Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

A Finnish pilot who was in F-18 training in USA told that most USN (I don't
recall whether it was an USN or USMC base) mechanics receive surprisingly
little overall training, by Finnish standards.

I think the more likely scenario is that your Finnish pilot friend had very
little exposure to the vast amounts of training that USN mechanics go through -
I seriously doubt if most pilots in any air force are completely up to date on
the training aspects of a junior enlisted person's life. Its like asking a rock
star how much training his limo driver has undergone. My first year in the
Navy, as an "undesignated striker" (lowest of the low), included about a dozen
schools in everything from corrosion control ( a comprehensive course on
dissimilar metals and how to prevent/treat corrosion in a wide variety of
situations) to plane captain school ( familiarize and service every hydraulic
system, run patch tests, etc., take oil samples, process paperwork, inspect
dozens of various subsystems, etc.). Did your pilot friend go through each of
those courses..? If not, then there is no way for him to be familiar with
them, and no reason for him to even be aware that every mech in the USN goes
through them. I was only a mech for two years - in that two years, I was at
sea for 11 months, and in school 11 months. When I returned from that first
cruise, I immediately was sent into a training pipeline (15 months of
schooling) that included six more schools (from 4 weeks long, to a 14 week
course) and I would say that out of twelve years active duty, about half was
spent at sea, and at least half of the remaining time was spent in various
schools.

"Surprisingly little overall training", by any standards, doesn't match what I
saw and experienced. Something tells me that your friend simply didn't hang
out at the Line Shack or Jet Shop with the Plane Captains and Mechs enough to
be aware of the level of training they recieved.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
advantage - number.


Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.

Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
distance.

Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?

But was it because they were professionals or only because they got more
training funds and better equipment because they were politically more
trustworthy?


One tends to go with the other.

Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better instrument
of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
particularly relevant...

What do you think conscripts do in the Army? Honestly, 32 weeks is quite
short for conscription time.


In which army ?

Conscripts only serve around 18 months in Greece and that would mean
training absorbed 1/3 of their time in the army.

In Finland the maximum term of servive eben for specialists was 330
days, if they received 32 weeks of training then that would represent
2/3 rds of their service.

Hungary, France and Germany all have a 10 month period of service.
Its rather expensive to spend 8 months training people who only
serve in combat units for 2 months afterwards.

Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat units" in
the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as we
do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training units
or from scratch according to mobilization plans.

Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their task
or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.

I know some people who have operated with US and various European
professional forces in Kosovo and Bosnia. Let's just say that they
haven't
exactly been in awe about their performance. And this includes such
forces
like airborne brigades which are supposed to be more élite.


Ah mysterious sources only you have access to, how impressive.

Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
maintain their rifles" -story.

If you can read Finnish I can google you some threads from Finnish NG where
some of these people talk about their experiences.

"Cheaply" is relative. Having an army equally capable as
all-professional
force would cost many times more.


Only if you insist on it being the same size.

Not at all. For example, current Finland's wartime field army is 430,000
strong. Having a volunteer force even just half the size would be
outrageously expensive.

The simple fact
is that the lower throughput of a professional army means
that a greater percentage of your force is combat ready.

Of course, but that is not relevant advantage for everyone.

I recall already making the point that high intensity mass warfare does
require conscription, that however is hardly likley in Europe at present.

The traditional British and US approach has been to maintain rather
small but well trained and equipped professional forces expanded
by conscription on those rare occasions it is required. I see no
reason to change that approach and mant other European nations
seem to be at least considering its adoption.

I'm sure that approach has lots of merit for geographically safe and
isolated nations with worldwide interests and committents. FWIW, I think
that those people calling for re-introducing conscription in USA are quite
wrong and it would result to a disaster. However this has nothing to do with
respective fighting performances of pro vs conscription armies in modern
war; it's just a matter of requirements and deployment issues.

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
advantage - number.


Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.

Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
distance.


Horse****

Its a hell of alot easier for Britain to deploy troops to the Isle of Wight
than it is for Argentina

Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?


Again NO , but then that wasnt their mission

But was it because they were professionals or only because they got
more
training funds and better equipment because they were politically more
trustworthy?


One tends to go with the other.

Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better instrument
of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
particularly relevant...


On the contrary it was a core requirement. The politically reliable
force was his last defense against an army revolt.

What do you think conscripts do in the Army? Honestly, 32 weeks is
quite
short for conscription time.


In which army ?

Conscripts only serve around 18 months in Greece and that would mean
training absorbed 1/3 of their time in the army.

In Finland the maximum term of servive eben for specialists was 330
days, if they received 32 weeks of training then that would represent
2/3 rds of their service.

Hungary, France and Germany all have a 10 month period of service.
Its rather expensive to spend 8 months training people who only
serve in combat units for 2 months afterwards.

Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat units"
in
the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as we
do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training
units
or from scratch according to mobilization plans.


Which is a bit unfortunate if the enemy isnt considerate enough to give you
advanced warning of his plans

Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their
task
or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.


Which leaves exactly who guarding the interests of the nation ?

I know some people who have operated with US and various European
professional forces in Kosovo and Bosnia. Let's just say that they
haven't
exactly been in awe about their performance. And this includes such
forces
like airborne brigades which are supposed to be more élite.


Ah mysterious sources only you have access to, how impressive.

Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
maintain their rifles" -story.


