As a member of one of the RAF's more deployed aircraft types it is becoming more and more apparent that the tail is waging the dog more often than the reverse. This seems to be the case everytime you need something done by the said "backroom boys" who would rather keep hold of informatio and kit than provide the needy with resources they need, on the off chance that "someone else might need it":ouch:

How many times have we been to stores or other sections and been told that "you can't have that" or "your not scaled for that" when in all honesty people are asking by the very nature of the fact that they do need it. Never has this been the case more than when deployed. How many people does it take to keep jets flying. From this equation I subtract the aircrew and associated groundcrew/ ops support people without who's help the jets wouldn't get airborne, but as for the rest??? It amazes me that so many other trades are required to put an aircraft in the sky. Is there really a need for it??:}

More so now than ever before with the impending defence white paper this should be looked into. It appears that not only are bases in jepardy but also frontline sqn's at a time when we are spreading ourselves thiner and thiner to meet increasing demands on our resources. Why then should we lose sqn's and not Remf's??:suspect:

Know what you mean
Where I am the tail thimks it is the dog!

SF
Glad to see someone in the RAF is waking up to the amazing aircraft to support ratios prevalent in the RAF. I can only make comparisons with the helicopter fleets where the Army operate a one to ten ratio which includes aircrew, technicians, groundcrew and all the cooks and bottle washers. The RAF ratio in one to thirty. I'm just talking first line here. Please don't enter the arguement with RAF aircraft are more complex etc the Chinook is an empty box, OK a big empty box, the Merlin and Puma are smaller empty boxes without sighting or weapon systems. The RAF could make a start at rationalising the number of engineering trades.

LB

The RAF could make a start at rationalising the number of engineering trades.

Which is exactly what is happening with multi-skilling where certain trades will merge over time. The RAF took this to an illogical conclusion years ago with the super-techs who were trained, IIRC, in the electrical, weapons, propulsion, airframe and avionics disciplines. In reality, however, they never had the chance to achieve competency in more than, perhaps, 2 trades at most.

HP

Which is exactly what is happening with multi-skilling where certain trades will merge over time

Didn't we have a "multi-skill" scheme close circa 1993? :mad:

Me thinks the wheel is being re-invented.

Best bit is I may be asked to go back and cover both trades to become multi-skilled!

Should I have been..........spit...........a DE instead? :p NEVER!


LTB

Certainly evident, even while deployed. You need to fill in 3 sheets of paper to get signed before you're allowed to dine 'off base'.
When people are deployed and have no real task, they invent tasks, which inevitably cause more work for others!!

A certain RAF Sqn in Cyprus works with 9 engineers keeping 3 ac available 24 hrs a day. I'd like to see any AAC Sqns producing stats like that. Oh yes, they achieve in excess of 90% serviceability as well....

DG
BZ for the boys in cyprus but i will stand corrected if these amazing bunch of engineers arent servicing a civilian airframe with no fighting gagets radar etc....(in the sunshine)

Take a leaf out of the Small ships flights book who keep an old temperamental airframe flying whilst the workshop bounces around on the high seas, oh and with 10 men, sometimes less?

RAF are 80000 strong and pack a similar weight punch to the Navy with 40000 personnel. Unfortunately the Brass are looking at bang for bucks!

(I have met a few SWO's in my time and i think these men need putting to work.)

Low Ball
the fact that the Army have got half the Apaches mothballed because they haven't got enough personnel to keep them operational rather rips your argument to shreds.

I agree the Apache situation is in a state but surely that is a training issue as with the mess up with supplying the pilots on time, there are many clankies waiting to get their hands on one.

The issue was how many crabs does it take to go flying? and many are of the opinion that it is far more than the army and navy.

Start by axing the RAF REGT. Waste of cash them lot. Just boy's that like guns but were too scared / un-manly for the Army.....:E :E

Boatman

I sincerely doubt that the numbers you suggest are an accurate reflection of todays RAF. It seems that there are redundancy plans in the pipeline. After more than 18 years service, this may be a welcome proposal. However, with the existing government, no doubt there will be a number of 'catches'

Hands up if you feel you are in the minority? i.e. born in the UK, not disabled, not sexually confused, not an immigrant, and not a single parent. Have I missed anything??


