ldr)
Wing Commander (person i/c 3-4 Sqns)= Group Captain (Not Wg Cdr)
Group Captain (bod ic 3/4 groups) = Air Commodore (not Gp Capt)
etc etc.
So there we have it. An AAC Sgt Pilot far better value/£.
As the RAF always supports either the Navy or the Army, how about giving the Mudmovers to the grunts and the pursuit ships to the fisheads. Meanwhile Mr Branson can have the AAR and AT fleet.
Mr Lockheed can have the C130J back.
Flight Commander (ie one in charge of a flight) = Squadron Leader (Not Flt Lt)
Squadron Commander (ie Officer in charge of a sqn) = Wing Commander (Not Sqn Ldr)
Wing Commander (person i/c 3-4 Sqns)= Group Captain (Not Wg Cdr)
Group Captain (bod ic 3/4 groups) = Air Commodore (not Gp Capt)
etc etc.
So there we have it. An AAC Sgt Pilot far better value/£.
As the RAF always supports either the Navy or the Army, how about giving the Mudmovers to the grunts and the pursuit ships to the fisheads. Meanwhile Mr Branson can have the AAR and AT fleet.
Mr Lockheed can have the C130J back.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not defend the RAF's rank structure, which was devised when aeroplanes were made of sticks and cloth and were worth a few hindred quid a throw. However the reason the AAC prefers NCO pilots is that senior army officers believe that the real purpose of AAC aircraft is to provide personal conveyance for the gentry. And they would feel distinctly uncomfortable being chaufeured around by an officer.
"The RAF always supports either the army or the navy". Well, I never felt that way when I was driving a Vulcan - rather the reverse. The main purpose of the army was to protect my base and of the navy to secure my supply of fuel (and grub).
"The RAF always supports either the army or the navy". Well, I never felt that way when I was driving a Vulcan - rather the reverse. The main purpose of the army was to protect my base and of the navy to secure my supply of fuel (and grub).
Last edited by Flatus Veteranus; 13th Aug 2003 at 01:12.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different, Mr Robin, just different.
'And I love all this stuff about the Army being clueless when it comes to complex weapon systems and logistics etc - because the Army just doesn't have any missiles or complex weapon systems at all does it? I suppose you chaps think that the log chain for Harrier is so much harder than even a single Artillery Regiment? No idea, have you?'
It is different, Mr Robin - VERY different. The Army are not clueless, just deal in different 'stuff' at the moment. Whether you agree or not, the RAF has been dealing in complex weapons platforms for some time now, whether successfully or not. In relative terms, the Army has not. As the Army becomes more reliant upon more complex weapons the RAF becomes more 'expeditionary'. Thus, given the right circumstances, we could actually learn something useful from each other - a wacky concept indeed! Imagine - SHARING things! Wow!
A couple of small examples of the above:
NI, last century. Blue Jobs want to put top shiny new camera thingy into rotary thing. Army Engineer positions mounts in Lynx and decrees that holes should be drilled here, here and here. 'What about the integrity of the air frame?' pipes up Blue Job. 'I'm a f&*king tank engineer by trade - put the holes there' was the reply.
Big exercise, Middle East, before GWII. Blue Job stuff put in ISOs marked CRANE LIFT ONLY, cos it might break if tilted. Brown Jobs put kit on Drops Trucks, tip it at 45 degrees 8 times before bits are delivered to sqn. B(_)gger!
Just different Mr Robin.
Sorry - I get a bit emotional - a loggy that is interested in the flying stuff? I keep it quiet! You ain't seen me - roit?
It is different, Mr Robin - VERY different. The Army are not clueless, just deal in different 'stuff' at the moment. Whether you agree or not, the RAF has been dealing in complex weapons platforms for some time now, whether successfully or not. In relative terms, the Army has not. As the Army becomes more reliant upon more complex weapons the RAF becomes more 'expeditionary'. Thus, given the right circumstances, we could actually learn something useful from each other - a wacky concept indeed! Imagine - SHARING things! Wow!
A couple of small examples of the above:
NI, last century. Blue Jobs want to put top shiny new camera thingy into rotary thing. Army Engineer positions mounts in Lynx and decrees that holes should be drilled here, here and here. 'What about the integrity of the air frame?' pipes up Blue Job. 'I'm a f&*king tank engineer by trade - put the holes there' was the reply.
Big exercise, Middle East, before GWII. Blue Job stuff put in ISOs marked CRANE LIFT ONLY, cos it might break if tilted. Brown Jobs put kit on Drops Trucks, tip it at 45 degrees 8 times before bits are delivered to sqn. B(_)gger!
Just different Mr Robin.
Sorry - I get a bit emotional - a loggy that is interested in the flying stuff? I keep it quiet! You ain't seen me - roit?
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real issue about all of this is that 16 Air Mobile, equipped
with attack helicopters and enough heli-lift capacity to deploy
and support battalion plus sized air-mobile units would be a
significantly useful item in many combat situations.
