Who would be a politician?
In the blink of an eye, instead of occupying the moral high ground, slagging off the government of the day from the comfort of the opposition benches, you now find yourself being force fed an unremitting diet of your own words from those you once took pleasure from skewering.
Apart from treatment of the wounded no other issue is as politically charged as helicopters, which makes the surfacing rumours of a change in the potential order of 12 new Chinooks and 2 replacements even more interesting for the opposition.
Britain is reconsidering its military rotor wing strategy and expects to deliver a new plan to achieve an affordable force later this year, according to the Ministry of Defence
Of course, none of this is any news to people with even a passing interest in the subject and I think we would all be completely gobsmacked if the 12+2 actually turned from hot air to reality the finality of an order reduction is going to cause a political venting of spleen not seen since, well, the last venting of spleens.
The rotary wing capability study will re-examine defence’s helicopter requirement to deliver the Future Force 2020 vision set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review and ensure a balanced and affordable plan which delivers the right rotary wing force mix for defence
Ministry of Defence
The original intention to order 22+2 from the about to ousted Labour government didn’t fool anyone so when this was reduced by the incoming coalition to 12+2 it was seen as a more realistic figure but since then there have been persistent rumours that it would be cut even further, despite public statements to the contrary.
Just in case anyone has forgotten what our glorious leaders have had to say on the subject of helicopters, here are a few selected quotations they can choke on.
Put simply, we need to have a larger army and we need more infantry. It’s as simple as that. It is absolutely unacceptable to send our forces into battle without giving them the right equipment for the job
The Government must explain why our Armed Forces are having to do so much with so little. If we cannot move our forces by air they are more vulnerable on the ground. How on earth did we get into such an unacceptable position
I will give you my promise that we will do everything we can to ensure that whatever you are asked to do, you are properly, fully equipped to do so, to maximise your chance of success and minimise the risk to you
But be in no doubt, this PM is pro-defence, pro-armed forces, passionate about what these people do on our behalf.
Gordon Brown was warned about the shortfalls in helicopters in 2004, yet he went ahead and cut the helicopter budget anyway. This was a catastrophic decision when our forces were at war. Gordon Brown’s talk about new helicopters for Afghanistan masks the reality that the fleet is still being overworked and that the numbers available for operations are too low. Once again our troops on the ground are suffering from Labour’s incompetence
Yes, there are difficult decisions but we will have some amazingly capable defence forces with some of the latest equipment in the world. Including more Chinook helicopters
The Government cut the helicopter budget in 2004 and is now desperately playing catch-up to diminish the effects of its own fateful decision. This state of utter confusion and contradiction by ministers will cause despair amongst the military. Not only does it appear that lions are led by donkeys, but the donkeys can’t even decide what the line is
The Government has a moral duty to ensure our Armed Forces have the equipment they need; instead we have a catalogue of bureaucracy, incompetence and timewasting
Whilst politicians play their games with the armed forces, as they always have, let’s not forget this isn’t a political issue but an operational one.
Bon apetit
“Who would be a politician?
In the blink of an eye, instead of occupying the moral high ground, slagging off the government of the day from the comfort of the opposition benches, you know find yourself being force fed an unremitting diet of your own words”
Dont talk shit and you wont have to eat shit.
24 Chinooks or 12 chinooks or 200 fucking thousand chinooks, doesnt matter, because
Chinooks arent the issue and never were.
David has a credible escape plan, we’ll be out of Afghanistan before the first one would be delivered anyway, but had he not been a vacuous sound byte driven know nothing, he wouldnt have walked into this trap.
He’d have listened to the likes of North, and been banging on about MRAPs, not Coughlin, and been banging on about helicopters.
He might even have had the brains to clear house at the civil service when its strategy for Afghanistan was demonstrably failing.
Chinooks are really the least of our issues. Perhaps the military should be interviewed, on what they need and want( not these generals, who act like everything is hunky dory). I recall, General Sir David richards, saying they have the best kit, even he was jealous. Sadly I doubt that is the case. The government, shouldn’t think about what the military needs, the military should directly be asked about what they need.
Politicians talk shit, on so many issues. I’ve never really seen any that have adhered to their promises that they have made. Cameron wanted to make the armed forces stronger, in fact now they are a laughing stock. We need to wait another 9 years, and who knows what will happen tomorrow? I am tired of politicians deciding that they know best.
I am tired of generals failing to stand up for the armed forces. Perhaps the only PMs that are worth mentioning are Margaret Thatcher and Churchill, great PMs in times of war, especially. Where are those days where generals used to argue with PMs on military matters, where they were not afraid of the leadership.
