Thread: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

....we need to .... stop putting Fast Jet pilots in charge of the RAF.

I think a fair bite of the cherry all round would yield results- I don't think Fast Jet pilots should be denied the opportunity, I just think that SH or airlift crews should get the same opportunities. This would involve scrapping the effective caste system amongst officers. Who knows, maybe even a non-flying officer could rise to become quite senior?

Originally Posted by Fred_Karno

those responsible for this scandal should just for once admit that there is a problem and set about rectifying it.

Any politician who stood up and declared that they had erred and were doing their best to rectify their mistakes would go up in my estimation for having the balls to be honest about it!

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

Originally Posted by whitecity

If the Army decides that it would be preferrable to have an inhouse SH capability and decides to fund and procure a fleet of Chinooks for the AAC in addition to that operated by the RAF, would this be acceptable? Or should we stick to the archane tradition/agreement that this is proscribed?

I can't speak for this reported 'size' issue in airframes - I can only speak of my own experiences (pretty extensive) with Army and RAF aviation.

The rule certainly existed. I have posted links to confirm this already in this thread. I understand that it still exists, but was relaxed so that AAC not RAF got to fly the Apache.

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

Firstly - insane to operate a seperate fleet of the same a/c. You'd duplicate so much effort the cost would be laughed out of any review.

They wouldn't be separate at all. They would all be part of a big pool of Chinooks at JHC. Only difference is, there are AAC types flying and maintaining them as AAC aircraft.

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

Secondly - the Army mentality of 'its mine, I own it' shouldn't be applied to assets with such ubiquity and broad need. This is a necessity for the land-based, mobile military but doesn't work across a Theatre with scarce assets.

I agree. Do you also agree that it would be wise to operate this in reverse and allow the AAC to take over responsibilty for some of the SH from the RAF?

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

Thirdly - the Army would struggle to come to terms with the 'airworthiness' side of aviation on that scale. It isn't a jobsworth thing and I took a long time coming to terms with it - but that would be a real worry.

This seems to be just an inter-service dig rather than a genuine point of difficulty.

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

The size thing equates more to technological complexity to me. Army is largely land mobile with relatively short reach capability. Air is more fixed in nature (larger support footprint, more complex engineering requirements) and much further-reaching.
Therefore, the support needs are different and they cannot be configured alike.

So. Things must remain as they are for the sake of tradition. Progress and development is to be frowned upon in true Ludite fashion?

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

So - rather than trying to bash a square peg into a round hole, we need to better equip what we have and stop putting Fast Jet pilots in charge of the RAF.

I don't see why this is a square peg, round hole scenario. That's just an archane argument to prevent development, progression and change.

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

We used to be focused on moving the Army around the globe to police the Empire / Commonwealth. Then the Cold War stopped that attitude and we focused on fast jets & bombers and operating from under concrete. We are still a Cold War Air Force that happens to deploy - badly. We are behind the drag curve but we need to fight a war, not the war, so need all capabilities. I think the balance is wrong myself.

This argument goes a long way to suggesting that the RAF is not equipped to perform the SH role rather than the AAC as you earlier suggested.

I'm not sure the RAF has got the balance that wrong. The problem stems from the reality that the cake has got so small, nobody gets a decent slice of the cake if any at all.

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by Whet

Originally Posted by Strait_Jacket

Originally Posted by Whet

We do have the cabs - nominally. However, to fly them constantly in theatre would bugger up Harmony guidelines for aviation types.

Harmony guidelines???! Were you pissing yourself laughing while writing that?

If they are not carrying a weapon a contractor can do the job. If HMG didn't believe that even our current op's would be impossible.

Really? REME blackies and Greenies aren't servicing AAC cabs? AAC groundcrew are replaced totally by civvies whilst they are in Afghanistan? Since helicopters are in theatre - what are these contractors contracted to do?

Do you know how many civilian contractors now have mandatory obligations to deploy as part of the service contracts?

But with the AAC? the RAF?

Originally Posted by Strait_Jacket

Originally Posted by Whet

Originally Posted by Strait_Jacket

Originally Posted by Whet

We do have the cabs - nominally. However, to fly them constantly in theatre would bugger up Harmony guidelines for aviation types.

Harmony guidelines???! Were you pissing yourself laughing while writing that?

If they are not carrying a weapon a contractor can do the job. If HMG didn't believe that even our current op's would be impossible.

Really? REME blackies and Greenies aren't servicing AAC cabs? AAC groundcrew are replaced totally by civvies whilst they are in Afghanistan? Since helicopters are in theatre - what are these contractors contracted to do?

Look this isn't the time or the place for your work as a Neu Arbeit disembler.

I did not suggest that all aircraft servicing is being done by civivies on contract. I did say that contractors are used widely for various technical roles in theatre with full approval of HMG. I know this because it's my job to put them there. The fact that you don't suggests that you are even further out of your depth in this conversation than I had imagined, and that anyone reading this should attribute as much weight to your comments on the subject as the opinions of David Icke.

Is that clearer now?

That's as maybe but this discussion is about aircraft and, in our case, support. Now, if you have placed significant amounts of civvies into AAC or RAF squadrons then I concede that they play a large part in the support structure.

So is the civvie contingent of aircraft support significant?

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by baboon6

Originally Posted by milsum

Borrow them from the Navy? They're not busy at the moment are they? I know two jungly pilots farmed out into AFCOs for 6 months in the last couple of years. Although having seen one of them park his car there might have been a good reason for this.

