RAF Command Structure

[DSAT Man]

I hear that when PTC joins with STC (at either Innsworth or High Wycombe; don't know where yet - they haven't yet frigged the IA figures to match the chosen site) there will be no unified 'super Command' but 2 Commands on one site.

What's the sense in that?

Surely it's time to economise on the Command pukes so that those doing the real job can get on with less interference.

Ah....silly me. That would mean fewer airships wouldn't it?

DSAT Man

[hyd3failure]

Yeah, but do you want fewer airships? If you aspire to be an airship one day then wouldn't you want lots of jobs?

Similar argument for combining 2 commands...might save money BUT it reduces your employment opportunities by half

[StopStart]

I think you'll find that the majority of us don't aspire to be airships :rolleyes:

My future employment opportunities will only be reduced when BA, Virgin et al stop recruiting....

[Art Field]

From this distance, ten years retired, it would seem to me that a lot of the problems of the RAF today are caused by those who aspire to be airships. If the emphasis was off promotion and concentrated on achieving the task then the few great and godly required for high office would naturally bubble to the top and the rest could get on with what the force should be about, operating aircraft a la Israelies. And come that day, pigs will fly!!!!!.

[soddim]

My lasting memory of RAF staff work is the time and effort I spent in pursuit of my airship's argument with other airships. In those days it was difficult to find the time to do what the front line needed because the airships were much more interested in scoring points off each other and enhancing their own career prospects.

Less airships equals less arguments.

[L1A2 discharged]

Watch the house prices in and around Churchdown ....

[Mad_Mark]

Well said Art :ok:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[JessTheDog]

The command and group structure is fundamentally flawed.

Originally, commands were grouped by function or location, and lip service is paid to this today, but it is ludicrous to have a seperate command for training and administration.

The group structure is similarly flawed. The old fighter command structure was geographic, covering the UK, and now groups are arranged by function...well, sort of, if you think (for example) that air defence can be split in two and that strike and recce can be seperated.

Tear up the bit of paper and start again. A suggestion:

"Home" command: administration, initial and trade/branch training for all specialisaion, air defence and air transport. Harmony supply and eng tours. Groups geographically located.

"Away" command: advanced (CR?) training, strike, int and recce, tactical air transport. Hardship supply and eng tours. Grouped according to branches (A3/J3 = ops etc).

Personnel transfer between "home" and "away" commands as they progress through training at various ranks and as they are posted between hardship and harmony tours.

Go on - tear it to bits!:{

[Bag Man]

Sounds a bit like CINCNAVHOME and CINCFLEET - and we are about to amalgamate the two!!!

[hyd3failure]

Good point from the baggie...... you RAF chappies will regret combining commands..(as we did). Instantly your job opportunities are halved.

There is only one reason for combining commands and it has nothing to do with efficiency or Operational Capability

[glum]

"Good point from the baggie...... you RAF chappies will regret combining commands..(as we did). Instantly your job opportunities are halved. "

That all depends on why you joined: To fly / support (in whatever way), or to feather your nest and retire with a fat pension to a company you've been doffing your cap to!

A combined command won't affect my job opportunities...

[hyd3failure]

OK, if you believe that then crack on... But don't say we didn't warn you.

[Llademos]

1946 - over 1m in the RAF

2005 - less than 40,000 in the RAF

I'd bet serious money that the 1 star and above population has barely moved since then

[Stan Bydike]

I somehow feel that we (the RAF) have missed a trick here.

We shouldn't be amalgamating STC and the other one I have never been in, but getting rid of the Groups.

We have duplication of staff jobs between STC and Groups. Lets just get rid of the group staff structure and keep the operational bits like Ascot Ops, MHQ Northwood et al.

Hyd3failure,

I sincerely hope it is never my misfortune to meet you. The vast majority of serving RAF personnel are geared towards achieving the task. Not looking for the next body to step on whilst working up through the rank system. We care about others, not about ourselves as you so obviously do. :suspect:

BTW, perchance are you a Harrier pilot:hmm: :E :suspect:

[Pontius Navigator]

Stan Bydyke

There may be duplication of jobs but not of people. Where I stand there are not many arses between me and the AOC - one to be precise and he is due out in June. The rest are gapped, OOA or elsewhere.

But then again it proves the point. If they aren't there and the system works do we need them?

[opso]

Not only does the system work without them, it often works better!

[Pontius Navigator]

Opso - true, means no one asks questions and I don't have to make up answers.

Recently the stats guys gave us a 'summary'. A 10% sample revealed 10% error rate. Fired it back and heard



............................... zilch It was THAT important.

[opso]

Doing away with many of them would mean less time spent briefing people that bring nothing to the party, but feel the need to be involved even if they don't understand any of the details. Less time briefing would mean more timing getting on with the job and better communication between the people actually making the decisions and making things happen.

Every time an op arises over a weekend / grant etc, it all runs really well until the first couple of 'working days' when the unnecessary and uninvolved come back to the office and feel the need remind everyone how 'essential' they are.

Cuts in manpower could improve efficiency significantly, unfortunately the areas that should be cut are the ones guaranteed to stay. :(

[LoeyDaFrog]

llademos - thats an original thought!

OpsO - Couldn't agree more.

BTW, if you care to look at the nifty little stats things that arrive on your desk every month, it does indeed paint an interesting comparision. 1990 vs 2005, half the number of worker bees, with no (real) change in the number of airships