Underated Trades?

[225Turbo]

Given the fact that the RAF is seriously downsizing, which trades could we disband?

[Tombstone]

A ridiculous question.

Go away and think of something intelligent to type...:ugh:

[chiglet]

ADO.....[Iwas one in the '60s]
watp,iktch

[reddeathdrinker]

Coppers (Get the MOD Plods in instead)
Regiment (That's what the Army's for)
PTI's (Make Physical Fitness a secondary duty)
Cooks (Get civvys in, Army do it on deployment)
MT drivers (everyone can drive anyway)
Stackers (Civvies again - make the movers as "combat stackers")


That's all I can think of just now.......

[225Turbo]

A ridiculous question.

Go away and think of something intelligent to type...:ugh:

ok, E=MC2 :mad: get a life, and let people use the forum.

[movadinkampa747]

I think what Tombstone is trying to say is that you might be better off starting this thread on E-Goat. Its much more their style.

[Mr C Hinecap]

225 - why don't you try suggesting a few with some reasoned arguement? Then you'd look like you were fishing and might not get flamed for appearing to be a bit dull. There are a lot of people who are under remit to do this sort of thinking - we're getting down past bare bones now in most trades.
As for reddeath - you're fishing just as badly or you really do have no concept of what happens out there :rolleyes:

[RileyDove]

225 Turbo - Shouldn't your title be 'overated trades' ? Underated usually means something is better than it appears initially to be .

As for cutting the fat - look at Jengos and Sengos who manage to avoid the redundancies which seem to plague F/S and WO's doing a very similar job!

[The Helpful Stacker]

Coppers (Get the MOD Plods in instead) - Who does it on deployment?
Regiment (That's what the Army's for) - (As an ex-Infantryman) Agreed.
PTI's (Make Physical Fitness a secondary duty) - Agreed.
Cooks (Get civvys in, Army do it on deployment) - Err, what about MCSU?
MT drivers (everyone can drive anyway) - Agreed.
Stackers (Civvies again - make the movers as "combat stackers") - Lol. The movements trade actually came from supply originally and many stackers go on courses to enable them to do the movers job but do you know how many I've heard of being cross-trained the other way? Oh, and do you think many helicopter crews would want muppets doing TSW given the muppet trades inability to go near an a/c without breaking them?

[Maple 01]

I fink PTIs is underr8ted cos we is skill an ded hard an all the blrdz luv us, youse teki an airkrew will jump to our tune now n do lodsa phiz until yr puny body burn!

Thems tha skoff jus coz we got no war roll, r fik as minse, lov mirrors and hangin out wiv hav neked blokes, yous is jus jelus we is the furur of the RAF

[Climebear]

[QUOTE=reddeathdrinker;2822902]
Regiment (That's what the Army's for)/QUOTE]

No it's not - The infantry are not there for rear area force protection so who else are you going to get to do it. We, the air component, have some of the most strategically valuable assets in the rear area (if, indeed, in these days of assymetric warfare and the non-contiguous battlespace, there is a rear area) so who would you trust their FP too. With 2 out of 6 RAF Regt Field Sqns currently depolyed on Ops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and likely to remain deployed for the near future so that's 4/6 months deployed, 8/12 months at home, 4/6 months deployed...) it would seem that the UK Military (PJHQ at least) sees a need for them. Interesting, then that you suggest that - perhaps - are most heavily committed force elements can be disposed of.

I'm not a Rock by the way.

[movadinkampa747]

We, the air component, have some of the most strategically valuable assets in the rear area (if, indeed, in these days of assymetric warfare and the non-contiguous battlespace, there is a rear area) so who would you trust their FP too.

A nice thought CB but surely Joint Adaptive and Joint Expeditionary Warfare requires capabilities organised cross-enterprise, adapting dynamically to uncertainty and turbulence in a multi-dimensional, nonlinear, competitive environment. Doing this would mean Operations will be conducted in non-contiguous battlespace with no secure rear areas and without pause.

Your thoughts on that Climebear.....................:)

[Wader2]

MT drivers (everyone can drive anyway) - Agreed.

Agree most not all people can drive but you both overlook the point that MT drivers are force extenders in much the same way as tanker crews. Most people cannot drive PSV or HGV.

You fly your jet in, do you then hoof it to MT to get a vehicle?

You fly in to a secret air base somewhere in Oxfordshire. You are out of duty time. You all troop off to Gateway house for a well earned kip until someone is able to drive?