Rgds.

To belt-tighten: how about slimming down the Service Bands? What a waste of money.

RAF are 80000 strong

In about 1990 that was true, besides isn't that almost as many as are in the Army now?

I think you wil find that the RAF strength is around 52,000. The RN is about 35,000.

The RN is about 35,000.
True, but they keep ships, subs and aircraft running. The Fleet Air Arm is much smaller. Its all relative I guess.

Those of us who keep an eye on what going on in the background might be aware of a study, commissioned by the top brass (Air Force Board level), in 2003, which looked into precisely the issues that are being discussed here. The study report, entitled, "End to End", commonly known as the E2E was recently published and it clearly states that we are currently over-supporting deployed aircraft. The major proposal from the AVM heading up the study is that the RAF must now strive "...to deploy the minimum logistical support - including personnel - to meet the required military capability." Trials will be conducted on 2 aircraft types this year.

Of course, if this is turns out to be a cry in the wilderness, then thats it...the Service is doomed to be run by the Remfs. However, I sincerely hope that the AFB take on board the recommendations of the E2E report.

I should not be surprised, yet I am. The complete lack of understanding of what goes on to support the effort of getting a weapons platform into the air beggars belief.
Having spent time at most levels of loggy support I can concur with a tiny percentage of what you say. Having been in a sandy place supporting a Combat Air Wing I can also assure you that the people spending time sitting round more than any other were not those in the support roles - it took a walk to 'the sqn' for that.

After that little episode we went through a complete re-think of just how we supported the ac. Initial proposals were worked on - then there was 'creep - mission creep'. If you want to go from extended days to 24 hr, then it takes more manpower - simple.

I think the figures of 30 to 1 must be across the entire RAF - I know the rotary world perform miracles with far less - having also exercised with the AAC I know their guys wanted some of our logs management tools so much, their Boss bought some! I can see how badly procured, badly designed old aircraft need some TLC, hence higher numbers on, for example, the F3.
I think you might need to look at how you define REMF.
Rant off.

Boatman - can't really compare the 'punch' of RAF & Navy - they are different jobs and do different things - hence why they have 2 different names! Height, speed, reach & ubiquity - the 4 main words as to why we have an Air Force.

DPH,

Nice thought but as the report will no doubt be compiled by the VERY FECKIN REMF'S we want to cut out of the equation..........what do you reckon the outcome will be:}

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

:ooh: :ooh:

Mr H

I think you will find from the outset that this thread excluded the hard working techies that work miracles to keep the Wright Brothers era aircraft the mob now imploys, in ways they were never designed for, patrolling the skys. It is the other trades such as TCW, PTI's, RAF Police to name but a few. Why on earht do we have PTI's outside of the training environment?? Are we not big enough to decide what to do at the gym??

The guys that work in TCW. Why does it take 30 of them to each det?? Are they not capable of doing the same job with less people?? It then, by its very nature, creates a need for even more people to be deployed overseas to cater for all these remfs. You now need more admin staff (I never thought I'd say that but apparently it's true), someone to square away the accom. You now have to bring the MT guys into theatre to supply all these hangers on with vehicles.

This is by no means an exhaustive list be like the Murphy's "I'm not Bitter"
:mad:

Are we not big enough to decide what to do at the gym

Seen the failiure rates for the fitness tests, espcially in the 18 - 25 age ranges?

Seen the failure rates for the fitness tests, especially in the 18 - 25 age ranges?

You mean the fitness test set up to keep PTIs in a job? Funny how the RAF survived over 80 years without it.......nah, sack the lot of them!

As one ‘Tubbie techie’ said in the bar the other night, ‘I might be overweight but I can fix a Tornado – what’s a PTI’s war role?'

