- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Armymatters said:
I don't know, switching back and forth like that seems to be an unnecessary expense.....Maybe one of real flying types that know about this kind of stuff would care to comment.
Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks
- Thread starter 404SqnAVSTeach
- Start date
I don't know, switching back and forth like that seems to be an unnecessary expense.....Maybe one of real flying types that know about this kind of stuff would care to comment.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Ex-Dragoon said:
Actually, an example can be shown here:
The older versions of the Boeing 737 (except the very early models), namely the 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 have this type of cockpit, with both analog and digital displays:
The newest versions, the 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900 have a fully digital cockpit, like this:
When Boeing was developing the newest versions of the 737, Southwest Airlines, as a major customer of Boeing specifically requested the cockpit layout be similar to their earlier model 737's, for crew commonality. Boeing, not wanting to upset their biggest customer, did this.
I don't have any good pictures to show you, except the ones I grabbed off the internet. But it illustrates the point.
Edit: The information that I used for this can be found from this thread here: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1863278/4/
The people on that forum better explained it than I did.
A
aesop081
Guest
armymatters,
It is very comon for "glass cockpits" to have their instrument presentation in similar fashion to analog displays. This is no great developemnt by the folks at Boeing.
:
It is very comon for "glass cockpits" to have their instrument presentation in similar fashion to analog displays. This is no great developemnt by the folks at Boeing.
:
Duey. To scatter them all over the country with the Tac Hel Sqns would be the worst possible scenario. The people at the top of the hill have to be convinced that they would end up with one awful mess if this were ever implemented. I could easily envision many days when none of the Sqns would be able to put one hook in the sky. Right from day one training and standards would suffer as training would take forever with only four birds on location and each unit would drift away from standards.
Maintenance would suffer as smaller units would have fewer people to share experience and with the low experience levels there will be a need for knowledge upgrading for technicians as new techniques develop.
One large unit could incorporate a training and knowledge development facility into it's operation to allow more pertinent training.
I could probably write a book on the advantages of having the entire operation in one house. I was in Rivers when the whole CH-113A operation was together and I was in Edmonton, St.Hubert and Ottawa and experienced the difficulties of the divided operation.
Maintenance would suffer as smaller units would have fewer people to share experience and with the low experience levels there will be a need for knowledge upgrading for technicians as new techniques develop.
One large unit could incorporate a training and knowledge development facility into it's operation to allow more pertinent training.
I could probably write a book on the advantages of having the entire operation in one house. I was in Rivers when the whole CH-113A operation was together and I was in Edmonton, St.Hubert and Ottawa and experienced the difficulties of the divided operation.
- Reaction score
- 21,966
- Points
- 1,360
Armymatters: This mimicking of steam-driven gauges on a multi-function display is getting outdated rather quickly. It is the least of a pilot's concerns when transitioning to a new aircraft (sub)type. As I noted earlier, it is the understanding of the underlying systems and their interaction that must be understood by the pilot.
Sounds to me like some operators are thinking that there is more to different instrument layout than there really is. Of course Boeing (Raytheon/Collins/Marconi...makes of avionics suites) will program them however the operator wants, it's relatively easy and it gets Boeing and the sub-contractors more money. Do they need it? Not so sure. A friend of mine is dual qualified on Airbus 330's and 340's...while the cockpit layout is similar, it is not identical, however; the underlying systems are similar enough that FAA/TC/JAA certifies both types as pilotable by a 330/340 dual type-qualified pilot. There are probably more substantial system differences between a 737-200 and a 737-900 than in what layout the gauges are presented to the aircrew.
Beenthere: I agree fully. Distributed didn't work as well with 447/450 as I think single unit could have. FWIW, I think that those at the top of the hill currently foresee a single unit with all the assets. As I noted earlier, O&M and TD to travel will be minor compared to sunk cost increases with multiple units of a 15-20 machine fleet. Had a chat with past CO's of 1 THP and 450 at the 1 Wing Air Force mess dinner recently and I think you and I and they are all singing from the same sheet -- I think some of those in 101 see it the same way, thankfully!
Cheers,
Duey
Sounds to me like some operators are thinking that there is more to different instrument layout than there really is. Of course Boeing (Raytheon/Collins/Marconi...makes of avionics suites) will program them however the operator wants, it's relatively easy and it gets Boeing and the sub-contractors more money. Do they need it? Not so sure. A friend of mine is dual qualified on Airbus 330's and 340's...while the cockpit layout is similar, it is not identical, however; the underlying systems are similar enough that FAA/TC/JAA certifies both types as pilotable by a 330/340 dual type-qualified pilot. There are probably more substantial system differences between a 737-200 and a 737-900 than in what layout the gauges are presented to the aircrew.