Who prepositioned the vehicle there anyway?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Actually TSW are one of the most heavily committed force elements in the RAF at the moment. Interestingly TSW are also the only formed unit in the RAF to have been continually deployed on operations since their inception in 1976 (Op Banner).

(Yes I am ex-TSW)

[movadinkampa747]

Agree most not all people can drive but you both overlook the point that MT drivers are force extenders in much the same way as tanker crews.

Ahh but Effective support depends on adaptability and speed of response. MT Drivers should self-synchronise through a common environment and set of shared objectives to achieve satisfaction of operational requirements, at the point-of-effect...................i.e pick-up the crew at the end of the day:) .

[The Helpful Stacker]

You are out of duty time. You all troop off to Gateway house for a well earned kip until someone is able to drive?


Yep, thats what happened last time I came back from a sandy place.

Me - "Can you arrange for a vehicle to pick me up from BZN."

MT - "We'll only have the duty driver available at that time because you arrive at the start/end of shifts and the duty driver isn't for pick ups, you'll have to get a hire car."

Me - "What about my weapon?"

MT - "You'll have to sign it into the armoury at BZN then go back and get it another day with an escort."

As for the pre-positioning thing, thats cods. Many techies, suppliers etc have their class 1 and 2 driving licences and under civilian law can quite happily jump into the relevant vehicle types and drive them. In the RAF we have 'A class' and 'B class' drivers, or jobs for the boys as its known.

A prime example of this hypocrisy is shown in the new Oshkosh fuels vehicle. When asked if the suppliers on TSW would be able to drive this vehicle they were informed that they wouldn't be able to as the MT world had put in place a minimum of X amount of hours on articulated vehicles. Of course this all changed when the MT world realised that not many drivers with as many hours as required really want to go digging in and playing soldiers, its a young mans game and hence the requirement was dropped/overlooked.

[movadinkampa747]

All very true stacker. Sustainment of military operations is most effective when MT is highly flexible rather than highly optimized. Negotiations for MT resources and capabilities should be encouraged to support rapidly evolving tasks and effects-based operations. Transportation of support staff should be independent from geography constraints where possible.

[The Helpful Stacker]

movadinkampa747 - Been on any courses recently? You sound very managerial in a 'neu-RAF' way.;)

[Tombstone]

Regiment (That's what the Army's for) - (As an ex-Infantryman) Agreed.


Perhaps it is a little inappropriate to be knocking the trade took care of our fallen on Saturday by guarding the area where they fell.

[movadinkampa747]

Been on any courses recently? You sound very managerial in a 'neu-RAF' way.;)

Yes.

One of the most important things we learnt was that Cohesive, adaptable, and responsive MT requires sophisticated vehicle support that enables passenger sharing, a common perspective of the task, early awareness of resource consumption and needs, commitment to pick up the crew, and support for that crew in need.

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

At the moment, given the operational environments, I would suggest that promoting teamwork is a more appropriate theme than knocking each others' trades/specialisations.

[Maple 01]

Unless you're discussing PTIs

[Wader2]

As for the pre-positioning thing, thats cods. Many techies, suppliers etc have their class 1 and 2 driving licences and under civilian law can quite happily jump into the relevant vehicle types and drive them. In the RAF we have 'A class' and 'B class' drivers, or jobs for the boys as its known.

THS, you missed the points.

One is working hours. True your duty driver quote seemed along this line. My point is that Man A can do a productive period of duty in his trade and Man B, the MT Driver, can extend Man As efforts by acting as chauffer when Man A has finished his work AND is out of duty driving hours.

As for pre-positioning, if you as Man A are at your work place and need to get to your Billet some distance away you could drive. You could only drive if there was a vehicle there. MT can deliver that vehicle, ferry you there, and return you or whoever, without that vehicle sitting in your car park unused.

The latter point was part of MAVER and had long been a gripe about sqn cdrs vehicles doing only a couple of miles per day. A functioning base taxi service might have meant you waiting a few minutes but was a far superior use of scarce resources. It did need a strong MT Controller however who could delay the shift bus if it was needed for crew transport to deliver a crew or pax to an aircraft.

[Rigga]

...so, when all of your remaining techies and stackers are driving all those poor "out-of-hours" crews home, and getting spares, and getting tools, and getting meals, and getting fit, and guarding the place - who will fix all the things they left behind on the pan? When do they get their "out-of-hours" - after their Secondary Fitness/Guard/Cook?
Maybe the ATCOs can do it? - if they aren't all civvies too (No-ones mentioned them yet).

also... I've never seen "out-of hours" crews prevented from driving their own cars home?

