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.
|
There will always be a need for Army FW. it would be a loss for the ADF as a whole to lose a FW capability and the corporate knowledge. |
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.
|
Bou replacement is long overdue, but a Beechcraft is not and never will be a suitable replacement. 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. |
Originally Posted by Point0Five
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.
|
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! |
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. 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) 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. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif They are off with a sub-standard "using local programmers" piece of crap! Such a shame! They were "Patch"ed. The sooner the Army is out of aviation the better off (not to mention safer) the ADF will be! Just my two cents... |
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. 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) 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 Aviation in the Australian Army still needs to be sold. The simple fact that it has taken 35 years for infantry-oriented senior Army officers to decide that they need army aviation support needs no further elaboration. 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. |
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 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: 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 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. |
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. |
when the army were flying their single engine cessna's, that was OK, then they wanted to burn some Kero, so they got some Nomads and porters, and that was just OK, but then the Army went and got some of those pressurised birds that took them up into the flight levels!!! naughty naughty. You should know that up there its for the RAAF lads only. So listen here army and navy aviation, stay low and slow and keep out of the RAAFs flight levels. Maybe the army might want some caribous!!:=
|
Message to current 173 pilots
1. Don't loose any of the sqn history. There/were many pieces of memorabilia within the squadron - the scrapbooks are history within themselves. The MAAF sounds like a good place. For example - The Porter farewell flypast under the Sydney Harbour Bridge is captured in a framed picture somewhere in the squadron. 2. Also, if the FW capability is to go - there are many past Horizontal Pursuit Squadron pilots and maintainers out there that would have a real interest in sending the squadron off properly. Get this right! |
You should know that up there its for the RAAF lads only. So listen here army and navy aviation, stay low and slow and keep out of the RAAFs flight levels. Maybe the army might want some caribous!!:= |
I often shake my head at this kind of short sightedness from those at the top whho should know better. That they mmake decisions like this clearly demonstare their lake of understanding of AAvn usefulness and keenes.
When tooting around in an Army aircraft i always had the greatest confidance in the maintainers and those at the stick, as some others have said for the type of tempo and type of flying they do with their resources they do an absolutly amazing job. Like it or not we have inherited the British military system, for all its faults it is still a reasonably good system, however some modernisation needs to ocurr, perhaps outlining exactly who operates what would be a start, or if that ignited too many turf wars we could just morph into the Australian Marine Corps and everybody is (suposidly) on-side. Any one who has operates along side those guys and girls will understand the simulatities we share. Personaly this would be the strucute that i would like to see, pick the best bits and go from there. Also kind of ironic the the mighty 'Bou was originaly designed for the US Army as a 100hr Army flying truck, something that seems to be lost on our currant swag of aircraft designers - simplicity,rugedness and dependability! thats pretty much all Army Aviation wants out of its gear, here and the US. Think the days of Golden Bullet soloutions may have had its day, even the US AF is struggling for funds to buy the nubers of zoomie types it wants. Perhaps they should outsourse their procurment division and buy thousands of J-10's whilst we pin a tag on order :}:}:} |
173 History
Razor,
I hear the boys are on to it...saw the scrapbooks and the pictures in the Redback Club very recently. Some awesome photos. I also hear there is serious discussion about a farewell function in Early Nov, should hear about it soon.....bit of a sad day when it happens...think there would be a few interested? Ill yalk to the boys about it... Choi JOAT (MON) |
Reunion?
Please PM with details when they come to hand
|
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. Transfer of assets to the Army took place, and, surprise surprise, there were still only as many helicopters as there had been before, but with less experienced crews / maintainers, so the service provided actually took a hit, rather than being enhanced. |
Originally Posted by JOAT
I also hear there is serious discussion about a farewell function in Early Nov, should hear about it soon.....bit of a sad day when it happens...think there would be a few interested?
Ill talk to the boys about it... Sad to see the Army lose the fixed wing capability, especially in respect of the crews and the maintainers who've worked long and hard to provide a much needed, but often overlooked capability. I guess we can only hope the RAAFies fail to provide the same level of service as 173 did, and the powers that be finally realise what they've thrown away. Can't see it happening though, unfortunately. |
Transfer of assets to the Army took place, and, surprise surprise, there were still only as many helicopters as there had been before, but with less experienced crews / maintainers, so the service provided actually took a hit, rather than being enhanced. Strange as it may seem, RAAF aircrew could comprehend what the ground troops were trying to achieve and work to enhance that. The primary roles of these squadrons was Army support. |
Sorry to disappoint both RAAF and Army but the best support provided to Army was by Navy pilots. There are a number of quotable quotes on books written about the SEA war games that note this - indeed the quote "Get the bloody job done" was spoken to a recalcitrant US army aviator by an Australian CC pilot to re-focuss his mind on the job. I witnessed RAAF ops from a position of impartiality and I can assure you they received quality support. I doubt you would find an SAS digger from 66-71 who would disagree. The main problem in the early days was a lack of concept of operations, particularly on behalf of the Army commanders, as to how to employ lift helos.
I was very close to operations to protect the Bass Straight oil rigs in the late seventies and had the very great pleasure to receive a letter from a senior Army operative indicating his total satisfaction with Navy support and indicating that he would prefer that service's support over the other two services. I think you will find that Army commanders these days are having similar issues with Army aviation as they did with the RAAF forty years ago. GAGS E86 |
I don't doubt there were all sorts of political machinations going on from all parties involved, but I know at the time I was involved in the battlefield helicopter caper ('84 onward) we (RAAF) were working pretty hard to do the best job possible for the ground troops, and the tasking system couldn't have been much more direct, ie air cell in an 11x11 (physically) attached to the brigade or battalion commander's HQ setup.
There's not much point in dredging it all up again anyway, I guess, but we were doing about as much as you could with a limited number of helicopters and hours (which didn't change with the service transfer, except to take a temporary slide in the downward direction) and a number of users all wanting them at once. I transferred services myself for a few years and there was basically no change tasking-wise, so it was hard to see where the benefit lay at the time when weighed up against the costs. But I digress - the discussion was about fixed-wing, so best I pull my head in now. |
Sqn Farewell
I expect there will be a website up shortly with the farewell details. I'll post the link here then. Will be a sad day but a big party.
tsalta |
Good to see that there is some sort of farewell being planned. I look forward to getting together with some of the past and present to talk about old times. The 173 Sqn 25th at the Oakey RSL a couple of years back was a hoot.
What we really need is to find a couple of old ATCO huts and have the party there. A few old D.Hall "memorial" couches and a fridge with "Mighty Neil" on the side and it'll be all set. Now to recreate the inside of the "fondlers" hut might be an issue for the sexual harassment mob but would be worth it. Some of those posters on the walls were history in themselves. That'll set the scene for many! |
173 Farewell to army fixed wing
173 are staging a Farewell to Army Fixed Wing function at Oakey on the Sat 7th Nov 09. The add is in the latest Aus Aviation magazine and says expressions of interest are to be directed to them. Can provide more details if required. Formal hangar party for old Army fixed wing people...aircrew, trades, fondlers etc...
Cheers....sorry info was late... Check out the magazine for info. |
Sat 7th Nov 09 |
what about the air tractor AT-802u for the Army fixed wing????? Definately affordable
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2423/...37e708.jpg?v=0 |
Trojan81
Same day as the RAAF Caribou farewell in Townsville |
......and really b.ggers things up for those interested in attending both!
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.