PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Times details proposed UK defence cut options (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/604129-times-details-proposed-uk-defence-cut-options.html)

gsa 15th Jan 2018 06:01


Wildcat is a complete non-entity and cannot even remotely compete with Pu/Me in any capacity, even the AAC acknowledge it is abysmal. It was a 100% NAVY purchase.
Changed it for you. But the Lynx/Wildcat was never to compete with Puma or Merlin so that argument doesnt stand. If wildcat goes give the AAC the Pumas then everyone will be reasonably happy.

PapaDolmio 15th Jan 2018 07:46


Originally Posted by gsa (Post 10020018)
Changed it for you. But the Lynx/Wildcat was never to compete with Puma or Merlin so that argument doesnt stand. If wildcat goes give the AAC the Pumas then everyone will be reasonably happy.

And Chinook- let the Army find the money to operate them from their budget and let the RAF concentrate on FW.

Chinny Crewman 15th Jan 2018 08:21


Originally Posted by PapaDolmio (Post 10020093)
And Chinook- let the Army find the money to operate them from their budget and let the RAF concentrate on FW.

There is an argument for having all RW in one service although I would argue give them all to the RAF. As High Spirits says many would not transfer, I like the way the RAF does aviation not so the other services.

heights good 15th Jan 2018 08:28

I am sure the army ‘crewmen’ would get on fine with such a complicated and demanding aircraft....

Heathrow Harry 15th Jan 2018 08:38

"best of luck with getting all those RAF Chinook crews to transfer"

and there was me thinking we all pull together for the sake of the nation's defence....................

Chinny Crewman 15th Jan 2018 08:48


Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry (Post 10020121)
and there was me thinking we all pull together for the sake of the nation's defence....................

We do and have done in the past however I’ve seen the way the Army treats it’s aviators.

dervish 15th Jan 2018 09:02


Engineering would be a showstopper aswell.
That could be taken two ways!

melmothtw 15th Jan 2018 09:18


If you mean a transfer of assets to AAC then best of luck with getting all those RAF Chinook crews to transfer, or finding enough AAC crew to start from scratch.
Why wouldn't they trasnfer? I'm assuming that most aircrew joined up because they wanted to be pilots, not because they wanted to be officers in the RAF.

The Germans didn't seem to have too many problems in transferring all of their CH-53s over to the air force from the army not long ago.


I'm sure the longer term value of the pound is what is more important, and its still too early to tell which way it will go.
You keep telling yourself that.

gijoe 15th Jan 2018 09:29


Originally Posted by Chinny Crewman (Post 10020131)
We do and have done in the past however I’ve seen the way the Army treats it’s aviators.

What? You mean that the Army hasn't fallen into the trap of thinking 'drive 'plane - therefore you are capable of doing anything..'?

The RAF is a train on one set of tracks with a strop signal at every opportunity.

The other 2 services regard their crews as normal people, not demi-Gods, employ flexi-track and are much more fun to work for, alongside and with.

End of. Give RW to FAA/AAC.

Chinny Crewman 15th Jan 2018 09:36


Originally Posted by gijoe (Post 10020180)
The other 2 services employ flex-track and are much more fun to work for, alongside and with.

If that is the case why do we have numerous ex AAC and FAA RW aircrew transferring to the RAF because they consider it the better option? The only person from Odiham to have gone the other way was an ex AAC Major who transferred to the RAF, did a couple of tours then transferred back.

PapaDolmio 15th Jan 2018 10:04


Originally Posted by high spirits (Post 10020107)
‘And Chinook- let the Army find the money to operate them from their budget and let the RAF concentrate on FW.’

The army already pay to operate Chinook from the Land budget. If you mean a transfer of assets to AAC then best of luck with getting all those RAF Chinook crews to transfer, or finding enough AAC crew to start from scratch.

Fully aware of that after spending a large proportion of my service on SH.Does the Land budget also cover the recruiting, training, maintenance, housing, infrastructure and other 'soft' costs of the SH fleet?

Roland Pulfrew 15th Jan 2018 11:33


transferring all of their CH-53s over to the air force from the army
I think you've answered your own question there.