-Nick

It took a walk to "the sqn" to see people sitting around doing nothing. That makes you a REMF Mr Hinecap. So as well as fighting the war would you like aircrew who are on crew rest/planning for the next mission/waiting for the ATO, to be running around doing trivia that REMFs should doing in between sorties! In an all out war you could expect that, however in a controlled operation I would expect the war fighters, ie the ones putting themselves in the direct firing line, to be able to concentrate on their primary task alone. To expect otherwise is crass.

Three examples (IMHO) of waste, and a personal whinge:

1. Recently (certainly same total numbers - say 52K) we had 6K blue-suiters in HQs various. Who else would have 12% of its staff in Head Office?

2. I run all my insurances (house/car/travel etc) on line, and also pay bills to anybody from Pprune :O to British Telecom, credit cards etc. Makes life easy when deployed, so why do I (even as a relatively senior person) need signed hard copy for my travel claims. A question (answer at bottom of post): Cisco the computer people employ 35k people world wide. How many staff process their travel claims (on-line of course)??

3. I can accept the need for PTIs even (or perhaps particularly) when deployed, but I have some difficulty with PEdOs. We do not commission firemen (sorry PC Police - I mean firefighters) we let Ops Support run them. So why can't Admin (Trg) run PTIs?

4. Number of ranks - too many. The Met Police have 35k personnel, and have only 9 or 10 (IIRC) ranks - and they all must go through all the ranks! And was my leg being pulled or are we REALLY going to have WO2s and L/Cpls in the RAF as a sop to Jointery?

Oooooh I feel better for that - rant over, but questions I frequently ask and to which I have received few answers.

....and speaking of answers ..... Cisco manage the worldwide travel claims for a 35K workforce with .... er .... 12 people!!

It was the techies sitting round - hundreds of them - for much of the time. Not REMF - was there on regular business. I expect to see aircrew sitting round.
I support the view that aircrew and techies are the most expensive to employ therefore should have minimum distraction from primary tasks. I wanted to set that system up at a previous base but not bought into by higher management. BTW - in that job, I had more people on my flight than there were in Admin Wing. Point to ponder.
Not crass, Deliverance - just opinionated and give a t0ss.

"It was the techies sitting round - hundreds of them - for much of the time. "

Well, believe it or not, sometimes our jets enjoy a good run of serviceability, so people do end up sitting around. (Or maybe somebody set up a Forward Delivery system like that at M*****, which means you wait two days for a part that comes from 100 yards up the road). Most of the time however, they don't, and people are rushed off their feet. That's why you always find "hundreds" of us on dets, to cover eventualities.

But also, we're hugely overmanned on detachments to make sure we all only have to work for 2 hours a shift; only come into work every other day; finish the rare night shift at 7pm so we can go out on the town, and stuff tomorrows programme. We even close the doors and allow essential flying only when we've got more than one job each. Only contactable via the Chief Engineer.

Or perhaps not.

Mr CH, if you want to see how much sitting around actually occurs on a fast jet squadron at the producer end feel free to stop by here for a couple of weeks. Or maybe come on a Western Vortex.
You never know, you may just be surprised. Especially when you've just handed over to the day shift for the fifth morning running.:ok:

DP Harvey: I sincerely hope that the AFB take on board the recommendations of the E2E report.

That would be the report that recommended moving the Nim Force to Waddington so that savings could be made in the logistics budget then?? What about the operational budget?? E2E is written by loggies with minimal operational input (and common sense). It has some good ideas but some dangerous rubbish!!

Jobza
You beat me to it:ok:
But you forgot to mention how easy it is to get your leave in and all the expeds that you can do on a Sqn:{
One other thing Mr H perhaps does not realise is that you can't mend a/c whilst they're flying (little 'uns anyhow).

Perhaps a cure for these myths that surround what a flying Sqn does could be addressed by every one on a flying unit being assigned to a Sqn and when that sqn deploys so do their support personnel (as required). That should allow all on that stn to learn more about everyone elses jobs and perhaps there might be more co-operation a base units

and while I'm dreaming I'd like a pony

Gentlemen...

