Army out of fixed wing...
 

Army will lose fixed wing ops to RAAF.:uhoh: King Airs are on RAAF lease and will be moved to full RAAF control...

what next?

I sincerely hope that isn't the case. There will always be a need for Army FW. It is as much a necessity for land force ops as RW, and irreplacable from a C & C p.o.v. Although the RAAF have never gotten over losing the battlefield helicopters, it would be a loss for the ADF as a whole to lose a FW capability and the corporate knowledge.

So RAAF can't do the job that army are currently doing?? 1* transport and aerial surveying??

Capability isn't being lost just transferred. Besides, how much corporate knowledge can there be about flying in the flight levels with auto pilot on????. Granted Bous dont do it at the moment (what the kingairs are going to supplement) but i'm pretty certain it wont take long to pass ALL that gouge on.....

Gundog, do you appreciate that once a capability is lost it is virtually impossible to restore. The corporate knowledge I refer to extends far beyond the pilots, there is the RAEME FW capability, the GSE capabilty, the aircraft handlers knowledge of working with the asset etc. One of the reasons for transfer of the RW was the nature of the tasking orders and the potential for the Air Component Commander to be out of touch with the needs of the field commander. Having the ability to put the asset in In Spt, or DS (without pol) is a real advantage. Realistically AAAvn have been responsible for not fighting to keep a really quantifiable FW capability, which they lost with the demise of the Porter/Nomad combo. Unfortunately the higher echelons haven't got the FW background to appreciate the advantage of combined assets, they are too RW focussed. RAAF should retain a tactical transport capability, the Bou replacement is long overdue, but a Beechcraft is not and never will be a suitable replacement. That end of the spectrum should belong to AAAvn who can task more appropriately in a battlefield environment, ideally in aircraft like the Do228, ideal for RFSU support and 'Regional' operations.

Forget the notion that the Kingair is a replacement for the Bou It is an interim, no one is expecting it to all the things a Bou can. No other aircraft can. Even the C27 wont 'replace' the Bou anything bought is a capability change.

As much as anything it is about training a whole bunch of analogue Bou drivers about flying a digital aircraft in preparation for the real new tac transport a/c.

Fair point on the corporate knowledge extending beyond the pilots. As per usual only thinking about my own kind.

Agree with most of the comments on both sides, indeed King Air is a great short term asset but nothing else. C27J is the only real option for RAAF.

For Army ops, may i suggest upgrading the current 6 Chook D's into (the original RAAF number) 12 CH-47F's and adding few Do228NG's for FW?

Some times it takes a while for a spare engine or whatever to get out to the guys operating in remote areas, just one of the many uses for FW.

Seems many other Armys around the world (even the ever cash strapped Poms) apreaciate what benefits FW brings to the mix, very shortsighted decision if true and i feel we will only have to reinvent the wheel (waste of time,money and resourses) when something occurs and suddenly its decided FW is the go.

Whatever happended to corporate knowledge at the top? don't any of these guys stop and think about the very basic way AAAvn has worked (sucessfly intregrating RW and FW) the last 30 odd years?


:ugh::ugh:

Currently the major customer of the Caribou is the army and i wouldn't expect that to change when Kingairs transfer to the RAAF. Remember RAAF is taking over and hopefully enhancing the kingair capability not hijacking it.

Plus, the Army has so much **** on its plate with bringing ARH and MRH into service that it's essential for them to free up staff. Seems like a solid plan to me.

Does the army still have the Twotters?

look what happened to the RAN fixed wing, they disbanded TA-4G/ A-4G, MB-326,S-2G and HS-748's so pinching your kingairs will be easy, and you will probably never get fixed wing back!!! It appears that fixed wing flying for the ADF is the RAAF's role regarless of the duties they are to perform.

Army should not have choppers, and their maintenance and accident record would appear to prove this fact.

They've never known how to effectively use Aviation assets in a safe fashion and they never will.

Too much on their plate if you've had anything to do with their project (ARH/MRH). Can't even sort out the ground based Flight Planning System. :eek: They are off with a sub-standard "using local programmers" piece of crap! Such a shame! They were "Patch"ed.

Good one ElPerro, someone had to say it!
Why stop at the KingAirs?!:E
The sooner the Army is out of aviation the better off (not to mention safer) the ADF will be!

Elpero, you have some information to back this up do you? I am all for a well ballanced argument on how the ARA could improve things on the aviation front, and there are always things to improve. Such a broad statement does not achieve anything. The maintainers I have worked with are top notch and turn out a good product. 1000 times better than GA operators I have worked with. If anything they are too fusy with maintenance. :hmm:

On the 'accident' issue, do you have access stats on injuries/fatalities per hour flown? I think we could admit a small group of aviators have had the majority of mishaps in recent times, that is a side issue and does not reflect on the Army's safety culture as a whole. When was the last time we stacked a Kiowa? Considering we zoom around at 10ft AHO day and night its about as safe as we can make it. Considering we have a miniscule (per airframe) budget compared to our RAAF cousins, our capability output is as good if not better. When was the last time the RAAF deployed to a free for all battlefield? (and please, stooging around the MEAO 100NM away from the nearest contact does not count)

So who do you think directs what aircraft we get and how it will be introduced? Does the Minister of Defence and DMO ring a bell? Keep in mind we are the end user, we get what we are given when DACI -A and the contractors make it so. The operators from the CO level down probabley would have chosen a different platform(s) given half a chance. 40 odd W model Cobra's with options to upgrade to Y model would be far easier for Army to digest, and they would be in theatre now. ElPerro if you are Army, go a bit easier and stop slagging off your fellow members, plenty of people frequent these forums that can make life difficult. If not, do some more research before making such grand statements. :=

Captain, its disapointing to see a statement like this coming from a senior member of these forums such as yourself. And your propossed solution to Army shutting up shop is? :bored:

Just my two cents...