Who runs it is irrelevant if UK-plc can't support a unit
of this type of a sensible size.
Remember 1940, the Germans had fewer and worse tanks
than the French or British...what differed was how they
used them, concentrated with support doctrine that allowed
them to make a difference as against the penny packets
of the allies.
I'm certain you can see the analogy,
-- Andrew
with attack helicopters and enough heli-lift capacity to deploy
and support battalion plus sized air-mobile units would be a
significantly useful item in many combat situations.
Who runs it is irrelevant if UK-plc can't support a unit
of this type of a sensible size.
Remember 1940, the Germans had fewer and worse tanks
than the French or British...what differed was how they
used them, concentrated with support doctrine that allowed
them to make a difference as against the penny packets
of the allies.
I'm certain you can see the analogy,
-- Andrew
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: England
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C Hinecap,
you aint wrong there! How very, very of you picking up on two very pertinent points! You got anymore? I have a couple of crab stories if you wish. Doesnt make the game though, so I wont.
Some dinosaur mentioned Vulcan. How very last century. History is a great thing, if it’s relevant to the future. That was the RAFs time. They had it all. V Force, AD, and all the trappings above FAA and AAC. Now though, it aint, simple. Army supporting the RAF? V Force went out with ... er V Force. About 1969. We had Saladin’s and Centurions then lofty! Move on if you can. You been living in a deep dark hole? Banter, I love it! Quality dependant, of course.
CR. Quite relevant. MLRS, 155 of any nature, 120 of any nature, AD, take your pick, TOW and now Hellfire and 2.75mm. And anything below that concerning ordinance. Or shall we tell the 5 regts who have nothing better to do to wrap it in cling film just incase we need it? As the Army wouldnt want to pee the enemy off, would we? Crabs need to keep in check Tonka and GR7 and .......ohh Shaguars........and.........T, T, Thats all folks....
Typical of these types trying to dig a niche to justify their existence. Basically, who cares? Job is a job. Whatever or who ever it takes. I think insecurity unless they are the show stoppers is the order of the day! What or who are you supporting? SH....Army, GA...Army.......FAC....Army........Air superiorority.......Army to enable...........Tac resupply...Army.....SF..........Army, any questions? Quick question, What is the RAF's role in todays deployments?
BTW, I'm not a pongo! Just a boring purple type who believes we are now a multi asset. Harrier, Apache, Challenger, don’t give a toss. If you can give me the kit and have the reality to admit where your limits are, I'll buy that for a pound! Chess board, flexibility. Boat, plane, tank. Dont care as long as you give me the goods as advertised! Jobs a good un.
you aint wrong there! How very, very of you picking up on two very pertinent points! You got anymore? I have a couple of crab stories if you wish. Doesnt make the game though, so I wont.
Some dinosaur mentioned Vulcan. How very last century. History is a great thing, if it’s relevant to the future. That was the RAFs time. They had it all. V Force, AD, and all the trappings above FAA and AAC. Now though, it aint, simple. Army supporting the RAF? V Force went out with ... er V Force. About 1969. We had Saladin’s and Centurions then lofty! Move on if you can. You been living in a deep dark hole? Banter, I love it! Quality dependant, of course.
CR. Quite relevant. MLRS, 155 of any nature, 120 of any nature, AD, take your pick, TOW and now Hellfire and 2.75mm. And anything below that concerning ordinance. Or shall we tell the 5 regts who have nothing better to do to wrap it in cling film just incase we need it? As the Army wouldnt want to pee the enemy off, would we? Crabs need to keep in check Tonka and GR7 and .......ohh Shaguars........and.........T, T, Thats all folks....
Typical of these types trying to dig a niche to justify their existence. Basically, who cares? Job is a job. Whatever or who ever it takes. I think insecurity unless they are the show stoppers is the order of the day! What or who are you supporting? SH....Army, GA...Army.......FAC....Army........Air superiorority.......Army to enable...........Tac resupply...Army.....SF..........Army, any questions? Quick question, What is the RAF's role in todays deployments?
BTW, I'm not a pongo! Just a boring purple type who believes we are now a multi asset. Harrier, Apache, Challenger, don’t give a toss. If you can give me the kit and have the reality to admit where your limits are, I'll buy that for a pound! Chess board, flexibility. Boat, plane, tank. Dont care as long as you give me the goods as advertised! Jobs a good un.
Last edited by Eagle 270; 15th Aug 2003 at 04:08.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 1996 there was a push to encourage RAF electrical and avionic technicians to transfer to the REME specifically for the Apache because there was a requirement for the expertise of the weapons systems etc. from fast-jets. As I am aware there were no takers. Or the ones that applied soon withdraw.
Given the problems with training the aircrew for the Apache, are the groundcrew up to speed??
Given the problems with training the aircrew for the Apache, are the groundcrew up to speed??
Having watched some grunt blacksmith trying to repair a photocopier (instead of having a maintenance contract with the manufacturer/supplier as sensible people would), I despair at the thought of such people trying to maintain WAH64.....