I see a continuing theme in this thread which saddens me, and only makes my decision making as to my future in the RAF even easier. Remeber the old saying there is no I in team work...!? Well, all I get from the majority of the posts here is the sense that we are all bickering at each other, trying to justify our own jobs...the gae old 'them and us' syndrome. :rolleyes:

Well, we are all employed by the RAF for one reason, and that is to generate air power. I agree that manpower levels and tasking needs to be analysed constantly, due to the shifting sands of HMG's foreign policy. This is what our lords and masters are trying to do. :hmm: Trouble is, we were geared for SDR which is not what we our current commitments reflect - hence the white paper.

Sadly, if anything, I think we need to increase manning - simple, but not what HMG want to hear, nor will they do. Why you may ask!? Well, as a Flt Cdr, there are never enough Admin specialists around to assist me in the running of my Flt's personnel issues. When stretched by operations, there are never enough 'blue suiters' to make the running of essntial tasks any easier. We are asking our youngest and most inexperienced personnel to take on too much responsibility (at all ranks). And, as our engineer friend has said, we make people work until they burn out - not on ops, but on Exs and peace-time tasks. I would write more but it depresses me slightly. :{

On a final note, some of you really do need to put into context your use of the word REMF. As one of these esteemed fellows, yes my primary duty will usually see me working behind any front line. However, tri service ops consistently see 'REMFs' placed into situations they were not trained for. I have been in a number of interseting situations, as a 'REMF', which were not in the job discription....yes, the aviators at the pointy end face nasty horrors...shoot downs, malfunctions, capture etc...but remember one thing - you were trained to cope with this. SAC Smiffy driving his ammo truck from Basrah to the FLOT during Telic, was not trained to deal with hostile crowds, snipers, mines, or in dealing with the army!

I digress form my original point - stop slinging mud at each other and arguing over who works the hardest - we all do essential jobs, and you only realise that when you loose a capability that you previously took for granted.

Monkey :E

Monkey

That is taken as read. Part of fostering teamwork is getting those people AROUND YOU together. I can't make a team out of a whole stn - that is the job of the stn cdr. I can only really work with my flt and foster relations with other flts.
My dig at techies on the sqn sitting round was intended to raise a few points! What it was leading to is that all those people need supporting - the more you take, the more support you need. This is magnified when you throw mission creep in to the equation. The manning difference between extended days & 24 hrs is pretty big.
I've worked on a FJ unit in a support role. There were some petty people across all of it, but the main mistake seemed to be leaving people on the same ac sqns for ever. You got to know the relics and had to work round them.
There are a few differences between Eng/Supply & Admin - QA being a BIG one that grips my $h!t - but yes, we get shoulder to shoulder to do it when it matters.

Now stop whining and accept the banter.

Jobza & Insty - did you hear of the Supply Officer that sat in as a JEngO on a high priority FJ sqn for a week - the praises sung by the SNCOs was deafening. Pvt me for more details if you can cope! :ok: :E

A few years back, I was on a visit to see 3 Div (UK Army) on exercise in the field. The brief given by the Army started with this:

"Gentlemen, 3 Div has about 26,000 people - approximately half the size of the RAF. We run it from a tent!"

It was probably the best put down I ever heard.

Mr H...

Thankyou for pointing out where I've gone wrong...;) Banter I can accept, Ignorance shouldn't be accepted without challenging it! :E

Ali Barber...I recall enraging a few Army officer's oout in Bosnia a coupla years ago as they trudged off to their corrimechs complaining about the RAF's 'high living' - 'why dig in when you can check in!?' I said....:D

CM

Insty 66

That should allow all on that stn to learn more about everyone elses jobs and perhaps there might be more co-operation a base units

Steady on ole chap! :oh:

Your attacking "Airforce Problems" with logic!

It'll never catch on! :p

LTB

LTB
Why ever not? Is it because it would mean the breaking up of little empires around the RAF?;) I think it could even be cost effective (that'll make some one think about it!)

Monkey
Agree we're all in together but barriers need to be broken down between sections to improve things. Continual empire building only worsens relations between sections. See my earlier suggestion.

Is not a REMF in the RAF, someone in a support post in the UK that is not liable for OOA deployment? Or is it simply anyone who we decide gives nothing to the production of airpower? It depends on who you want to wind up I suspect. :E

Monkey.

