Why does the RAF still fly helicopters?
 

With the demise of the Sea King, and Merlins being fundamentally a Navy disaster, why does the RAF still operate helicopters?

The role of the Chinook is army support. Why are they not operated by the Army Air Corps these days?

I know there is a Joint Helicopter command, but the continuing role of the RAF in this puzzles me.

Or is it just jobs for the boys in blue........;)

Is today International Old Chestnut day?

Why does the Army have any aviation assets at all? Aren't they meant to march/yomp/tab ..... on the ground? :rolleyes:

As Vie sans frontieres says, are you just attempting to bring up another round of pointless blathering? Are you a sympathiser of Sharkey Ward, perhaps, who believes the RAF has no right to exist? Come on, surely there must be something better to discuss? ;)

What,you think we should go down the same route as the Australians of 25 years back and transfer everything to the AAC and FAA?

In Paul Beavers - Army Air Corps pub circa 1987 / 1988 - in the chapter on the Future of the AAC - there was consideration of putting the Merlins in AAC service, the talk of the WS-70 pre Heseltine scandal :E:E being in AAC service than RAF :)

Cheers

A few more Budget Cuts and the question will be answered as there will be no RAF or FAA.....and the Army will be completely engaged in Ceremonial Duties....exclusively!

After next week there's always the....Scottish Air Force :ugh:

With austerity and defence cuts maybe the question should be; why do we have an RAF?


All that duplicated manpower, for a few heavies and some shiny lawn darts.

Yawn. :ugh:

Because neither a Herc nor a Typhoon can hover. ;)

Salmond's Presidential Helicopter has already been delivered:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-z...d%25252044.jpg

:E

I/C

Does that have enough power to get the divisive little fatty off the ground?

So,ebody appears to have wrapped it in a teatowel.

No, just another Vivienne Westwood tartan

Shouldn't that 'Danger' sign be where the passengers sit? ;)

Now be serious
 

We have now had all the expected pointless digs and attempted humour, so can we now address the question?

I would really like to know why the RAF should operate helicopters whose only task is to support the army, when there is a perfectly good AAC to do it.

History and all that, with the RAF in 1957 when the AAC was reformed, trying desperately to limit the size of helicopters the army could operate, And the failed attempt to keep the Apache for the Airforce much later. But in the year 2014 it makes no sense anymore.

Fast jets and big haulers OK, they need an enormous maintenance tail and large airfields, and an Air Vice Marshall per airframe.........

Lets have some serious thought out answers.

I think the converse point is valid. Why does the Army fly? The RAF have the training system for crews, the qualified technicians, all of the support network. In these days it makes absolutely no sense to duplicate it in the Army. (Particularly while AAC Officers usually do a tour flying, then get a 'proper' Army job...).

And the RAF do a better job of flying helos......

(Just to be controversial!)

Obvious troll with obvious agenda asks obvious troll question :=

Oh,



For starters, while the Chinook's main task is to support the British Army, it's not the Hook's only role -- vis. the recent humanitarian air drops in support of the Yazidi refugees, and the type's use as a general (as opposed to British Army-specific) CASEVAC platform in-theater. Not to mention its support of the Royal Marines (incl. shipborne ops):

http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpre...pg?w=550&h=601

I leave the question of whether the RAF should operate RW assets to those better in the know.

I/C

and then you put

and follow it up with

Make up your mind!!!

Of course the question can be asked why are the AAC flying RW. In a couple of years how many operational Apache and Wildcat will they have? Not that many. That's not a dig, purely pointing out that the numbers are not that great.

Is it indeed??? Of course the main customer is the army but far from the only one.

How could the RAF keep something that was not theirs? The Apache was always destined for the AAC.

Why is that? Surely in the cash strapped times RW could form 3 Group RAF and dispense with JHC therefore reducing the size of the HQ and stream lining the recruitment and training process?

The usual army arguement is that a soldier better understands the battleground, well surely if you can train a soldier to fly it's not beyond the wit of man to teach a skilled RAF pilot a bit about land manoeuvre? Maybe the AAC might even understand air manoeuvre one day too.

I assume your next question will be along the lines of why dont the RAF have SNCO pilots???? :ugh:

Door Slider: No point in asking that one, its been many years since the RAF removed them all. Also yes, I could have worded the apache question better, 'since the RAF attempted to prevent the AAC taking delivery of the apache.' Is that better?

SimonK Thank you for the designation troll. I take it my 8500 hours helicopters up to and including chinooks doesn't count?

Come on guys, you can do better than this. I accept that the army are not the only customers, but by far they are the main customers. None of the other roles not army support could not be carried out by the AAC just as well.

Regarding their use by the Royal Marines, that's another question - the commandos were originally army units, set up for combined operations with the RAF and the Navy, but their role was transferred to the navy after WWII, for reasons never quite explained other than the Senior Service, knowing that air power had replaced the surface fleet in a large number of areas, felt the need to have some more 'turf' and had the political pull to do so.

It's a bit like suggesting the Paras should be transferred to the RAF because its their job to deliver them. ( I know the German paras in WWII were part of the Luftwaffe and not the Wermacht. )