....and I'll think you'll find that the Vulcan did something quite well known in 1982, Eagle 270. Or perhaps 20 years ago is rather jurassic in your terms? Which surprises me as most grunts drone on about their wedgimental histowy and have enough mediaeval plunder on the tables during Mess dinners to support a small African nation's annual debt.
When Bwigadier Sir Hardly Bloody-Worthitt wakes up to the fact that helicopters are not just '3-dimensional Landwovers' and that aviation is a profession, not just something which "Isn't weally pwoper soldierwing, don't you know" the AAC might begin to enjoy the status it should. But too many grunts still haven't accepted this simple fact.
....and I'll think you'll find that the Vulcan did something quite well known in 1982, Eagle 270. Or perhaps 20 years ago is rather jurassic in your terms? Which surprises me as most grunts drone on about their wedgimental histowy and have enough mediaeval plunder on the tables during Mess dinners to support a small African nation's annual debt.
When Bwigadier Sir Hardly Bloody-Worthitt wakes up to the fact that helicopters are not just '3-dimensional Landwovers' and that aviation is a profession, not just something which "Isn't weally pwoper soldierwing, don't you know" the AAC might begin to enjoy the status it should. But too many grunts still haven't accepted this simple fact.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags,
Well Said!
Have you notice how the grunty types in this thread try to allude to some kind of snobbish superiority whilst the blue fraternity just post common sense? Sounds like childish arrogance to me.......
Eagle270,
The RAF's role in today's Ops is to go in long before any of you lot dare and blow sh!t up so it's not quite so scary for your mopping up operations. And to fly you in there. And to fly you home afterwards. And all your kit. And Melchett's drinks cabinet.
Need I remind you that it was air power alone (ours, not yours) that decided the outcome of the Kosovo crisis 4 years ago?
......bite on that, cabbages!......
......childish arrogance a speciality.......
Well Said!
Have you notice how the grunty types in this thread try to allude to some kind of snobbish superiority whilst the blue fraternity just post common sense? Sounds like childish arrogance to me.......
Eagle270,
The RAF's role in today's Ops is to go in long before any of you lot dare and blow sh!t up so it's not quite so scary for your mopping up operations. And to fly you in there. And to fly you home afterwards. And all your kit. And Melchett's drinks cabinet.
Need I remind you that it was air power alone (ours, not yours) that decided the outcome of the Kosovo crisis 4 years ago?
......bite on that, cabbages!......
......childish arrogance a speciality.......
BEagle, Muff Coupling et al
A minor point of correctness, it is an Apache AH1 and has been so called for nigh on a year or so now. The WAH bit was a marketing advertisment by Wastelands that was seen off by a "cluless" Army type!
A minor point of correctness, it is an Apache AH1 and has been so called for nigh on a year or so now. The WAH bit was a marketing advertisment by Wastelands that was seen off by a "cluless" Army type!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
As a quiet observer of long standing may I say I have admired the quality and informative content of many of your previous posts although, if I may say so, perhaps not so your last...........
16 blades,
If air power alone won the conflict obviously you give no credence to the mass build up of land forces and subsequent 'invasion'. Somehow I suspect that they may have made a small contribution..............?????
I, as are many in green, am all for the 'golf bag' or joint approach. More importantly as an aviator I want to achieve maximum effect with the best kit we can get our hands on but balance that with a tax payers outlook too. Most of all I want to do it properly (Can't spool 'fessional).
'All said in the best possible taste'
Regards
As a quiet observer of long standing may I say I have admired the quality and informative content of many of your previous posts although, if I may say so, perhaps not so your last...........
16 blades,
If air power alone won the conflict obviously you give no credence to the mass build up of land forces and subsequent 'invasion'. Somehow I suspect that they may have made a small contribution..............?????
I, as are many in green, am all for the 'golf bag' or joint approach. More importantly as an aviator I want to achieve maximum effect with the best kit we can get our hands on but balance that with a tax payers outlook too. Most of all I want to do it properly (Can't spool 'fessional).
'All said in the best possible taste'
Regards
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: England
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right 30mm. Blinkered chaps (crustaceans at times). As can Upteumpth Wegiment of Foot.
Beage's. And having watched an RAF Policeman trying to conduct an investigation as to who stole a Twix from a vending machine was like watching a particularly enthralling episode of the 'Professionals'. A 'tradesman' of your cloth I take?
I concur, the top end of the British Army still fail to realise the potential of such contraptions as the helicopter. I'm curious to find your angle on this as a posh truckie?
PS. The Blackbucks denied how much of the runway??
Lets talk Lightnings......
Beage's. And having watched an RAF Policeman trying to conduct an investigation as to who stole a Twix from a vending machine was like watching a particularly enthralling episode of the 'Professionals'. A 'tradesman' of your cloth I take?
I concur, the top end of the British Army still fail to realise the potential of such contraptions as the helicopter. I'm curious to find your angle on this as a posh truckie?
PS. The Blackbucks denied how much of the runway??
Lets talk Lightnings......