Thread: When Rotary Wing Aircraft went from RAAF to Army

Guys I’m going to tread very lightly here…..it’s very sensitive and emotive subject. And I wish no disrespect on anybody or service.

Unless you are or have been a seriously senior officer, politician or some sort of spook in the Defence community…I guess you’ll never get the truth about the decision. And I doubt if there would be any comfort in it.

I was in 9 SQN when the transfer to the Army occurred.

At that time, I was aware of inferences that the RAAF did not support our infantry as we should/could have. My Girlfriend’s father had been an Infantry RSM in the Vietnam Conflict, Borneo and other campaigns….which of course made interesting conversations at the dinner table…..

All emotive stuff….

But as always….not necessarily accurate or justified.

Please correct me as I go….it’s not really about specifics…

Australia had less than 20 Hueys in Vietnam….the US had ….I don’t even remember the number……thousands maybe???
If you were in charge of those Australian assets….what would your choice be? Remember…not now, how you would have reacted then? Lose one…there’s ten guys that don’t get picked up the next time…..

Blood boils easily…..but if you were in their shoes……Maverick activities…..all lovely when they work….WTF were they thinking when it doesn’t???!!!

Me personally….go for it….and nay sayers should duck….but….cooler heads than mine would say otherwise. In some scenarios you could actually be executed or jailed for those sentiments.

The ‘establishment’ is there for a reason…..but when it came to Australian military helicopters, they right royally screwed up!

To rewind…in my day,,,LOL…there were two RAAF’s…the Sharp Nose Pointy End People (who lived in 5 Star) and there was tactical transport. We sat in the dirt….contrary to other’s belief.

I actually loved the ****….4WDs..a mix of LR and Toyo…helicopters and guns…..

But in the real world…..I’m with MOWOG…I’m sorry Zulu Delta but thank F we had no war on during the Blackhawk transfer….we lost an asset for in excess of a decade. It took extreme political pressure ….as in to get the Helo fleet flying again…..read what MOWOG stated….the Army lacked flying and ILS expertise to take over the Blackhawk assets….no emotion required…it is a fact.

There are no sides in this discussion…………other than support the ADF!!!!

Vietnam was before my time so I can't comment about what happened there.

I never saw war like service but I did do operational service in the Middle East with the MFO. (About the MFO - Multinational Force and Observer)

There were 3 aviation units there. The Aussies and Kiwi's, the Americans and the French (Fixed wing).

We had real operational requirements to support troops in the field and I worked many long nights to ensure there were aircraft available for the troops.

What is interesting about this experience is the direct comparison to the US capability vs the ADF capability. Both groups had 10 Iroquois of our 10 2 were leased by the NZ Army. We flew around 16000hrs the US at the time had flown around 8000hrs.

We didn't have any aircraft lost in accidents. The US crashed a number of aircraft and killed a good number of people. The fact that in Vietnam that there seemed to be better air support was only because of the incredible numbers of aircraft they had there.

Originally Posted by mowog

Vietnam was before my time so I can't comment about what happened there.

I never saw war like service but I did do operational service in the Middle East with the MFO. (About the MFO - Multinational Force and Observer)

There were 3 aviation units there. The Aussies and Kiwi's, the Americans and the French (Fixed wing).

<snip>

You could almost say four, as there was a joint RAN/US Army helicopter unit.

Back to the debate. As I said before the transfer of RAAF Black-hawks to Army was not managed well, and obviously very poor subsequent management/maintenance. But as I said the transfer was very logical in terms of role. The comment about C130's is a little different, the Hercs do support Army a lot, but they also support RAAF and at times RAN with logistical activities and yes there would be a valid argument for Army Hercs, the US Marines seem to have won that argument, but then again the various US forces have a very poor history of supporting each other, something that Australia seems to be a lot better at or at least trying to improve.

BTW mowog,can I ask about your Avatar. Your username seems to indicate the Morris Wolseley Garages yet you have a BMW in the image!

I should have qualified at the time I was there...

We had RAN guys there but none were directly involved with flying or maintenance. That may have been different for other rotations.

When I first started flying as an Observer in the RAN many of the senior officers had flown in Vietnam with US cavalry flights with quite a few casualties.

The RAAF were always against the Navy having and offensive air capability and resisted the Navy's proposed replacement for Melbourne. The argued that the RAAF could provide air support for fleet operations - however war gaming and exercise experience showed the opposite was the case - Ok if you were within a few hundred Nm from a base but otherwise not much chop. Not the fault of the people on the ground - just the competitive political rivalryies at the top.