Everything in a country nowadays is ruled by politics, and for the most part politics is shit. I don’t think that the conservatives helped the military at all. Can’t be sure we’ll even get our two carriers and our 140 JSF, which is just plain stupid. It will be annoying if our second carrier goes to the french and the taxpayer is sure not going to be happy about that.
The plan for land forces includes having two light infantry battalions per multi-role brigade, and two light specialist brigades, and aims to continue manoeuvre warfare in a future littered with cheap, homemade IEDs.
So helicopters are, and will remain, quite an important issue.
Huh, i’ve some doubts on Maggie Thatcher, much as i admire her. It is not like pre-Falklands the military was in a so nice state.
But she did at least act resolutely when the conflict popped up, and the worst error of the planning that had been going on before were reversed, at least.
However, often i think that politicians do not really know much about the armed forces when you scratch the surface.
Even Maggie, after all, came up with the hopeless question “Where is Ark Royal? What about the Buccaneers?” when the Falklands war became a reality.
She had, god bless her, memory of how the Buccaneers from Ark Royal had snuffed the ambitions of Guatemala in 1972 when they wanted to invade British Honduras/Belize, since she had been in the then prime minister’s cabinet. But she had evidently altogether missed Ark Royal’s brash demise…
Anyway, it is not all doom for once. Or at least, not necessarily. The new rotorcraft study was an expected move as part of PR11, and cuts are possible, probable even, but far from sure for once.
Gen. Moore, the head of the study committee, was quite confident about Chinooks and even underlined that the Army needs to follow the US down the Apache Block III upgrade route.
The two main items to be expected by this new study are:
- A plan for the Apache Mid-Life Upgrade/Block III modernization
- A plan for the Merlin HC3 mid-life upgrade, also due by around 2015, and navalization programme, which will happen in the same time, but quite possibly not before 2014 at the earliest, as the fleet now is all needed for Stan’
- Possibly there will be new indications for SAR (probable)
The cuts are likely to be a gap in coverage for Commando Helicopter Force, which risks having the Sea Kings grounded by 2016 and the Merlins arriving slowly and quite some time after that.
And i think the Baggers MK7 are at the end of the road. With the new Reapers coming in next year and the carriers gone, the chop will fall on them early (say, next year instead of 2016 as earlier indicated) with a years-long gap before a MASC platform is acquired (now apparently known as Crown Nest, dates indicated for it are comprised between 2019 and 2022).
But Chinooks and Navalization of Merlins should be safe, and Apache upgrade too.
After all, the SDSR and post-SDSR declarations in parliament were very, very firm and clear on these three things and on their numbers.
The only three things were detail has been provided in the “SDS-fudge”… they sure can betray their word, but there are easier targets where they have been less specific and have exposed themselves less.
Politicians eh who’d be one
I laminated what follows and displayed it in the window next to the door during the last election:-
This House belongs to one who believes the only honest person who ever got into parliament was Guy Fawkes. Therefore: -
EVERY THIRD POLITICAL CANVASER WILL BE:-
1) Beaten about the head with the brickbats his/her party uses on those who oppose its views
2)Stabbed through their lying black hearts with their own parties broken promises.
3) Before finally being drowned in a vat of their own leaders Bullsh*t.
PS The second one just left!
Now Fcuk off and stop bothering me.
So No I am not given to sympathy for politicians.
In fact after BT Broadband, they are next up against the wall when the revolution happen……..
I know its gossip but according to PRRUNE Military the study will suggest transferring SH to the AAC and the Apaches to the RAF.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/454127-u-k-reconsiders-rotor-wing-strategy.html#post6505708
I cannot see it my-self, while it might address the lack of trained Apache pilots and push the AAC to arming their Wildcat’s it seems too radical to me without any real savings (unless it is accompanied by a merger of the FAA into the AAC and RAF based on if it is rotary or fixed wing)
Tubby
The RAF having transport helicopters and the AAC Gunships always seemed odd to me…
Ixion
They (executive) are making me attend another selection meeting for being a naughty boy :} and saying things like, Cameron should be beaten with his own stupity
AAC should, by logic, have both Chinooks and Apaches, as in all other countries from US to Europe. At the point that has been reached, however, move the Chinook force to the AAC might be a bit too complex.
I must confess to being totally depressed by the state of our armed forces and the total lack of interest, not to mention honesty of our politicians
when dealing with military issues.
I hate politicians with a passion, yet feel totally
impotent to do anything about them. I really feel
for the safety of our country in the long term and for the ability of our armed forces to be able to react to anything in the future!
