Does the Army need the Army Air Corps?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Rolando, May 23, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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. Yes, how else would we get sexy men like Flashy?
  3. If we didn't have the AAC, we'd have to have the RLC fly our choppers (since they're the 'transport' corps).

    And there's no way a Gazelle's lifting an RLC bird
  4. Flashy used to be a Sapper? :?

    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. How about moving the question on

    ‘ With the advent of AH does the army need a tank Corps’ :wink:
  7. That would ensure weekends and wednesday afternoons air support free
  8. Or even

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


    PAYD wonderful success, bin the chefs


    JPA brilliant, ditch the AGC


    KBR, Royal Engineers not required


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

  9. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    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. 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 away from Adukie 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
  15. OOo :geek: Flashy has got his sensible head on today