...an' anuvver fing!...Who needs all dem pilots wiv all these UAV's, CRT's and UFO's? A new "Few" sat in a big cumfy hole in the ground will do the job!

[movadinkampa747]

Maybe the ATCOs can do it? - if they aren't all civvies too (No-ones mentioned them yet).


MT demand is ultimately unpredictable. So assumimg that demand is ultimately unpredictable, success depends on the speed of request recognition and speed of response. So perhaps the decision to transport Aircrew necessary to meet operational tasks, and to predict and anticipate MT operations, combined with the strategic, operational, and tactical situation, and the need to generate and evaluate MT, will come down to the ATCO one day.:{

[Wayitup]

valuable assets in the rear area!! Says it all really :\ :\

[Two's in]

Not wishing to show my age but I never quite saw getting a Sherpa van out of the MT as an example of "Effects Based Operations", ...who knew?

[Severance]

All very true stacker. Sustainment of military operations is most effective when MT is highly flexible rather than highly optimized. Negotiations for MT resources and capabilities should be encouraged to support rapidly evolving tasks and effects-based operations. Transportation of support staff should be independent from geography constraints where possible.
Yes.

One of the most important things we learnt was that Cohesive, adaptable, and responsive MT requires sophisticated vehicle support that enables passenger sharing, a common perspective of the task, early awareness of resource consumption and needs, commitment to pick up the crew, and support for that crew in need.
MT demand is ultimately unpredictable. So assumimg that demand is ultimately unpredictable, success depends on the speed of request recognition and speed of response. So perhaps the decision to transport Aircrew necessary to meet operational tasks, and to predict and anticipate MT operations, combined with the strategic, operational, and tactical situation, and the need to generate and evaluate MT, will come down to the ATCO one day.
You're not an ex-boss of mine are you? I couldn't understand a word he said either...........:confused:

[cymruflier]

If downsizing is required to meet budget limitaions how would employing civvies help in any significant way?

It is apparent to many of us (civvies) that our services are under resourced. Many of us are also aware that this both risks and costs lives unneccessarily.

We are also aware that this undermines your primary role, that of preserving our nation state.

Perhaps there is a dawning of realization with regard to these facts in our green and pleasant lands. Whatever - the baby should never be thrown out with the bath water.

Sorry to intrude on what is. after all. your forum but not all of us read the Guardian, are pro Blare and pacifist. Many of us know what we owe you and obey the still on the eleventh hour.

I no longer drive but in fourty five years of doing so never passed a uniform on the roadside with an upraised thumb. It was how I was brought up by my father who flew Wellingtons (Per Noctem Volamus) as an observer in '40 and '41.

Feel free to tell me to "sling me 'ook".

[QFIhawkman]

That's as maybe cymru, but I fear that it's not the point of this (rather silly) thread.

The muppet who opened this was suggesting that certain RAF trades are expendable. "Get rid of them and get civvies in to do the job" was the gist of it.

To quote a couple of examples, he cited RAF Drivers, Policemen, Suppliers, PTIs etc etc.

Now show me a Civvy MT driver who will happily go to Basrah, on normal pay mind, to drive a tanker full of Avgas between bases. Show me an MOD copper who will go to Kabul (without the blessed overtime!) and escort vehicles to the Embassy down town. I could go on.....

But nobody was having a go at you civvies. You do a great job working for the MOD, there are even some who are reservists and go out to these areas as part time servicemen and I applaud you for that.

The point is, ALL of the RAF trades exist for a reason. If there were no need for them, they wouldn't be out there now slogging their balls off.

The person who started this thread (225 turbo), if he is a serving person, needs to have his head examined.

And there is no need to sling your hook cymru, tell it like it is. We're all entitled to an opinion, even me. :ok:

[SOURFILTH]

Well said

If you down size an organization the size of the RAF then you you down size it across all trades and branches rather than go for the "I think I'll lose some weight and chop off my left leg" approach. Brighter people than you and I who earn an awful lot of money get paid to work out how many people we need in order not to be overstretched in multiple theatres of operation all over the globe.

Obvious really, init

Note to self: Please employ brain power elsewhere in future...

[The Helpful Stacker]

Now show me a Civvy MT driver who will happily go to Basrah, on normal pay mind, to drive a tanker full of Avgas between bases.

