RLC assumes responsibility for AAC Groundcrew, good or bad??

I have it on good authority that due to forthcoming defence cuts the Royal Logistic Corps will soon be taking responsibility for all AAC Groundcrew careers, from training, through to deployment and support of all army aviation. It would more than likely be around the middle of 2012, possibly July. With the amalgamation of the 2 Regiments at Wattisham into an AH force, and the return of the Germany units to Yeovilton in 2012/13, it would be designed to coincide with the re-structuring of the AAC. That would involve all AAC ‘groundies’ rebadging to the RLC, and as a result, would be eligible for postings across the whole of the RLC where they employ similar trades. My question therefore is this: would it be welcomed or not?? I personally think it a good idea, as the role of an AAC ground crewman is basically logistics, as in the delivery (to the fighting asset), or bombs, bullets and bowsers, and when they’re in camp they look after the blankets!! Simples!!

Comments please??
it works in other NATO countries, and after all, the REME engineers/technicians are administered by the REME, so why not movethe groundies to the logistical SMEs??
Anyone else thinking the RLC are getting TOO large? and I don't mean their waist sizes.
Can't see a Corps surviving with only a few officers [relatively] manning it. AGC(ETS) is probably/maybe smaller but it is part of the larger AGC.

Looks prime meat for an RAF takeover...............
if you look at the bigger picture it makes sense that the RLC takes over the whole of the groundcrew side of army avaition and only aircrew be badged into the AAC as that would give the corps an elite regiment status which can only help in the recruitment of more and therefore better aircrew
chocolate_frog said:
Anyone else thinking the RLC are getting TOO large? and I don't mean their waist sizes.
It does stand for Really Large Corps after all....

They could always divide it by functions; for example, the transportation could go to a corps of transport, the ordnance and stores could go to a .......oh bugger.....
The Inf is larger than the RLC.


Book Reviewer
chocolate_frog said:
Anyone else thinking the RLC are getting TOO large? and I don't mean their waist sizes.
I suspect the RLC will not be quite so large after the Strategic Defence Review.
Hairy_Fairy said:
Dragstrip said:
The Inf is larger than the RLC.
We wouldn't be much of an army if the support was gigger than the spearhead, would we?? :?
feel free to correct me, but the support IS bigger than the spearhead isn't it? If you look at the combat support and combat service support arms compared to just the combat arms and how many are employed in each.
Trahere said:
What? Are you suggesting that a cadre of pilots will remain AAC and everyone else be other arms?
You mean just like it used to be?
on good authority - ahhhhh, that fabled Arrse phrase that indicates nothing in particular, defers any responsability for said comment, yet still manages to generate page after page of pointless flapping.

From those that know - rubbish.

AAC, all off to the RAF is what ive heard, they've even got rid of 10,000 wing lickers to facilitate the move.

flapback said:
"From those that know - rubbish" - ahhhhh, that fabled Arrse phrase
Nobody knows what the SDR will do but here's some food for thought;

DE&S becomes Kellog,Brown & Root

DSDA becomes Unipart

RLC becomes Eddie Stobbart

REME & DSG becomes Kwik Fit

AAC becomes Easyjet (those orange berets are gonna be something to see)

In fact anybody who doesn't shoot at the enemy is up for contractorisation - good or bad it's the future!
I thought that the reason,way back for making the groundys AAC, and get rid of the RAC Air Squadrons was so that they did not have multiple capbadges in AAC Squadrons, sounds like going backwards to me
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Jip Travolta RLC 16
Jip Travolta RLC 11
E RLC 63

Similar threads

Latest Threads