Staggered to see the RAF are worried about job descriptions when we are talking about deployment into an operational zone.

Is there not an understanding that everyone one has a committment to 'soldiers first'. By this I mean that all of the basic training skills may be put to use. Does the RAF not complete pre Op depeployment training to hone up on these skills such as mine identification and anti ambush drills?

Commanders cannot carry any dead weight folks like your SAC Smiffy, a qualified driver, but inside airfield perimeters only!

All folks on operations must be prepared to be multitasked - if not they are REMFs

LB

Insty,

As ever a voice of reason. I totally agree that having a sqn that incorporates all trades necessary does make for better harmonisation. Although again, you have to be careful about hopw many hangers on you take. We currently don't have our own techies and only have to admin guys to run the backroom for us on the sqn. These admin people work hard for us and in the majority the sqn personnel respect that hard work. It just worries me to see the amount of extraneous jobs that make the sqn personnels lives that little bit more tediuos.

Why should it matter if a man can keep a jet airworthy, or can spot a certain type of SAM off ESM kit, but can't run to level 9 on the bleep test??!! All PTI's do is admire themselves in the endless walls of mirrors to be found in the gyms. What do they actually bring to the table??:hmm:

My own take on a REMF;
Somebody who's job has no productive output to the maintainance of a frontline Sqn.:E

Insty66

If I was to become Marshall of the Royal Airforce, not only would my own logic be used, but also I would to employ you as my right hand man to implement them!.

As long as I have a hole in my $%^& and I continue to think of logic at my lowly level, unfortunately that will never happen.

I therefore ask you to consider more the “irony” of my last post.

LTB
:p

Low ball...

i couldn't agree more with you! But I think your missing my point, in that we are over exposing our most inexperienced operators, simply because we do not have the manpower to go round! Sending SAC's who have been in the Mob for 18 months into a front line combat situation with the annual CCS qual, and a 3 day pre det course on mine awareness and anti ambush!? do you really think that is adequate...obviously our lords and ladies do, but I do not.

The first thing Smiffy will know about mine awareness is when it sends him 50ft into the air, and we all know what happens to any one caught in an effective ambush!

Any way, not biting too hard here, all I'm saying is we should be up manning not down scaling, and yes in tri-service ops we shoud be giving our people more intensive trg.

Having worked with the army, you'll be amazed at the amount of work up trg a trained soldier gets before he goes out to theatre. Our lads and lasses dont even get anything close to that and, as you rightly point out, are expected to venture into the combat area.

And again with reagrds to REMFS, with jointry etc, soome of our people who may not be directly involved in generatin air power, have certainly been involved in UN missions to Africa and so on...would you still call someone who has conducted unarmed monitoring duties in the worlds most turbulent continent a REMF? I would call him crazy, but would stand by for a one way barrage if I called him a REMF. think laterally...:E

So Gents, what trades in your opinion shouldnt be out on det? We have seen the comments on the Club Swingers, who else shouldnt be there?


:hmm:

Aircrew (yes BRANCH, I know).

No flying so we can all spend more time enjoying the 5-star hotels we always stay in, and think of how much more rates we could all get if we didn't spend any money on fuel.

How much more room in first class there would be on the flight out

Massive fuel savings on the AT due to the lack of aircrew butty boxes. Flight time now decreased by 10% too helped by no aircrew unaccompanied baggage.

Saves money as there wouldn't be aircrew changeovers 4 days into the det. And the Boss wouldn't need his first-class CivAir flight either.

Food bill for the det goes down considerably, thus more chance of dets to places worth spending 2 months in. Not to mention more scoff for the Techytubbies.

No hospital bills plus homeward CivAir flights for green-bagged chumsters injured in a rowdy game of Bridge. Or was it crud, Fish?

Would finally be possible to get on an expedition at Goose.


And so it begins.................:ok:

Errrr, blimey guys, I was only joking. Was expecting a bucketload of techy/blunty gags in return. :O

Large helping of humble pie coming in by Forward Delivery.

Should get it by Tuesday then.....::E