Very true - but why is that? Either it's because the Crabs are just a bunch of wet lettuces who couldn't possibly cope in a proper military service like the RN or Army, or it's because there would be a genuine reduction in quality of life for people changing cap badge to operate ex-RAF aircraft.

Banter aside, it's pretty obvious which is the case. Whether or not you agree with Crab sentiments on the concept of transferring aircraft fleets, you can't argue with the fact that a great many Crabs would leave in preference to transferring to the AAC.

You have got to be kidding. Have you had a look on ARRSE lately? We do banter on here, but wherever you look on ARRSE you find nothing but absolute contempt and vitriol oozing out of a large proportion of posts - and that's just directed at other Army personnel who happen to be in a different cap badges. There is absolutely no hope that you would integrate a large proportion of AAC personnel into the RAF, just as you would have a hard time getting the RAF to go to the AAC. And if the stories are correct, just as some in the Harrier Force grumbled about spending so much time on the boats whilst the RN grumbled about being stuck in deepest darkest Bomber Country.

Like it or not, all 3 services are very different in their approach and general outlook on life and as such all attract very different people. You will find some happy to do the job regardless of the colour of uniform; you will find many that will put up with a change of service for a tour or 2, but unless there is a significant change in an individual's circumstances or outlook on career and life, it's a reasonably small number that swap colours for good voluntarily.

Truth is, it's nothing to do with the individual, more the color of the uniform.

I might have missed it but wasn't the old RAF SH concept: Chinny to carry the load, Puma to carry the chocks? Blah blah Belize blah blah KKMC blah blah AMF blah blah.

When one talks about over-promoted Wokka mates do we mean Italian Stallions?

Dunhovrin,
Thank you for cheering me up in making me realise that I'm not alone!

Torque of the Devil said;
I am RAF working in a supposedly Joint workplace; read Army (RLC not AAC). It is not just a (significant) reduction in Quality of Life, it is a Culture Shock that is difficult to comprehend. There is no trust, respect or integrity between CoC and the workforce, and intelect comes way down the list that is headed by physical prowess and autocratic discipline.

Change that to 'couldn't possibly cope working in an environment that does not allow professional military individuals to logically evaluate; make decisions, and act on those decisions whilst working autonomously' and your right, we cant cope. A Flt Lt that I work with was recently required to have an email sent from an external unit that he was detached (for only a few hours) back to his own CoC confirming that he was actually there! How bizarre is that?

As it happens; the RAF and AAC or CHF aircrew get on together a lot better than many would admit when the Mission Focus is the same. But infighting between Army cap-badges (or indeed Services) is destructive, especially at this time. I have worked in 'Joint' on four tours now and the ones that did work were those that enabled single service identity and traditions to be retained. (even if that does mean sliding the port and sitting for 'The Queen')

ALERT - Thread drift

Unlike a good portion of those who've posted on this thread I've actually worked and lived with the AAC & REME both in barracks and OOA. They are for the most part hugely professional, physically fitter and gripe less than your average airman. As for Army banter, like most people in Aviation the REME Airtechs and AAC think they look better, are better payed and have better banter than the rest of the Army (personally I think the Paras walk away with the banter prize)..
True, some bits of Army life can seem a bit harsh, they are a bit old school (i.e. you're in a military service not on holiday) and the accomodation leaves a lot to be desired, but I thoroughly enjoyed my two tours with them... :)

Boats you say!!!!! Boats and wafuus... Boats go underwater or have a pair of rollocks :O;)

I suppose playing with the rollocks might be one way of passing time whilst on deployment

Boats indeedeee doodle... blooming boats he says.... BOATS... I've never heard the like

Brings to mind a question, Glojo. A number of fine Naval personnel have tried to explain the difference to me. Two I remember are:

A ship has more than one deck above the waterline. (I think it was one.)

When a boat turns to port, it heels to port. When a ship turns to port, it heels to starboard. (Probably because of all the decks above the waterline.)

Would they be right?

How to upset the RN:

When being shown round a skimmer say what a nice "boat" it is.

When being shown around a tube say what a nice "ship" it is.

Like shooting fish in a barrel...... :ok::ok:

Hi Courtney,
To be honest I have never given it that much thought ;)

If it's painted grey, it's a ship and if it's black and travels underwater it's a boat :):) but your explanation sounds far more accurate but I guess I am just a fish in a barrel :ok::ok::ok::ok:

Boat indeed... boat the man says

Thinking as I am typing that definition is very good, even a modern nuclear powered submarine could lean to port when turning in that direction BUT..... is a submarine a tube with a number of 'bits' added?? If it is indeedy a tube then it is still a boat and definitely NOT a ship! :sad: (morphine talks sensibility walks)

If it's doing its job, none. ;)

This is all very interesting but what has it got to do with the title of the post? Does anyone have anything relevant to "will the puma survive?"
I'm on Pumas and would like to know whether or not my job is secure as things with P2 have gone very quiet.

MW

Maybe they are waiting for a really big news disaster story to bury it under....

Waiting for a go/no go.

How are you on Pumas at Valley??

Mountain Wings (and Father Hackett),

Why do you think for one moment that HMG should tell you (either way)until they are good and ready-how many large companies in decline have not let their workforce know of the terminal nature until the very last moment?

If you think that we are any different from any other employee then sadly I feel as though you may be deluding yourself.

I do not know the answer, but I do know that much change is in the air (much apparently as a result of papers authored by our airships - the ongoing RW study allegedly came about after our lords and masters asked for it, so we can hardly turn our nose up when we don't like the findings), but others include Defence Transformation and the impending 2nd Tranche of redundancies.

Also we, as with the whole of the nation, should remember that we are broke, and if we cannot afford all of our helicopters then logic would suggeust that Puma is the one to go.....isn't it?

Are we really suggesting that we remove Wildcat or Apache or Merlin from the inventory to save Puma (which is due to go in 2025 anyway). Or do we just continue to salami slice from all fleets - something which historically we have all been against on these threads.

If there is any doubt that if Defence/Politicians find during this RW study that the best value for money is transferring [B]all[B] Battlefield Helicopters to the Army, then (as per the Australians and the US 101st) it will happen. Our 260 holdees that will not see a cockpit for 3 years will soon jump at the chance, and sadly people like me with only a few years to pension and a (second) wife and family to feed/clothe will pick up the slack at the other end of the spectrum. Again, we are deluding ourselves if we think that there will be a mass exodus.

I know, it sucks-but we are unbelievably broke and ethos, effect and capability have been overtaken with a new language of cost, value for money and efficiency.

:{

No. Maybe your preconceptions would, but logic has nothing to do with it in this case.

PTT,

I know that I normally get accused of championing the twin tq monster too much, but seriously where do my preconceptions and logic differ from yours?

Am I missing something?

Boats (less Subs) can be hoisted aboard Ships....but then that would mean most of the RN if it wuz a USN CVN we used as a Ship.;)

Before I can answer that I need to know by what logic you have come to your conclusions.