Beenthere: I agree fully. Distributed didn't work as well with 447/450 as I think single unit could have. FWIW, I think that those at the top of the hill currently foresee a single unit with all the assets. As I noted earlier, O&M and TD to travel will be minor compared to sunk cost increases with multiple units of a 15-20 machine fleet. Had a chat with past CO's of 1 THP and 450 at the 1 Wing Air Force mess dinner recently and I think you and I and they are all singing from the same sheet -- I think some of those in 101 see it the same way, thankfully!
Cheers,
Duey
Hopefully the single unit concept will prevail. However I can see the Tac Hel units lobbying (my terminology) to have them dispersed. There is an unfortunate tendency for people to paint unrealistic pictures to achieve personal aims rather than consider what is realistic and best for the common cause.
It would look all too nice on paper to have four units that could provide both light and heavy lift capabilities from the same source/Sqn. However the reality would be far different than the paper plan and it would take a lot of effort to undo the resultant mess and rearrange them into a single unit.
Using the concept of establishing one new unit could result in setting up the ideal Chinook operation where every function pertaining to them is under one roof. The benefits of that sort of operation would be easy to realize.
A detached operation in an overseas location could be established with minimal disruption as it could be equipped and manned from a single source and rotation of personnel and equipment would be seamless.
Put it on a transport base such as Trenton and resupply of spares,MRPs,and personnel rotation would be as quick as the next flight out.
It would look all too nice on paper to have four units that could provide both light and heavy lift capabilities from the same source/Sqn. However the reality would be far different than the paper plan and it would take a lot of effort to undo the resultant mess and rearrange them into a single unit.
Using the concept of establishing one new unit could result in setting up the ideal Chinook operation where every function pertaining to them is under one roof. The benefits of that sort of operation would be easy to realize.
A detached operation in an overseas location could be established with minimal disruption as it could be equipped and manned from a single source and rotation of personnel and equipment would be seamless.
Put it on a transport base such as Trenton and resupply of spares,MRPs,and personnel rotation would be as quick as the next flight out.
- Reaction score
- 8,290
- Points
- 1,160
Just curious:
If you concentrate all the heavy lift helicopters at Trenton for ease of maintenance and flight crew co-ordination how exactly will they interact and train with the troops they are to support? Or will you concentrate the light/heliborne forces and the M177s at Trenton as well?
I am being facetious but surely this debate is eternal? Fleet managers/maintenance types/stores clerks all want to keep their toys in one location all nice and shiny. Meanwhile the folks that rely on those services (sorry, capabilities
) want them on hand to train with and to use when they are needed.
I can see the RAF in the UK getting away with one Helibase for the country, they never have to shift farther than Toronto to Montreal. How about the light battalions at Valcartier and Edmonton (or Bagotville, Goose Bay and Comoz if you accept the Conservative platform or even Gagetown)?
It seems like (as in every other endeavour) there would have to be a "saw-offf" somewhere and everybody puts a little water in their wine.
PS on the other hand supporting 2 and 5 brigade out of Trenton with Chinooks while 1 Brigade at Comox and whoever might supply the Forlorn Hope at Goose Bay with Navy Cyclones might be an option I suppose. Or do you brigade the light troops with the Heavy Lift at Trenton as well?
As I said: just curious.
Cheers.
If you concentrate all the heavy lift helicopters at Trenton for ease of maintenance and flight crew co-ordination how exactly will they interact and train with the troops they are to support? Or will you concentrate the light/heliborne forces and the M177s at Trenton as well?
I am being facetious but surely this debate is eternal? Fleet managers/maintenance types/stores clerks all want to keep their toys in one location all nice and shiny. Meanwhile the folks that rely on those services (sorry, capabilities
) want them on hand to train with and to use when they are needed.I can see the RAF in the UK getting away with one Helibase for the country, they never have to shift farther than Toronto to Montreal. How about the light battalions at Valcartier and Edmonton (or Bagotville, Goose Bay and Comoz if you accept the Conservative platform or even Gagetown)?
It seems like (as in every other endeavour) there would have to be a "saw-offf" somewhere and everybody puts a little water in their wine.
PS on the other hand supporting 2 and 5 brigade out of Trenton with Chinooks while 1 Brigade at Comox and whoever might supply the Forlorn Hope at Goose Bay with Navy Cyclones might be an option I suppose. Or do you brigade the light troops with the Heavy Lift at Trenton as well?
