Does the Army need the Army Air Corps?

#1
[align=center]Does the Army need the Army Air Corps?[/align]

If this sounds like a title for a CO's essay, it's because it is... It's not plagiarism if you footnote it!
 
#2
Rolando said:
[align=center]Does the Army need the Army Air Corps?[/align]

If this sounds like a title for a CO's essay, it's because it is... It's not plagiarism if you footnote it!
Yes, how else would we get sexy men like Flashy?
 
#4
The_Snail said:
Rolando said:
[align=center]Does the Army need the Army Air Corps?[/align]

If this sounds like a title for a CO's essay, it's because it is... It's not plagiarism if you footnote it!
Yes, how else would we get sexy men like Flashy?
Flashy used to be a Sapper? :?



Rolando said:
[align=center]Does the Army need the Army Air Corps?[/align]
Of course. If they became part of the RAF, think of the cost of changing the stationery, badges, etc, not to mention the hotel bills..
 
#5
Yes, bring ALL the support helos and CAS from the RAF to the AAC.

Oh, and the rock apes...
 
#6
chocolate_frog said:
Yes, bring ALL the support helos and CAS from the RAF to the AAC.

Oh, and the rock apes...
How about moving the question on

‘ With the advent of AH does the army need a tank Corps’ :wink:
 
#7
chocolate_frog said:
Yes, bring ALL the support helos and CAS from the RAF to the AAC.

Oh, and the rock apes...
That would ensure weekends and wednesday afternoons air support free
 
#8
CAARPS said:
chocolate_frog said:
Yes, bring ALL the support helos and CAS from the RAF to the AAC.

Oh, and the rock apes...
How about moving the question on

‘ With the advent of AH does the army need a tank Corps’ :wink:
Or even

Seen as everyone has their own drivers, why the f*ck bother with the RLC (Transport)

Or

PAYD wonderful success, bin the chefs

Or

JPA brilliant, ditch the AGC

Or

KBR, Royal Engineers not required

Or

Airborne Ops, don’t be so stupid, Para Bns why?


Or………………………………………
 
#9
I dare you to answer 'No' and then see what CO 5 has to say ......
 
#10
I thought i'd post this in Pprune but then remembered who my boss is! Answering "no" could have interesting concquences...

Besides, at this rate, i won't be answreing at all. If i'd spent more time writing and less time on ARRSE i'd have had it finished by now!
 
#11
CAARPS said:
Seen as everyone has their own drivers, why the f*ck bother with the RLC (Transport)

Or

PAYD wonderful success, bin the chefs

Or

JPA brilliant, ditch the AGC

Or

KBR, Royal Engineers not required

Or

Airborne Ops, don’t be so stupid, Para Bns why?


Or………………………………………

Give it 10 years or so and the above mentions units probably will vanish.
 
#12
years ago = about 1968 in Bornoe..##AAC helicopters = Bell 47G... used as a scare to make seagulls ..fly away from Adukie airfield....as and when required when a Bristol Freighter departed or arrived......

I apoligise for spellings...and grammar...
 
#13
No.















I'll elaborate to save CO 5 throwing a teddy. ;)

Looking purely on the fiscal side of things, you need to remember the AAC accounts for approx 25-30+% of the Army's spending with only about 2% of the man power. This appears to be a disproportional chunk of the ever decreasing defence budget.
What does the AAC actually do?
Transport? No, not really - thats SHFs remit and we just dont have the kit to do anything meaningful in that role.
CAS? Yep, very well too but OPSEC not withstanding, we don't exactly have a huge amount of assets.
ISTAR? Yep, again very well too for the price (compared to other RAF assets)

My original 'No' answer was not my own opinion but merely one that some who march up and down the corridors of Whitehall would give. Like it or not, the Army is not about aviation and those 2** and above would tend to agree. Especially when the dwindling budget needs to be spread even further on 'conventional' resources. There are those who actively push that aviation should be given to the RAF in order to release the dosh. The dilemma is that Army Aviation in Army hands works and works very well.

'Need' and 'want' are two different matters. Does the Army 'want' aviation? One would suggest yes but the burden of cost upsets more than a few up at MB. Does the Army 'need' aviation? Imho, yes. In the same way the USMC need their own organic aviation assets and in the same way the RAF at large don't really need the SHF*.


*One of the only reasons the RAF clutch to the SHF is because it helps them to justify their existence and gives them a bit of cred. Without them, they are basically EasyJet in uniform and the Red Arrows. If that were not the case, they'd give them up to the Army at the drop of a hat so they could release more dosh to buy shiny cold war AD fighters. ;)
 
#14
I say yes........ just to see the NCOs not fly :D :D :D
 
#16
I'm going with "No" too although I have absolutely no clever justification or rationale whatsoever to back that up, other than I have quite a few mates in the Air Corps and the idea of them losing their flying pay fills me with delight. :clap:
 
#17
Ethel_the_Aardvark said:
I'm going with "No" too although I have absolutely no clever justification or rationale whatsoever to back that up, other than I have quite a few mates in the Air Corps and the idea of them losing their flying pay fills me with delight. :clap:
Where else could their egos be given such freedom though???
 
#18
kes1 said:
Ethel_the_Aardvark said:
I'm going with "No" too although I have absolutely no clever justification or rationale whatsoever to back that up, other than I have quite a few mates in the Air Corps and the idea of them losing their flying pay fills me with delight. :clap:
Where else could their egos be given such freedom though???
:twisted: :twisted:
 

Pararegtom

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
100%, There role is more needed now than ever before, and would you trust the Crabs for close support and anti-Armour Role.
 

Latest Threads