We know we need a larger and better equipped Army, but we are reducing it, we know we need a large and flexible navy, yet it gets smaller and smaller, we say that ISTAR assets are essential
yet plan to dispose if the Sentinel in 2015, we have been short of Helicopters for decades, yet the numbers get less and less year on year!
We value the human rights of criminals, illegal
immigrants and lazy work shy scroungers more than the security of our country and safety if our
armed forces personnel!
I am off to slash my wrists!!!
Trouble is most of the parties use selection boards, to make sure only the right “sorts” get anywhere near office.
Organisations merge all the time. I don’t see why in these times of economic uncertainty a RAF Chinook tradesperson would quibble if somebody gave them a green uniform to wear. The RAF doesn’t strike me as a “God, corps, country” type of organisation. The US Army, the world’s second biggest airforce and the world’s biggest operators of helicopters, has Chinook and Apache. Or is this one of those situations where the RAF loosing something is seen as illogical and impossible. As opposed to something being surrendered to the RAF and those protesting the move are seen as sentimental, old fashioned, and a tad stooopid.
What was the question again?
RAF, FAA, and the AAC should really be merged. Management would be a lot easier, logistics as well. All parts combined would be great, since parts, experience could be shared. There should be a area where it is devoted, to naval air. Silly how, no one wants to join.
Merging these aviation services, would work out better, than single organizations and it would work out cheaper. This is a really good cost saving tool, even in the long run, joint decisions are made on different aircraft, each by people who excel in a different area of aviation/have a different area of experience.
@ Junior
You’d should have just lit a fag at a petrol station….
Jnr
Oh Boy, Oh Boy, oh Boy!
TD forgive him he knows not what he does….
Be fair about helos, we’ll have a great fleet in 2014/15.
Why have none of you mentioned that the Puma fleet is currently being upgraded as we speak to hot-high and modern battlefield capability, with deliveries in 2011-13 I believe. Merlin’s are sorted now as they got upgraded for A’stan. We’re getting Wildcat in 2014 and Merlin HM2 these next 2-3 years as well. Those Chinook HC3a’s are becoming completely operational this year, that’s 12 helos. Lynx Mk9s being upgraded to A standard.
Why didn’t those now incompetent procurement people upgrade the Pumas back in late 90′s/early 00′s. They must’ve known they didn’t have the money for much, so why didn’t they make the Puma fleet operationally useful, which it hasn’t been whatsoever this last decade. I guess the last conflict it operated in was in the 90′s Yugoslav conflicts.
In 2014 we’ll have a great helo fleet, only second to the US, China and Japan and possibly India.
I bl##dy can’t wait for the non-depressing year of UK defence that will be 2014. Loads of great things of improvement are happening right now. Bl##dy shame no MPA and improved Naval strike in the works. And barely any new big aerospace projects for UK companies at the moment. Yes there’s Wildcat but that’s just Lynx mark X.
I’m going to ramble a bit now about more of some of the things I’m positive about right now.
Phalanx CIWS inventory is near total completion of upgrade to B standard. RN’s doing loads of major upgrades- T23, T boats, Illustrious is coming out of refit (…I know…). We’ve also got HMS Protector now (which is not a that bad decision). Can they afford to continue with the beast that is Endurance, Protector will probably be a sufficient permanent replacement. A positive with Protector is it’s a decade younger so will probably have a potential 10 years more service, which is brilliant financially. I know it has worse characteristics, but budget’s are being cut, and that it’s 3 year lease is costing the same as a repair of Endurance, but maybe you can blame Labour’s defence ministry for that.
Maybe for the South Atlantic and Antarctic, we should just have and just need Protector, permanent frigate and destroyer presence, regular naval exercising, and a better Maritime Patrol and area surveillance capability. The latter I believe is a little point of focus for the MoD at the moment.
HMS Astute will be properly deployed next year. YAY!
We’ve got RAF Voyagers operational soon. A-400 Atlas the next few years. Our soldiers are enormously better kitted and prepared than they were 10 years ago.
I concede to illustrate my awareness that, yes the armoured vehicle fleet is in disarray and the current ongoing procurement is in not good.
And yes we have a very, very limited Naval strike capability, and yes we’re losing vessels. But bring on FSC C1, C2, C3, CVF, JCA, Sucessor, UAVs.
Sorry again for my unintelligible-ness. I could make some excuses.
Please read this about the Puma upgrade. Yes it’s from ’09, but there’s no updates to it’s situation on the web, and they signed the contract back in ’09 so it must be happening as planned.
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/300m-raf-puma-helicopter-upgrades.html
Gabriele,can you please direct me as to how I can find out about “Crows Nest”?