As I said: just curious.
Cheers.
It's 0420 and I had just completed a reply which took me almost an hour to type. I was reviewing it and just about ready to post it and my cat jumped up on the keyboard and more than half of it went--POOF-Gone forever. I then goofed and all of the rest of it disappeared. :crybaby: ;D :'( 
Another time. I'll be back.
Another time. I'll be back.
So,it went to the void. I've often wondered where things went.
As for the eternal debate here's my pennys worth.Given that each of the four Tac Hel Sqns were allotted four Chinooks I would predict that they would become largely ineffective and would provide little training or support.
The chance of four helicopters from a fleet of four ever being operational on a given day is very remote as realized from previous operations with both Chinooks and CH-113s.
They require much more maintenance and support than smaller less complex helicopters and have more systems and components which in the event of malfunction will keep them from flying and will take more time to repair. Yes, these are the new and improved versions and some things have changed. However some things have changed in the military as well. When we got our last fleet of Chinooks they were introduced into squadrons which had been operating CH-113s which were also complex and had many similarities so the learning curve was not so great. Now we're talking about introducing them to people who have no experience with this sort of aircraft and with much less of a background in the systems that they will have to learn. Essentially it's starting from scratch and has to be done on four different squadrons.
All aircraft have to undergo periodic inspections which keep them out of service for a considerable period of time as major components have to be removed and replaced. Newly introduced aircraft types are subject to very thorough inspections to do sampling of wear and failure likelihood on highly stressed components and structural areas. This procedure is very labour intensive and also requires special tools, equipment and support facilities.I would suggest that four to six weeks would be required. After it's all been put back together a series of ground runs and air tests are required and lots of things require extensive troubleshooting and adjustments.
While all of this is going on our four Chinook squadron has been reduced to a trio. Usually as one comes out of the maintenance bay another goes in so it's still a trio.
Mishaps occur. Someone lands on a tree stump in the training area at night and drives the wood into the soft belly which rips a lot of skin and breaks some ribs and busts some composite material. The aircraft can be flown back to the squadron but the repairs require the services of a number of structural specialists but there are only two on the squadron. For the next three weeks or a month there are only two Chinooks available.
One of the two Chinooks develops a problem during an overnight stop at an airport 200 miles away and the crew discovers that because of a hydraulic pump that has failed the whole system is contaminated with ground up metal and a maintenance crew with a new pump and huge hydraulic test/flush pumping system and a whole hockey sock of new filters and cases of hydraulic fluid have to be flown in by the last Chinook on the squadron just as soon as they can figure what's wrong with Number two engine.
Who's going to train the gunners on slinging their tubes today? Well they can always watch the film.
If this sounds like it's a bit pessimistic-- There have been days just like it in the past on a squadron that had four Chinooks.Two squadrons that had four Chinooks!
Now, who's going to look after all of the Griffins or whatever they're called while the whole squadron is fixin Chinooks.
As for the eternal debate here's my pennys worth.Given that each of the four Tac Hel Sqns were allotted four Chinooks I would predict that they would become largely ineffective and would provide little training or support.
The chance of four helicopters from a fleet of four ever being operational on a given day is very remote as realized from previous operations with both Chinooks and CH-113s.
They require much more maintenance and support than smaller less complex helicopters and have more systems and components which in the event of malfunction will keep them from flying and will take more time to repair. Yes, these are the new and improved versions and some things have changed. However some things have changed in the military as well. When we got our last fleet of Chinooks they were introduced into squadrons which had been operating CH-113s which were also complex and had many similarities so the learning curve was not so great. Now we're talking about introducing them to people who have no experience with this sort of aircraft and with much less of a background in the systems that they will have to learn. Essentially it's starting from scratch and has to be done on four different squadrons.
All aircraft have to undergo periodic inspections which keep them out of service for a considerable period of time as major components have to be removed and replaced. Newly introduced aircraft types are subject to very thorough inspections to do sampling of wear and failure likelihood on highly stressed components and structural areas. This procedure is very labour intensive and also requires special tools, equipment and support facilities.I would suggest that four to six weeks would be required. After it's all been put back together a series of ground runs and air tests are required and lots of things require extensive troubleshooting and adjustments.
While all of this is going on our four Chinook squadron has been reduced to a trio. Usually as one comes out of the maintenance bay another goes in so it's still a trio.
