To the editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Captain Julian Lacey’s rebuttal of my quaint views. Firstly, a nom de plume is used for any number of reasons, and in my case for the reasons that you and I appreciate. It is not because of any (implied) lack of courage.

I argued that many in AAAvn do not have the same command experience and training as other arms receive. Julian said that it may surprise me that many aviation officers do well on promotion courses. Not at all, they always have – and that is only to be expected in view of the aviator selection process. He seemed to think that aviation officers get the same experience as other arms officers when they eventually get to be Troop and Squadron Commanders. In other arms, command training usually starts well before that, when the young officer takes over his own platoon, section, troop or whatever of soldiers and learns what command is all about. He is assessed, trained and guided in his ability to command well before he gets to the same stage as an aviation troop commander, adjutant or 2ic.

Most Association members will have little knowledge of, and no opportunity to read the current doctrine publications which Julian quotes, but assuredly they cover every contingency including support operations against an elusive enemy operating in small groups in a vast hostile terrain. My regret is that in a short time we will not have suitable aircraft to do so. Perhaps his thought that the concept and relevancy of army aviation has been reinforced by the success of USAAVN in Gulf War 1 is suspect; it (US Army Aviation) is and was by far the biggest air force in the world and had a vastly different strategic doctrine and philosophy, which had little to do with my postulation of sub-unit operations. However, he should note that in that conflict the US Army did operate small reconnaissance helicopters: OH-58C and D, and OH-6.

I mentioned Aircrewman Observers as an example of how OR’s were capable of performance well above what they were given credit for. I bow to his superior experience with Observers, but reports from those who were involved with their training, and pilot training, indicate the proposition is not so ludicrous.

There is a philosophical gap rather than a generational gap between the old aviators and the new, which can be summed up by what you yourself told me about two QFIs moving from Blackhawks to Kiowas to teach tactics. You said that neither could see any philosophical difference between flying a Blackhawk and being a reconnaissance pilot.

Ah, there’s the rub! I hope that Julian wasn’t one of them.

Chickenhawk

Rupert's two cents worth