Thank you very much
@junior
Here in the US we have multiple jurisdictions, be they cities, towns, counties, etc. Each has its own police force. The argument can be made that combining them even just regionally would make for efficiency… and cost savings..
but what if that regional force became corrupt, or even incompetent.
Separate air arms, or police forces that specialize in their trade, or even culture are just that… more professional, and in my opinion effective at what they do.
Jack of all trades, master of none… is the saying.
One can argue that the US Army, and USMC should merge for efficiency… (always the army after cash, and power, and our Uniforms)…. You can easily see the folly of such endeavors… enter the politicians.
Ah right i see apologies, TD. I have learnt a few things today. Thanks.
‘I don’t see why in these times of economic uncertainty a RAF Chinook tradesperson would quibble if somebody gave them a green uniform to wear.’
@ X I wouldn’t be so sure about that, bit more than a change of uniform. If I worked Chinooks I think I might quibble:)
apache is with the army because it’s a battlefield asset, not be stationed an hour away from the battlefield at the rear. people are confused because for the last 10 years we’ve all sat on the same pan at bastion.
“Organisations merge all the time.”
But never with any success.
Something truely insane like 90% of mergers and aquisitions leave the company weaker than it (or they) were before hand.
PaulG
Is Apache that much more speed and range limited than Harrier?
Ok, two or three times as fast, but same range.
Good observation of ministerial statements.
My spleen is suitably vented.
There’d probably be some quite strong quibbling if Chinook crews were shifted over to the AAC; but I’m sure it could be done.
Way back when, in my army days, I’ve worked next door to a Chinook hanger; ‘they’ are very much like ‘us’, and at a distance it’d be hard to tell the difference. It could be done. Quibbling aside, ‘they’ could be taught the right way to do things. Slowly sure, but it could be done… and with minimal use of a stick.
When I was a mere corporal many years ago, sunning myself in Croatia, I was saluted on two seperate occasions by Chinook riggers. Our proper rank system was very confusing for them; they could learn that eventually though.
(I of course snappily returned the salute on both occasions, giving a cheery “Carry on!” each time)
@Joe 88
Not so much to say about that: basically, in summer 2010 AgustaWestland+Thales and Lockheed Martin/Northropp Grumman made two proposals for the conversion of the Merlin in a Sea King MK7 successor. Back then it became apparent that the MOD had decided that, on its STOVL carriers, a Merlin MASC was the way to go, and MASC became Crow’s Nest, with a stated requirement of up to 10 helicopters.
The article was on the net for some time, and you can find a transcript of it on here: http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?19-Royal-Navy-matters/page4 scrolling down the page a bit.
I looked at the issue as part of my study over Merlin on my blog too: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/05/merlin-family-in-uk-service.html
Note that with the SDSR decision to adopt cats and traps for the carrier, the Hawkeye supporters have been gaining new strength, so the last word may have yet to be said.
The french want a fourth Hawkeye, the UK has a desperate need for a capable MASC, and in 2001 the MOD had been very close to signing a contract for up to 6 Hawkeyes, then abandoned because the Hawkeye was demonstrated taking off from a sky jump without cats, but still needed arresting wires.
Now that the carrier is ready for it, who knows.
A joint UK-France Hawkeye fleet is not such a swear-word anymore in the current climate.
@Paul G
“apache is with the army because it’s a battlefield asset, not be stationed an hour away from the battlefield at the rear. people are confused because for the last 10 years we’ve all sat on the same pan at bastion.”
Very true. And Chinook also is a battlefield asset, that i believe is under the wrong service control.
But from there to expect that the RAF is forced to hand Chinooks to the Army… i’m kind of a supporter of the idea, but the first times, with the transfer and the first post-transfer period would be a bit complex and possibly expensive in some regards.
Don’t know if there will ever be someone courageous enough to force the change upon the RAF for real.
@Gabriele,
The issue would be that the RAF would have to get something to give something up. I expect at best it will agree to surrender the Puma’s for the Apaches, and I will fall off my seat if the AAC gets both the Puma’s and the Chinook’s from the RAF for the Apaches.
If the stories about of lack of pilots for the Apache are true then IMO its not a bad thing if the RAF does get them. If the AAC want the ability to provide fire support independent of the RAF then they could just take advantage of the commonalities between versions of the Wildcat and upgrade their Wildcats with rocket and gun pods.
Apache may have started life as a “battlefield” asset, but, well, its not supporting any ground forces in Libya….
Today, its a self contained killer.
AAC gets battlefield taxis
RAF gets killy death bringers
Surely thats just sensible?
Or possibly FAA gets Apache, stick a couple of harpoons on the rails and launch them off an escort, yummy.
Joint Force Apache?