Most Army maintainers are excellent, they really do have some talent.
There are issues with the culture of Army aircrews, however only a minority. The Army ethos can be at odds with a safe aviation culture and this is a major point of difference between AAvn and the RAAF.
The senoir ranks of the Army don't see aviation as a core capability.
To quote the late Lt Col Glen Duus
Regarding the Armys accident rate, we all know there are unreported (in the media) incidents regularly. It still stacks up quite well compared to some flying schools I know, especially when you consider the nature of AAvn operations.
And lets face it, AAvn has not deployed to a free for all battlefield (with quality air to air as well as surface to air threats) for a long time. The initial Chinnook dep to the MEAO was limited due to lack of EWSP as was the dep of C-130s. I have never been able to understand the annimosity between the RAAF/Army.

slow n low, you beat me to it, but my two cents anyway.

The Army gained custody of the helos primarily because of the RAAFs failure to provide support during the Vietnam conflict - in my estimation. The RAAF had a policy of not permitting its helos to be used where they were, or may be, exposed to hostile action. Not of much help to the Army engaged in combat. Two examples of the failure to provide support were the Long Tan battle where the troops needed ammo resupply and RAAF tasking refused to provide an aircraft because it would necessitate flying in an active combat zone. The US Army offered to do the job but in the meantime a courageous RAAF junior officer (pilot of the Huey) took matters into his own hands and said "We're going" despite protestations from his co-pilot. And they got the job done, and subsequently justly decorated for a job well done.

Another occasion was when the Army suffered major casualties in the Long Hai mountains. The RAAF refused to supply support to evacuate the wounded, dying and dead and it was left to the Armys 161 Recce Flight using their Bell 47s and US Army Hueys to do the job. Once again the RAAF not permitted to expose themselves to possible hostile action. Of course all this is a result of policy made at a high level and is no reflection on the aircrew at the coal face.

A very well written paper addressing the Army/RAAF relationship can be found here Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc

Any slight against the Army, their professionalism or ability when it comes to aviation, is just that - a slight. Their accident record is no different than any other aviation outfit when it comes to causes. In that regard ElPerro is just making cheap shots.

.

Trojan, spot on, we are caught in the grey zone between infantry soldier and air ace, we just have to make it work on the day. When push comes to shove I am almost certain most Army aircrew would put themselves in harms way to help out our ground dwelling brothers. Training is a different story, we can't throw ourselves at the ground every day for our soldiers (who don't understand our lack of commitment) for obvious reasons. :uhoh:

Yep, fair cop, it is a free for all at the lower level but not with the dreaded SAM threats. Mind you a hail of RPG's and 7.62 will still ruin your day in a low level environment. Your right about the RAAF / Army issue, I wonder why poeple fail to grasp the concept of being on the same team. :rolleyes:

Brian, great post our history is certainly very important and we should bear that in mind. From what I have read we should not discount the efforts of some of the RAAF 9 Sqn troops and pilots, I beleive our 'Bushrangers' were born out of 9 Sqn over some beers and some sketches of how to fit some guns to the Huey (feel free to correct me its been a while since I brushed up):D

The other consideration is that the Army, by its nature, tends to have its aircraft somewhere near the front lines in the mud with a very short chain of command. The air force tend to operate from nicely paved runways well behind the front lines - air conditioning, mess halls, etc., with a different chain of command.

What a great thread and a history lesson too!

Army aviation always looked very appealing to me compared to it's RAAF counterpart. I applied to the Army around the time of the first Gulf War, but was told that recruitment had been put 'on hold' due to reallocation of both resources and funds.

Would have loved to have been part of it, hat's off to you guys!:ok:

A Dark Day for Army Aviation
 

If this goes ahead it will indeed be a dark day for Army Aviation. As a past member of the "Horizontal Pursuit Squadron", I would hate to see it lose the fixed wing capability. Since leaving the Army I have worked with it in different capacities from maintaining their aircraft to working with them in safety-related positions. I haven't seen a more safety orientated group of professionals and they are no less so than the Navy and Airforce.
IMHO the incidents and accidents they have had are either directly or indirectly a result of the operational tempo they have experienced in the recent past. The quality of their people is no less than those of the other military aviation counterparts (and I have worked with them as well). Lets forget this inter-service rivalry crap. That sort of stuff carries on into the Defence/civilian/government world and only results in bad decisions like this.