Mishaps occur. Someone lands on a tree stump in the training area at night and drives the wood into the soft belly which rips a lot of skin and breaks some ribs and busts some composite material. The aircraft can be flown back to the squadron but the repairs require the services of a number of structural specialists but there are only two on the squadron. For the next three weeks or a month there are only two Chinooks available.
One of the two Chinooks develops a problem during an overnight stop at an airport 200 miles away and the crew discovers that because of a hydraulic pump that has failed the whole system is contaminated with ground up metal and a maintenance crew with a new pump and huge hydraulic test/flush pumping system and a whole hockey sock of new filters and cases of hydraulic fluid have to be flown in by the last Chinook on the squadron just as soon as they can figure what's wrong with Number two engine.
Who's going to train the gunners on slinging their tubes today? Well they can always watch the film.
If this sounds like it's a bit pessimistic-- There have been days just like it in the past on a squadron that had four Chinooks.Two squadrons that had four Chinooks!
Now, who's going to look after all of the Griffins or whatever they're called while the whole squadron is fixin Chinooks.
- Reaction score
- 8,290
- Points
- 1,160
OK beenthere. I take your point.
So....that being the case would it make sense to combine a heavy lift Squadron in proximity with an M777 Regiment and a Support Battalion as the core elements of a distributed brigade. Form a light brigade but disperse the Three light battalions across the country as they are now but not have them part of the local brigade structure? The light battalions would be primarily supported by the Griffins with only an annual exercise with the heavy support.
PS. How does the Air Force keep the Navy's Sea Kings flying when they are dispersed internationally? (Don't answer they don't. ;D. They must have at some point in time.)
Cheers.
So....that being the case would it make sense to combine a heavy lift Squadron in proximity with an M777 Regiment and a Support Battalion as the core elements of a distributed brigade. Form a light brigade but disperse the Three light battalions across the country as they are now but not have them part of the local brigade structure? The light battalions would be primarily supported by the Griffins with only an annual exercise with the heavy support.
PS. How does the Air Force keep the Navy's Sea Kings flying when they are dispersed internationally? (Don't answer they don't. ;D. They must have at some point in time.)
Cheers.
I've got limited knowledge of brigades and what they need to function so I wouldn't venture very far into that realm. When I was involved there were combat groups which I understand were brigades minus a few of the elements to qualify them as brigades. That may or may not have been the case.
When larger formations held exercises or in the case of exercises like Waincon the Chinook operation was often in the form of one of the squadrons being supplemented by a couple or three Chinooks from the other squadron along with the necessary personnel. This seemed to provide enough aircraft to have a small fleet that could provide somewhat reliable support.
The Sea King detachment on ships is made up of experienced personnel from Shearwater who are fully trained and they join the ship with a good stock of spare parts. Despite the stories that we all hear they do a very good job and their operations usually provide good service to the ships.
You mentioned a light brigade. I recall reading a book about a light brigade who ended up eating their horses in Crimea. Maybe we could find another name for your unit. One that evokes better memories. ;D
When larger formations held exercises or in the case of exercises like Waincon the Chinook operation was often in the form of one of the squadrons being supplemented by a couple or three Chinooks from the other squadron along with the necessary personnel. This seemed to provide enough aircraft to have a small fleet that could provide somewhat reliable support.
The Sea King detachment on ships is made up of experienced personnel from Shearwater who are fully trained and they join the ship with a good stock of spare parts. Despite the stories that we all hear they do a very good job and their operations usually provide good service to the ships.
You mentioned a light brigade. I recall reading a book about a light brigade who ended up eating their horses in Crimea. Maybe we could find another name for your unit. One that evokes better memories. ;D
Back in the 70's when I had that book (I think that the title was "The Gallant 700") I was on an exercise in Wainwright and my AC was a cavalry type--8CH believe. I would read selected passages to him and ask if his life in the cav was like that. I only did it because he had a thing about reminiscing about life as an armoured type.
Back on topic. I would consider that troops don't have a requirement to work with helicopters on a continuous basis. They are only another means of transport and only practical in specific operations so training could be done periodically or in preparation for an operation where they would be a major form of support.
They are costly to operate not only in financial terms but burning off flying hours for tasks that don't make practical use of them eats away at the life cycle of the aircraft and if it comes down to the crunch where they are really needed it just could happen that they would be in a less than usable state.
It takes a lot of management to keep the flying hours per aircraft coordinated so that only one aircraft is due for it's inspection cycle at a time.