For my money, Hawkeye (or similar) is the biggest reason to get proper cats and traps.
so if the RAF get apaches, all of a sudden there would be a magical number of pilots appear, rubbish!! Also it’s not just about range it’s having a FOB to refuel and rearm to put it back out there, Something the army trains for, lets face facts the guys in the RAF are good at their job i’m not having a pop, but even they take the piss at the RAF reg guys they call army pongos because the army “rough it” served with the RAF several times they’re happy fixing shiny fast things in nice clean hangers, perhaps as the chinny is so big it should stay witht hte crabs and at a push (and i mean a big push) pumas to AAC to fit in the vision of a light bde in the future. I dunno i tend to ramble towards the end of a comment!!
“The issue would be that the RAF would have to get something to give something up.”
When does the turn of the FAA comes in getting some for all they’ve lost…?
I do not exactly see the other services getting something for what they lose. Why should the RAF be any different???
“If the stories about of lack of pilots for the Apache are true then IMO its not a bad thing if the RAF does get them.”
This is assuming that:
- The RAF gets more pilots signing in for flying Apache, for the same pay (otherwise it becomes more expensive, and this can’t be accepted at the moment) an army pilot would.
Would more people join the service to fly Apache? Would the RAF care about Apache as much, or would it always come after “fast pointy shiny fast things”?
I see only one reason why more people would be glad to join RAF Apache squadrons: more favorable harmony guidelines granting more time at home.
Deployability would go down, and the mess would be even worse than now. No, thanks. The Harmony Guidelines of the RAF itself will have to change, and soon, particularly if they want to keep meddling in carrier air work.
“I will fall off my seat if the AAC gets both the Puma’s and the Chinook’s from the RAF for the Apaches.”
Arguably, the move of Utility helos to the Army makes sense only if the whole role goes to the army. Leaving behind the Puma ruins the whole thing and makes it an incomplete. Or you move it all, or leave things as they are, otherwise it is not a strategy, but it is chair shifting.
I’m also one who would have rather bought 10 more Merlins instead of upgrading 24 Pumas and having two small fleets.
A single, larger fleet is kind of always the better solution, as there is one training line, one logistic line, and greater total of airframes means more helicopters that can be deployed where they are needed.
With Puma and Merlins there will be 24 + 25 helicopters, but the result will be that there will be, at best, the chance to deploy small detachments (say five/six helos of each type) from each fleet, while a single-type fleet, even if the total was smaller, would have better chances to deliver more.
“Apache may have started life as a “battlefield” asset, but, well, its not supporting any ground forces in Libya….
Today, its a self contained killer.”
Arguably, the Apache is supporting the rebels, which are ground forces. But even without stretching the concept so much, i will just note that if each time that an airframe is used in a certain way we go calling it with a new term and suggest moving it to another service, we are approaching total desperation.
When the RAF will (hopefully) deploy a plane on CVF, we will realize that it should be FAA marked to do that job? Because it is kind of the same thing.
It makes no sense to reason this way.
Pretty much worldwide, the Air Force has helicopter squadrons only for Combat SAR duties that in the RAF do not even exist in the same concreteness as with the air forces of the other countries.
Can we please have the Air Force doing air force work, and the Army Air Corps doing Army Air Corps work? I suspect things would suddenly make far more sense at that point.
“For my money, Hawkeye (or similar) is the biggest reason to get proper cats and traps.”
Well, it is a true force-multiplier and a real game changer, in any kind of scenario and mission. So yeah, i kind of agree.
All this talk of transferring one bit of kit from one place to another makes me smile.
I would make a few observations
1. The reason the Army has struggled to get Apache into service is because the ISD was accelerated and the AAC had to try and pick up the pieces on a shoestring, the Army having other priorities. Lets not forget the funding line for JHC is held by LAND which kind of tells you something about the priorities LAND gives to aviation.
2. Helicopters aren’t toys to be distributed to well behaved children.There has to be some logic and/or a financial argument and that is even before you get to operational reasons.
3. Just because other people do something does not make it right for the UK, logical and coherent arguments are needed not the language of the playground and who has stole the toys
You all know my thoughts on this though
of course we are forgetting that the army recruits it’s pilots from all ranks ie a bigger pool, therefore with the officer only RAF way,get them through uni, cranwell and then all the other admin crap, getting pilots through apache training has been problematic as a)it’s bloody hard (just because you’re light blue won’t make it easier, or mean more will pass as they are “skygods”) b) we only bought 67 airframes so getting bums on seats is a problem again not a problem that would be solved by changing service, maybe the answer is geting some slots in the states or even picking up some of their “A” models for training purposes. I speak having friends who are in fact instructors on the beast. Even more radically, if some of the “cold war relics” (hate that term) get shitcanned then up the AAC’s budget (don’t forget they have limits money/manpower wise) and then they could have more QHI’s who also work front line as well as training and bingo more pilots get trained
“The reason the Army has struggled to get Apache into service is because the ISD was accelerated and the AAC had to try and pick up the pieces on a shoestring, the Army having other priorities. Lets not forget the funding line for JHC is held by LAND which kind of tells you something about the priorities LAND gives to aviation.”