Multiple sources , here's just one
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=341922002

"I was 19 when they sent us to the Falklands," he says.
"I had done my military service, but I think I'd only touched
a gun once for about 15 minutes. I didn't have a clue how
to load a rifle."

Keith

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.

Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
distance.

Only because the RN was able to seize and maintain sea control while
operating 8000 miles from its base. And because the Fleet Air Arm,
operating from the carriers, were able to maintain at least partial
air control in the face of land-based air opposition.

This could be used as an arguement underlining the virtues of a
professional, volunteer force (the RN, which proved highly effective) and
a force made up of conscripts (the Argentine Navy, which proved
pretty well useless).

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

A Finnish pilot who was in F-18 training in USA told that most USN (I
don't
recall whether it was an USN or USMC base) mechanics receive surprisingly
little overall training, by Finnish standards.

I think the more likely scenario is that your Finnish pilot friend had
very
little exposure to the vast amounts of training that USN mechanics go
through -
I seriously doubt if most pilots in any air force are completely up to
date on
the training aspects of a junior enlisted person's life.

My memory is fuzzy so I dug out the original article. Person in question was
not a pilot but a Finnish mechanic. Here's his exact words (my translation):
"In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but in
USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
theoretic training. -Maybe that's why Americans sometimes had hard time to
grasp that we at rank of Lieutenant still actually do something to the
aircraft." Obviously I cannot personally verify how accurate his description
is.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
distance.


Horse****

Its a hell of alot easier for Britain to deploy troops to the Isle of
Wight
than it is for Argentina

Obviously yes, but it still much more difficult than moving them by trains
or road.

Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?

Again NO ,

Why not? I thought they were much more effective than ill-trained Argentinan
military?

Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better
instrument
of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
particularly relevant...


On the contrary it was a core requirement. The politically reliable
force was his last defense against an army revolt.

....which is why they were given better equipment and more resources.

Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat
units"
in
the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as
we
do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training
units
or from scratch according to mobilization plans.


Which is a bit unfortunate if the enemy isnt considerate enough to give
you
advanced warning of his plans

For most countries, it's rather unlikely that someone just invades them out
of blue sky. If such threat exists, it can be dealt with longer conscription
time or keeping separate high-readiness units.

Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their
task
or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.


Which leaves exactly who guarding the interests of the nation ?

Like what interests?

Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
maintain their rifles" -story.


Multiple sources , here's just one
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=341922002

"I was 19 when they sent us to the Falklands," he says.
"I had done my military service, but I think I'd only touched
a gun once for about 15 minutes. I didn't have a clue how
to load a rifle."

Then Argentinian military training has been truly atrocious and tells
absolutely nothing about actual battle performance of a proper conscript
army. If anything, with that sort of training it's surprising they managed
to put up even that much resistance.

"In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but in
USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
theoretic training. -

I think the Finnish mechanic was confusing plane captains with jet mechanics -
PCs did tend to fall into the category of "welcome to the Navy, now get to
work", but actual jet engine mechanics became so after comprehensive training
on the particular aircraft propulsion system their intended squadron and
aircraft type used. The various schools that taught jet engine mechanics, such
as at NATC Memphis, had an entire field of hack aircraft to draw from, for
classroom studies. We tore down and rebuilt APUs, disassembled TF-34s and
T-58s and it wasn't theoretical studies, we were in there busting knuckles.
The author of the article was a Lt, so I believe my contention that he wouldn't
be spending much time hanging out among the junior enlisted 'mechs' remains a
valid comment - mechs in squadrons I flew in had experience levels from 2
months to 33 years and the median level of experience was probably about 3-4
years and at about the E-4 or E-5 level. Plane Captains did match the profile
he stated in his article - most are under 20, have less than 6 months of
aviation-oriented schooling, but they are not expected to complete their tasks
in a vaccuum; there was always an old hand available to assist, and a big set
of boots around to kick your butt for getting caught being stupid.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

"Yama" wrote

My memory is fuzzy so I dug out the original article. Person in question
was
not a pilot but a Finnish mechanic. Here's his exact words (my
translation):
"In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but in
USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
theoretic training. -Maybe that's why Americans sometimes had hard time to
grasp that we at rank of Lieutenant still actually do something to the
aircraft." Obviously I cannot personally verify how accurate his
description
is.

If the LT's are fixing the jets, what are the lower level NCO's and
privates/airmen doing?

Pete

40 hours a year? Heaven help them, and keep the weather away from
them. Flying is one sphere where there is absolutely no substitute for
skill and practice.
Looks like the average guy gets about 3 one hour (plus a few minutes)
flights per month. Wonder what shape the airplanes are in? Bet there's
a bunch of hangar queens, too. As for proficiency - in WW2 100 German
pilots shot down over 10,000 airplanes. Skill counts!
Walt BJ

"Pete" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote
My memory is fuzzy so I dug out the original article. Person in question
was
not a pilot but a Finnish mechanic. Here's his exact words (my
translation):
"In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but
in
USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
theoretic training. -Maybe that's why Americans sometimes had hard time
to
grasp that we at rank of Lieutenant still actually do something to the
aircraft." Obviously I cannot personally verify how accurate his
description
is.

If the LT's are fixing the jets, what are the lower level NCO's and
privates/airmen doing?

They're helping them, doing all the kind of stuff which does not require
special expertise (hauling ordnance, fueling etc).
Reportedly it was difficult to position Finnish mechanics to USN training
programs, as they were used to totally different sharing of tasks.