There must be some RAF/RN SH pilots in ground jobs at the moment who could be brought back to flying duties. Ground-crew on the other hand might be more difficult.

Today is NOT the start date.

Moves are already afoot to have Merlin in Afghanistan as well as more Chinook. The process started back in 2007. We should be asking why the assets were not available 12-18 months ago, not why they are not available today.

What work had to be carried out on the Canadian Chinoooks WC, versus the work that had to be done to the Boscombe ones and the Danish Merlins? It's the same question as you asked about the aircrew. Unless we know what the Canadian circumstances are, how can we make a comparison?

whitecity - you have a desire to wheedle everything I say into your own message and turn it into whatever you want. I post here with hard experience from years of working with some awesome people across all 3 Services in logistics and aviation. Many of them were superlative, but many are hampered by the differences between the Services. You crack on and grind your axe. The training to bring AAC up to the standards needed to maintain another type of a/c would be astronomical and a waste of time, effort and resources.

Originally Posted by Whet

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by baboon6

Originally Posted by milsum

Borrow them from the Navy? They're not busy at the moment are they? I know two jungly pilots farmed out into AFCOs for 6 months in the last couple of years. Although having seen one of them park his car there might have been a good reason for this.

There must be some RAF/RN SH pilots in ground jobs at the moment who could be brought back to flying duties. Ground-crew on the other hand might be more difficult.

Today is NOT the start date.

Moves are already afoot to have Merlin in Afghanistan as well as more Chinook. The process started back in 2007. We should be asking why the assets were not available 12-18 months ago, not why they are not available today.

What work had to be carried out on the Canadian Chinoooks WC, versus the work that had to be done to the Boscombe ones and the Danish Merlins? It's the same question as you asked about the aircrew. Unless we know what the Canadian circumstances are, how can we make a comparison?

The only work carried out on the Canadian aircraft was a repaint job to remove the US Army markings and applu Canadian ensignia.

The details of the Canadian efforts are publically available. But, of course, you're too lazy to find it out for yourself and are blissfully happy to remain ignorant.

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

whitecity - you have a desire to wheedle everything I say into your own message and turn it into whatever you want. I post here with hard experience from years of working with some awesome people across all 3 Services in logistics and aviation. Many of them were superlative, but many are hampered by the differences between the Services. You crack on and grind your axe. The training to bring AAC up to the standards needed to maintain another type of a/c would be astronomical and a waste of time, effort and resources.

No. This thread was heading into an inter-service slanging match. You just seem to offer up, politely, a list of reasons why X is better than Y which don't cut the mustard. I'm not denying your personal experiences. I'd just like you to consider that people do things according to the system in which they operate. The AAC has no experience of operating large helis because they're not permitted to operate large helis. If they were, I have no doubt they'd make a good job of it. Your position is that this is impossible.

I'm not grinding any axe. Personally, I see no reason why the RAF shouldn't continue to provide SH assets to the Army. However, that should continue soley on the basis that they are the best way to provide SH and not because of some archane rule that precludes anybody else from doing it.

I obviously can't use google as well as you WC, because I couldn't find anything about the work done.

I'm curious, did it say anything about why it took 7 months to complete a spray job? A bit excessive, no?

Originally Posted by Mr_C_Hinecap

The training to bring AAC up to the standards needed to maintain another type of a/c would be astronomical and a waste of time, effort and resources.

Quite true. I thought you said you knew about aviation? If you did, you would know that the REME maintain our aircraft. ;)

Might we face a similar situation to Vietnam with hot LZ’s re-enforced by modern Stinger missiles (or the Iranian equivalent) or is the landscape too barren to afford any effective cover from a predetermined LZ? There is no rain forest to hide the enemy, but I understand in some places there is plenty of long grass.

-DC

I have just found out some information about the delivery of Merlin.

When they were purchased from the Danes they were without any spare engines - the Danes were adamant about this. Rolls Royce needed a years lead in to supply those engines. In addition the spares package which came with them did not make up a full PEP - this had to be rectified.

Finally JHC made the decision not to split aircraft types across the two theatres due to spares issues across all RAF SH fleets.


Edited to add - In addition Westlands were only able to mod four at a time. Two were delivered straight to Benson to help in training, then when two aircraft were modded they went in turn to Westlands to be worked on.

BBC News- who do you believe, the lying one eyed tosser that cant even answer a simple yes or no question or a decorated Parachute Regiment officer?

Id honestly cheer if Broon was assasinated. In fact id piss on his grave.

Originally Posted by Whet

I obviously can't use google as well as you WC, because I couldn't find anything about the work done.

I'm curious, did it say anything about why it took 7 months to complete a spray job? A bit excessive, no?

Shows that you either haven't bothered to read anything, or you're too daft to understand what you read.

Since I'm feeling generous this evening, I'll explain it for you. The 6 aircraft in question were being operated by 6/159 Avn US Army out of Kabul. When 6/159 rotated back to the States at the end of their deployment (Dec0, they flew six of the aircraft to Kandahar where the Canadians took ownership as per contractual agreements. The pilots spent a little over a month familiarising themselves with the actual aircraft - having just completed courses at Ft. Rucker - and were operational by mid February. Most of this is on the link provided by PTP.

BBC News at Ten tonight and this Linky:

"Brown Defiant on Afghan Equipment"