Part of it. But playing the line “the army does not want Apache” is not realistic, as that is not true.
The other part of the reason why the Army struggles to have enough pilots is that AAC Apache pay is (was?) kind of shitty, and it affected recruitment and retention: the Armed Forces Pay Review Report 2010 contained urgent suggestions for adoption of Retention Financial Incentives for Apache pilots, on the model of those used already by RAF and RN to retain their own pilots. http://www.raf-ff.org.uk/images/library/files/20100310__AFPRB_Report.pdf
Making their pay fair, i suspect retention and recruitment will go up substantially, finally ending this “there’s no pilots, let’s give them to the RAF” absurdity.
Didn’t say it doesn’t want Apache, just that it struggles to prioritise aviation, which is self evident.
But as a great idea, lets give them another complex airframe or two to look after with their struggling infrastructure, carry the transfer costs and realise exactly what in terms of tangible operational or financial benefit?
Lets not forget the RAF maintain Chinook at a very high availability rate.
Given that close air support is also a ‘battlefield’ task lets give them those Harriers as well or a couple of squadron of Tornado’s.
As I said, hit me with a logical argument and I am all ears, keep talking about how unfair it all is and how those mean chaps in light blue are meddling where their snouts don’t belong and I am going to be inclined to dismiss the argument
@ TD
Yes we all know your thoughts on the subject of helicopters. Doesn’t mean you are right though. We all “suffer” from bias. Perhaps you need to front up and recognise that. Your tone at time is a tad patronizing. As for your points,
1) Well if somebody had said the RAF had other priorities that lead to a capability gap you would have dismissed it. If memory serves you see little in merit in the argument that the RAF had other priorities in the 1930s so the FAA suffered. And surely if the army didn’t want aviation there would be no AAC?
2) No helicopters aren’t toys; they are vehicles, sophisticated yes, but just vehicles. They are parts of integrate systems; you don’t really seem to get this do you? The helicopter being vectored on to a target by its frigate is part of an integrated system. The helicopter wouldn’t be there without the frigate and the majority of the time wouldn’t have found a target. What is a frigate but a collection of gas turbines, electronic systems, and weapons? Much like a helicopter a really. So if a service can park 4000ton of shipping on a target why does it have to turn to another service to operate 10ton of helicopter? And to be proficient part of the system where will the crew of that helicopter have to be? Working with and around ships. So isn’t logical then that the crew actually be navy? As for the Army and RAF Army co-operation squadrons well they spend there days just moving army “stuff” around the battle field. Smaller airforces than the AAC from smaller nations cope with complicated aircraft why is it beyond the realms of possibility that the AAC couldn’t cope with Chinook? You bang on about the services facing up to realities, yet suggest that RAF helicopters who REAELITY spend their time working for the army should be owned by their prime user and the inference is that the suggestion is beyond logic. Your philosophy seems purely to be “helicopters fly and the RAF does flying.” Really this is not much better than the ignorant man on the street who’s total defence knowledge is drawn from Sunday afternoon films, is it? One would suggest that operational needs are what starts the procurement process. The financial constraints then dictate what is to be bought. The vast majority of the time it is events on the ground (surface/water) that dictate where air power is used. Surely LOGIC would dictate that the two main users of helicopters, the RN and the Army, should dictate helicopter policy. Not the bit player which is the RAF.
3) It is no argument for not doing it either. We may not be the US, but we are not Ireland or Denmark either.
I live in a small town about 8 miles as the crow flies from RAF Odiham (where all the Chinooks are based in the UK) and they’re always flying all over Hampshire, all the time. I saw one the other day fly over Pompey to the edge of the Isle of Wight and then turn away before reaching land. I only very occasionally see RN Lynxes and Merlins way inland where I am, thats 20 miles from HMNB Portsmouth. My point is the Chinook’s are flying all the time non-stop from Odiham so I support the strength of our Chinook fleet.