I don't know what the cycle would be but if it were based on inspections carried out every 50, 100, and 500 flying hours and a very major inspection/rebuild done by a contractor in their facility at 2000 hours the aircraft is out of operation for periods that range from 1 day to 6 months.
A larger unit can shuffle aircraft around to meet the number of flying hours per month relatively easily in comparison to one with only four in the stable.It can also better absorb the loss of aircraft for unscheduled maintenance such as repairs due to mishaps or having an aircraft out of service for modifications.
For a major exercise a detachment of six to eight aircraft could be assigned to wherever the exercise is held and the normal cycle of training and maintenance could continue back at the home unit without interruption.
It's quite simple in that the more pieces that you have on your game board the more moves you can make.
Back on topic. I would consider that troops don't have a requirement to work with helicopters on a continuous basis. They are only another means of transport and only practical in specific operations so training could be done periodically or in preparation for an operation where they would be a major form of support.
They are costly to operate not only in financial terms but burning off flying hours for tasks that don't make practical use of them eats away at the life cycle of the aircraft and if it comes down to the crunch where they are really needed it just could happen that they would be in a less than usable state.
It takes a lot of management to keep the flying hours per aircraft coordinated so that only one aircraft is due for it's inspection cycle at a time.
I don't know what the cycle would be but if it were based on inspections carried out every 50, 100, and 500 flying hours and a very major inspection/rebuild done by a contractor in their facility at 2000 hours the aircraft is out of operation for periods that range from 1 day to 6 months.
A larger unit can shuffle aircraft around to meet the number of flying hours per month relatively easily in comparison to one with only four in the stable.It can also better absorb the loss of aircraft for unscheduled maintenance such as repairs due to mishaps or having an aircraft out of service for modifications.
For a major exercise a detachment of six to eight aircraft could be assigned to wherever the exercise is held and the normal cycle of training and maintenance could continue back at the home unit without interruption.
It's quite simple in that the more pieces that you have on your game board the more moves you can make.
- Reaction score
- 8,290
- Points
- 1,160
OK so let me ask this:
Lets assume that the minimum working force is 4 A/C.
Would it work if, for example, rather than buying 16 A/C and parcelling them out 4/4/4 to the Brigades with a 4 A/C reserve 18 A/C were purchased and divided into 3 packets of 6 all under one Commander? 6 would be tasked to Trenton to support both Pet and Val, possibly Bagotville, Goose Bay and Gagetown. 6 would be tasked to Edmonton to support Wainwright, Shilo and possibly Comox and Yellowknife. 6 would be held for Operations and Reserve at Trenton.
The Commander would be responsible to cycle his A/C to ensure there are 12 flyable A/C at all times.
The A/C would be attached to and controlled by the local helo commander but not under his command.
Lets assume that the minimum working force is 4 A/C.
Would it work if, for example, rather than buying 16 A/C and parcelling them out 4/4/4 to the Brigades with a 4 A/C reserve 18 A/C were purchased and divided into 3 packets of 6 all under one Commander? 6 would be tasked to Trenton to support both Pet and Val, possibly Bagotville, Goose Bay and Gagetown. 6 would be tasked to Edmonton to support Wainwright, Shilo and possibly Comox and Yellowknife. 6 would be held for Operations and Reserve at Trenton.
The Commander would be responsible to cycle his A/C to ensure there are 12 flyable A/C at all times.
The A/C would be attached to and controlled by the local helo commander but not under his command.
- Reaction score
- 21,966
- Points
- 1,360
Beenthere's bringing up points that were valid not only in the past but would be quite relevant in the future as well. This is along the same lines as my thinking, whereby splitting capability up into too many smaller packages turns out to be both more costly and, ironically, less effective (because of the reduced overall serviceability rate at the smaller detachments/units - a problem experienced on a near continuous basis at the 447/450 twin squadrons (3 and 4 ac respectively, after the loss of CH147002 in Ranking Inlet)
Lets say we have a fleet of 16 ac, the most I would split it up to would be, as a purely hypothetical example, 10 aircraft in Trenton and 6 in Edmonton (my gut feel for the level of support needed in support of the Army at Edmonton and support to CMTC in Wainright weighed against that provided to eastern Canadian Army units [Pet, Valcatraz and Gagetown] as well as CANSOFCOM.) Trenton poses a challenge in that the squadron would not be in direct contact with the primary user as well as the potential lack of "tactical aviation" mind set (as this squadron would most likely fall under command of 8 Wing Trenton, an "ATG-esque" wing with a clear transport and SAR flavour to it...) The latter is a bigger concern for me as there are different mind sets between 'tac hel' and 'transport/SAR' communities. It would no doubt be a challenge to maintain operational effectiveness in a location that doesn't have responsiveness to Army and SOF components as an inherent/full-time task. I'm not saying Trenton wouldn't work, it would just be a big challenge for all those folks in the squadron as they might appear more like "fish out of water" than members of a tightly integrated and operational Wing. I suppose in its support, Trenton is getting more and more experience/exposure to deployed operations, which is definitely something the heavy-lifter would unquestionably be doing in the future.