When Melbourne went out od service a large number of RAN aircrew went other ways - I went back to sea as a seaman officer (and sold my land I was going to build on in Nowra), a number joined the RN and a number went to the RAAF. These included Sub-Lieutenant Mark Binskin who has just left the position of Chief of the Air Force and is now (or about to be) Vice Chief of the Defence Force and I would expect to be the next CDF in about 3 years time.

I think moving tactical air assets from the RAAF to the Army was the right decision but was not well executed. RAAF should retain "Strategic" air assets such as heavy lift, continental air defence etc but "tactical" air assets should remain with the individual services.

I think that the Army have got over their initial lack of skill on operating the new aircraft types and now are highly proficient in operating their aircraft.

Garry

This thread is fascinating.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

BTW mowog,can I ask about your Avatar. Your username seems to indicate the Morris Wolseley Garages yet you have a BMW in the image!

I have owned a lot of real Mini's / Moke's over the years. I still love them but don't have the time to keep one on the road.

Originally Posted by garrycol

When I first started flying as an Observer in the RAN many of the senior officers had flown in Vietnam with US cavalry flights with quite a few casualties.

The RAAF were always against the Navy having and offensive air capability and resisted the Navy's proposed replacement for Melbourne. The argued that the RAAF could provide air support for fleet operations - however war gaming and exercise experience showed the opposite was the case - Ok if you were within a few hundred Nm from a base but otherwise not much chop. Not the fault of the people on the ground - just the competitive political rivalryies at the top.

When Melbourne went out od service a large number of RAN aircrew went other ways - I went back to sea as a seaman officer (and sold my land I was going to build on in Nowra), a number joined the RN and a number went to the RAAF. These included Sub-Lieutenant Mark Binskin who has just left the position of Chief of the Air Force and is now (or about to be) Vice Chief of the Defence Force and I would expect to be the next CDF in about 3 years time.

I think moving tactical air assets from the RAAF to the Army was the right decision but was not well executed. RAAF should retain "Strategic" air assets such as heavy lift, continental air defence etc but "tactical" air assets should remain with the individual services.

I think that the Army have got over their initial lack of skill on operating the new aircraft types and now are highly proficient in operating their aircraft.

Garry

It's been 22 years since the RAAF were 'forced' to hand over the helicopters to the Army, so you would think that things would have improved significantly. I used the term 'forced' as it is noteworthy that there were many within the RAAF that were happy to do so, to let it happen. I believe from the mouth of the current CDF, "RAAF Prima Donna attitudes did not help the argument".

In real terms what does that mean....?

RAAF pilots 'generally' did not want to fly helicopters...they wanted fast jets. It was 'generally' the low performers that got posted to Helo SQNs. Obviously not completely true, but it played it's part. From my experience the RAAF aircrew largely, did not like to get in holes in the ground...they did not like to dig shell scrapes and gun pits, they did not like ration packs. So when emotive Vietnam sentiment was brought to the fore and General Gration and Kim Beasley were thick as thieves, the weak links in the RAAF's argument surfaced. The rest is history. However, it should be well noted that many within the RAAF foretold the outcome, as did many within the Navy and Army....as in, how much it was going to damage our Helo assets. In fact…legend has it…LOL….that a reversal was discussed on numerous occasions and the RAAF refused to take the Helos back.

The Navy aviation people should have learned some serious lessons of late, yet reports years after the Shark 02 incident, and insider tales, would indicate otherwise. There apparently is still a culture of cutting corners and covering up.

I have had no direct dealings with the Army for years, yet shortly after I left the RAAF and worked on the ARH Project, I was horrified that some of the same attitudes I'd experienced during the Blackhawk transition, were alive and well. An ARH is more technologically advanced than an F-18, yet in some quarters the ‘It’s a Truck’ mentality was still alive and well.

The RAAF has more than it's fair share of clowns, arrogance and incompetence but fortunately, hard lessons learned over almost a century produced a system that knew how to operate and support air assets. Of course the rocket scientists that decided to amalgamate the Aircraft Engineer trades (as in Techos) have raped the system of corporate expertise and ability…but that’s another story!

Anyway…getting back to the point….

Doesn’t matter which service tries but if you don’t understand air assets and the complexities that come with them, well you shouldn’t operate them. It really is that black and white! I’ve heard a perfect point in case….the US aircraft carriers all have naval aviators (Pilots) as captains….not naval seaman officers, that outcome was learned the hard way. Of course, that could be crap….it’s hearsay….the other stuff I wrote is solid!

Cheers,

Kev.