I wonder whether the base could cope with around 70+ helos and planes in 2014, that includes some Army Lynxes which are kind of based there, the expected Chinook order, and the couple Defender planes. Wiltshire, Hampshire airspace will be much busier in 2014. It’s not a massive base, not like a US base. I’m gonna have to hear that thumping more with around 70 helos there in 2014, they’re always flying on low flight path and flight corridor and area usually a mile and a half in the air from home. They don’t skirt our town enough, but I appreciate they’re always only doing practice and training flights in my area, and that’s what pilots have to do most working days.
They never go close to their top-speed, I know this as I saw that one the other day in the Solent going proper fast, it looked like 160mph or something. Usually they only do about 50-100mph near my home.
ignore this post
Let’s see if i can provide an example of why it would be better to have the Army doing things.
In 2009, the then-commander of Joint Helicopter Force, Rear Admiral Johnstone-Burt, went declaring to Parliament:
“Our average deployment cycle is about three months, so that gives us a 12-month gap between tours. That is the rule of thumb we are using and it is working well in the Chinook, Puma, Merlin and Lynx communities.”
Tours of helicopter crews in Stan vary from 3 to 4 months indeed, reflecting pretty much the tour guidelines followed by the RAF personnel making up a great part of the force deployed. Note that, with the exception of Lynx, which however can draw from quite a huge base of personnel from Army and from 847 NAS, the other platforms named, unsurprisingly, are RAF owned and manned.
The commander then reminds us that: “The Navy has a different scale of manning according to their Harmony rules within the service itself. The rule of five that I mentioned just now is a Joint Helicopter Command Harmony rate that I created because it was sustainable and robust and I could guarantee that with 20% on operations and 80% doing other things I could ensure that was a robust, enduring capability at this tempo for the next 15 to 20 years. That was my yardstick. The Navy, Royal Air Force and Army have different ratio criteria because their roles are so different. In broad terms the Navy has a rule of three, one on two off, because of the time spent at sea. You cannot join the Navy and expect to be at home all the time. We have a one third, two thirds, rule. As a consequence, our establishment—in other words, the formula we use to work out the number of people to man our stations etc—is a smaller proportion than it is for the other two services.”
About the Army, we hear that Apache crews are also operating to a more taxing rhythm than RAF crews:
“the Harmony rate for the Apache air crew, ground crew and engineers is about a rule of four, so one on three off.”
Basically, if all Battlefield helicopters went to the Army, tours could be extended to six months, which works well for Army and Navy guidelines.
Break would also be extended in answer, but still there would be immediate advantages in deployability and reduced manning requirements. Plus the need for flying-in and out personnel to rotate and enter the break period would be massively reduced, reducing the strain on the cargo airplanes fleet as well, as less flights would be needed, and less frequently.
This alone for me is quite a good result which could be obtained.
Of course, the easier way is to change RAF guidelines, however, not moving the fleets around.
The fact is that, i suspect, moving the fleets would have the potential to deliver further savings in terms of personnel cost.
On this i speculate, however, as i currently lack accurate data about the cost of RAF crews/groundcrews and comparative cost of AAC equivalents.
Here is the Joint Helicopter Force hearing from which i quoted. It contains some nice info.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/434/9060203.htm
@Joe88
“including some Army Lynxes which are kind of based there and the expected Chinook order, and the couple Defender planes.”
Those should be Lynx AH7s of 657 AAC and Defenders from 651 AAC.
Both units are part of the Joint Special Forces Support Wing, based in Odiham and with its main part in the 7th RAF Squadron with its Chinooks.
In private industry moves of personnel & equipment across reporting lines is common-place & accepted. Not always comfortable and not always well-thought through…but a fact of life.
Considering rotary-wing capability – the FAA & AAC are in business “on their own account”…operation of RW assets is in direct support of their core mission (sub-hunting, inserting RM/SF form sea, CAS, battlefield-taxi, etc etc). I’m with IXION – they are glorified vehicles…part of an integrated system.
I submit that for the RAF this is not the case…they are usually RW “service providers”, primarily to the army…
Sometimes in the real world outsourcing (for this can be seen as such IMO) makes sense…other times it simply doesn’t deliver the benefits to the end-user (quality, responsiveness, flexibility, cost-effectiveness etc) espoused…and I think this may be such a case.
So yes – put RW under the command of the end-users…
Now I’m going to don battle-bowler & hide…
Gremlin
Who uses the C17 and C130 the most, the Army
Who used MR2 the most
There are loads of other examples but you can see what I am getting at
The RAF are geared up to apply air power in all its forms, they have a well developed career, manpower management, doctrinal development and engineering systems that allows them to apply it effectively and with economies of scale across both their main customers
For the other services, its something else they do that has to compete for resources and the size that the FAA and AAC are now at puts barriers in the way of cost effective management, economies of scale and manpower management.