2 more ¢
Cheers,
Duey
Lets say we have a fleet of 16 ac, the most I would split it up to would be, as a purely hypothetical example, 10 aircraft in Trenton and 6 in Edmonton (my gut feel for the level of support needed in support of the Army at Edmonton and support to CMTC in Wainright weighed against that provided to eastern Canadian Army units [Pet, Valcatraz and Gagetown] as well as CANSOFCOM.) Trenton poses a challenge in that the squadron would not be in direct contact with the primary user as well as the potential lack of "tactical aviation" mind set (as this squadron would most likely fall under command of 8 Wing Trenton, an "ATG-esque" wing with a clear transport and SAR flavour to it...) The latter is a bigger concern for me as there are different mind sets between 'tac hel' and 'transport/SAR' communities. It would no doubt be a challenge to maintain operational effectiveness in a location that doesn't have responsiveness to Army and SOF components as an inherent/full-time task. I'm not saying Trenton wouldn't work, it would just be a big challenge for all those folks in the squadron as they might appear more like "fish out of water" than members of a tightly integrated and operational Wing. I suppose in its support, Trenton is getting more and more experience/exposure to deployed operations, which is definitely something the heavy-lifter would unquestionably be doing in the future.
2 more ¢
Cheers,
Duey
Duey (or anyone else...)
What would you think of an "Army Air Corps" ala USMC fashion. In which all air assets (fixed and rotary wing) are sole property of the Army, and as such all pilots of said ac are in fact Army. This would give the Army the assets that it needs, in house. (CAS, CSAR, UH, AH, etc..)
Thoughts? am I right out of 'er?, aren't there any zoomies, or wannabe zoomies that would want to be Army?
What would you think of an "Army Air Corps" ala USMC fashion. In which all air assets (fixed and rotary wing) are sole property of the Army, and as such all pilots of said ac are in fact Army. This would give the Army the assets that it needs, in house. (CAS, CSAR, UH, AH, etc..)
Thoughts? am I right out of 'er?, aren't there any zoomies, or wannabe zoomies that would want to be Army?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Blakey, wonderful idea now just convience the air staff to give up it's fiefdom and were all set.
does it make sense, you darn right it does. Gives the Army the ability to train and utilize it's assets as it's needed. I wonder if an interim solution such as TACCOM of whole Tac Hel Sqn's would work better? Like 427 is now TACCOM CANSOFCOM, we could dedicate whole Sqns to say LFCA, LFWA etc etc that way we use the choppers as we see fit train the pilots to the standard we want vs that the air force requires (not saying it's better or worse) but the Air Force remains in control overall they procure the ac and they give us the pilots thus their budget remains the same.
OK rotor heads good idea by Blakey and Me or are we both drinking lunch?
does it make sense, you darn right it does. Gives the Army the ability to train and utilize it's assets as it's needed. I wonder if an interim solution such as TACCOM of whole Tac Hel Sqn's would work better? Like 427 is now TACCOM CANSOFCOM, we could dedicate whole Sqns to say LFCA, LFWA etc etc that way we use the choppers as we see fit train the pilots to the standard we want vs that the air force requires (not saying it's better or worse) but the Air Force remains in control overall they procure the ac and they give us the pilots thus their budget remains the same.
OK rotor heads good idea by Blakey and Me or are we both drinking lunch?
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
HitorMiss said:
You may wish to prepare for sorting out tactical aviation with something equally simple - - get the Navy to give up any two of "sodomy, rum, and the lash" ;D
(personally, I'd rather have our pioneers and mortars back from the non-infantry types seeking a viable operational role)
- Reaction score
- 17,018
- Points
- 1,010
Journeyman- speaking as an ex-gunner, if you think the Artillery wanted your stinky pop-gun mortars instead of real guns, you are on crack (speaking metaphorically and not in any way infering that you have actually or even considered using drugs in the past).
And for the record, I would much rather fly around in my helicopter wearing a Navy uniform, but no one asked me...
Similar threads