Evalu8ter 15th Jan 2018 12:04

The only way for expeditionary assets to truly gain a voice is to stand up under a 4* command of their own. Abolish JHC, move the LitM ships, RM/16AAB, C130 and non-pinging helicopters under one command, then let the individual Services eat their own young....which is exactly why it will never happen. If we make a bold declaration (circa 1981) that we're now an "in area" capability then so be it. However, why have two large carriers if you do that? Does that also mean the end of a "force for good"? The two biggest factors at play here are Osborne's decision to fund Successor through the Defence Budget (and Hammond's / Fallon's tacit acceptance of it...) and the irony of buying COTS from the US (to save R&D/NRE) only to see a circa 20-30% reduction in Sterling against the Dollar. When the ForEx hit an appreciable high before the Crash, as I was working on a PT that spent Dollars, I suggested we "hedge" a few $million in case of a crash - clearly, I was looked at as if I'd grown a second head. A mere handful of months later, Sterling collapsed and a white-faced PTL came back from a meeting with the Treasury. "How did it go?" we asked. "Awful..." came the response, "but, on the bright side, the Lightning II PTL was going in after me......".

melmothtw 15th Jan 2018 12:18


transferring all of their CH-53s over to the air force from the army

I think you've answered your own question there.
Fair enough, but if the RAF can transfer its entire Merlin force over to the RN then I can't see why it should be so difficult to do the same for the Chinook force and the army.

If it IS a deal breaker for the personnel, then you just retain the current air/ground crews under their current conditions (wearing blue uniforms but under a green command structure), and then when they naturally waste out of the force you replace them with army folk who I am sure would love the opportunity to operate the Chinook.

Not that difficult really.

alfred_the_great 15th Jan 2018 12:33


Originally Posted by melmothtw (Post 10020323)
Fair enough, but if the RAF can transfer its entire Merlin force over to the RN then I can't see why it should be so difficult to do the same for the Chinook force and the army.

If it IS a deal breaker for the personnel, then you just retain the current air/ground crews under their current conditions (wearing blue uniforms but under a green command structure), and then when they naturally waste out of the force you replace them with army folk who I am sure would love the opportunity to operate the Chinook.

Not that difficult really.


It didn't transfer the "entire force" - it transferred the aircraft. In the mean time, CHF transitioned from SK4 to Merlin3/4. There were no wholesale transfers of personnel to accompany the airframes.

melmothtw 15th Jan 2018 12:37


Quote:
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
Fair enough, but if the RAF can transfer its entire Merlin force over to the RN then I can't see why it should be so difficult to do the same for the Chinook force and the army.

If it IS a deal breaker for the personnel, then you just retain the current air/ground crews under their current conditions (wearing blue uniforms but under a green command structure), and then when they naturally waste out of the force you replace them with army folk who I am sure would love the opportunity to operate the Chinook.

Not that difficult really.

It didn't transfer the "entire force" - it transferred the aircraft. In the mean time, CHF transitioned from SK4 to Merlin3/4. There were no wholesale transfers of personnel to accompany the airframes.
So all future Merlin crews will be sourced from the RAF? If not, then you've just repeated by argument - transfer the aircraft first with the crews retaining their current status, and then over time the crews will follow as older RAF pilots/ground staff are replaced with newer army ones.

Heathrow Harry 15th Jan 2018 14:07

gents - this is Angels dancing on Pins stuff -

Once the Treasury can get each service fighting it's own corner and damning the others we're lost - this is how we lost the Harriers and the carriers last time

the only answer is to stop the cuts otherwise it doiesn't matter what colour uniform people wear we're all b******* as a nation

Not_a_boffin 15th Jan 2018 14:55


Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry (Post 10020442)
Once the Treasury can get each service fighting it's own corner and damning the others we're lost -



And not just the Treasury. The NSA appears to want his own cyber-empire - in a fiscally neutral manner...


http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...oral/75927.pdf

OyYou 15th Jan 2018 15:44

"Plus, with all the other bits at Benson you’d have to find a home for, I wouldn’t be too sure selling Benson is the easiest answer. And the humanitarian use for RW means they will always be around, even if we’re not doing war fighting."

Pedant mode [ON]
As Benson was a compulsory purchase in 1937, under Crichell Down Rules is has to be offered back to the original landowners, some of which are still major farmers in the area. What they would choose to do with it is anyone's guess. [OFF]
Regards

glad rag 15th Jan 2018 15:53


Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry (Post 10020442)
we're all b******* as a nation

Ahhh now you see that depends on what your vision of the nation is....

https://www.defendevropa.org/wp-cont...B22F638E7.jpeg


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:19.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.