The question is, can we afford three helicopter operators and if not, what are you willing to sacrifice to do so
You might answer that one by saying we would only have 2 if the RN and Army could have all the helicopters but argument isn’t convincing either
TD
Is not the problem with the RAF and the point which various commentators make with various degrees of vitriol/ logice exactly the point you make.
Just as the Army and RN are service users and have many other things to do so RW is just part of it.
THEN RW is just part of what the RF does, and it does it as a service for the other services. So it suffers from not being done For the RAF, its not nice pointy sexy fast etc, so it is relagated in importance when times come round to dish out the dosh.
My point about C130 and C17 is that they should be run by the army, as the army use them…
Why is the 2 instead of 1 user not convicining RW to AAC yea! Apache to RAF stupidly recreates the 3 user problem.
@TD
As regards C17/C130 these are fixed-wing – I specifically said rotary-wing. But responding to your point, I’d happily leave C17/C130 to the RAF as strategic transport…hell, revive Strategic Transport Command if you will…MR2 we can forget…were talking about the future…and fwiw I believe future MPA should be RN…simply because it supports their core objectives/mission.
However, and as IXION says they (C17/C130) are generally run for the benefit of the Army so in the search for ruthless efficiencies and taking the logic above to the obvious conclusion then why not transfer them to the direct control of the end-user…?
Leave the crabs with fast, shiny, pointy things only…which fulfil their end-user needs/primary purpose – i.e. homeland QRA/AD & fast-air from home or other fixed bases.
BTW I do like the edit button…!
“I believe future MPA should be RN”
Me too and apparently at least this will be fixed, in fact: the “Nimrod Replacement study” expects the FAA to work the next MPA.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=15587
^ Flying from what base? RNAS Culdrose is out of the question. I don’t know about RNAS Yeovilton but I imagine a lot of money would have to be spent to operate MPAs there. So really choosing RAF bases will probably be the way to go.
And if you’re going to do that, why bother stretching the massively demised FAA to operate as a lodger at an RAF base. The FAA will be focusing on CVF.
The RAF did a fine job with Nimrods, and it’ll be easier to get them to operate MPAs again, so why idealise having the FAA do Maritime air patrol?
@Joe88
Some people just can’t stand the thought that the RAF might be good at something.
^ Chair Force. How many fixed wing pilots does the FAA have now? Is there a Parliamentary Q&A answering that?
They need all their helo pilot capability and the only fixed wing facility they have is for pretty much just helo observer crewman training, with the 4 brand new Beechcraft Super King Air 350.
The RAF operates a few Super King Air variants. It seems to me thinking about it now, that the tiny remains of FAA fixed-wing capability should be consolidated into the RAF.
Unfortunately that’s way too politically sensitive an area to change, although I guess less so than taking away things from the RAF.
So do people think the PPRUNE Military story that the revised Helicopter Strategy will propose the move of the Apache to the RAF and the SH to the AAC is true or was the poster(s) just pulling our legs?
Personally I think it makes a kind of perverse logic, the RAF has lost the Merlin, they are not going to get as many extra Chinook’s as they like, Puma will only be in service for a while and Apache is getting good press.Plus I bet good money that the block III upgrades for the Apache are guaranteed, but the writing is on the wall that once the Puma retires in the next decade there will be no new SH brought into to replace it.
Of course the problem with all these moves is the high upfront costs of moving kit from one service to another.
Sorry below is the revised version of earlier post, that I was timed out with whilst editing
^ Chair Force. How many fixed wing pilots does the FAA have now? Is there a Parliamentary Q&A answering that?
The fixed wing FAA is absolutely tiny now, there’s what, a couple dozen ex Harrier pilots still on the books? And after that there’s just a very small no. of pilots operating the 4 brand new Beechcraft Super King Air 350 Observer training aircraft.
The FAA will need a lot of building-up and unfortunately help from others to be able to operate MPAs in the 2010s.
The RN and RAF Joint Force Harrier pilots had very similar working lives towards the end of the Harrier fleet. You don’t need a massively different route in HM Armed Forces to fly off aircraft carriers. So do you really need this difference when it’d be a lot easier and probably cheaper to have all F-35 (and E-2 Hawkeye) pilots to do everything together as one force.
I think making the decision to transfer all maritime and naval fixed-wing responsibility to the RAF would be fairly akin to the decision to move SSN force to Faslane. The latter was to consolidate and save money, as the former would be. Unfortunately I believe there are some people who like I’ve been in the past, are sentimental of the Fleet Air Arm, because it was once an awesome force.
@ Tubby – The Puma fleet is currently receiving a big comprehensive upgrade and no Merlins have actually left the RAF yet, no transfer has been signed off on yet.