Actually the fuel tankers we were repeatedly escorting up to Al Amara from Basrah when I was out there were all civvy owned and operated (by charming Pakistani and Indian chaps who seemed completely blasé about the risk and would even eat the spare 'a/c chock' pasties from the butty bags). The one occasion when the service drivers had to fill in because of border problems it almost fell flat because of some jobs worth MTO quoting drivers hours.

[QFIhawkman]

Actually the fuel tankers we were repeatedly escorting up to Al Amara from Basrah when I was out there were all civvy owned and operated (by charming Pakistani and Indian chaps who seemed completely blasé about the risk and would even eat the spare 'a/c chock' pasties from the butty bags). The one occasion when the service drivers had to fill in because of border problems it almost fell flat because of some jobs worth MTO quoting drivers hours.

That might be the case helpful stacker, but the point of this thread was getting rid of RAF tradesmen. Could it happen? Should it?
I know that Pakistani drivers were driving the fuel loads from pakistan into Afghanistan by road. at the point of delivery however, it was RAF drivers loading the fuel into the A/C.
Do we get rid of RAF drivers? Would you rather the local Afghans do the fuel onloads? What sort of risk does that pose?

[mini]

To quote "movadinkampa747"

"One of the most important things we learnt was that Cohesive, adaptable, and responsive MT requires sophisticated vehicle support that enables passenger sharing, a common perspective of the task, early awareness of resource consumption and needs, commitment to pick up the crew, and support for that crew in need."

... in other words, common sense. :hmm:

[movadinkampa747]

... in other words, common sense. :hmm:

What I actually mean't was the emerging global MT environment represents a new set of challenges and tasks, and fundamentally changes the rules of how MT provides Crew transport. The new tasks are broader and include Off station, and local elements. They are non-station, multi-dimensional, flexible, distributed, speed trap-aware, and rapidly adapt to RAF strategies and MT orders .:ok:

[QFIhawkman]

What I actually mean't was the emerging global MT environment represents a new set of challenges and tasks, and fundamentally changes the rules of how MT provides Crew transport. The new tasks are broader and include Off station, and local elements. They are non-station, multi-dimensional, flexible, distributed, speed trap-aware, and rapidly adapt to RAF strategies and MT orders .:ok:

So we're back to discussing door slamming are we? (Despite my best efforts to get it back on thread!)

[WIWOWessex]

What I actually mean't was the emerging global MT environment represents a new set of challenges and tasks, and fundamentally changes the rules of how MT provides Crew transport. The new tasks are broader and include Off station, and local elements. They are non-station, multi-dimensional, flexible, distributed, speed trap-aware, and rapidly adapt to RAF strategies and MT orders .:ok:

I'm sorry but I've been watching this thread and there has been some v good points but what is this man on? either he's swallowed a Cranditz text book or he's talking b:mad: ks, or both!!

[Mighty Norman]

MT demand is ultimately unpredictable. So assumimg that demand is ultimately unpredictable, success depends on the speed of request recognition and speed of response. So perhaps the decision to transport Aircrew necessary to meet operational tasks, and to predict and anticipate MT operations, combined with the strategic, operational, and tactical situation, and the need to generate and evaluate MT, will come down to the ATCO one day.:{

mmm, go far you will....you've got all the lingo off pat mate, go directly to Air-Rank, do not pass go, and your further clarification lpost simply leaves my jaw droppped in absolute awe!!:D

[mini]

There's a lot to be said for gaining practical experience before furthering your education... ;)

[Severance]

What I actually mean't was the emerging global MT environment represents a new set of challenges and tasks, and fundamentally changes the rules of how MT provides Crew transport. The new tasks are broader and include Off station, and local elements. They are non-station, multi-dimensional, flexible, distributed, speed trap-aware, and rapidly adapt to RAF strategies and MT orders

Ah well, I'm glad that's cleared up then...... sheeesh:\

[Pontius Navigator]

If downsizing is required to meet budget limitaions how would employing civvies help in any significant way?.

Giving our boyo a sensible answer -

A serviceman is part of an all embracing community. This community undertakes to feed, accomodate, care for, educate and train.

A civilian, employed with the services, may be a civil servant or, increasingly, a contractor. The civilian is part of the civil community. The civilian is expected to shop and feed himself. He is expected to find and furnish his own accommodation. He is exepected to use a state provided care system or fund his own private medical care.

The serviceman earns a sum of money that is inflated by the X-factor to compensate him for a world-wide committment. This inflates his like-for-like pay by 13% (?).

His embracing community of support is also being paid be it as service or civilian personnel. Roughly the cost for a single serviceman to the MOD budget is about twice his pay.

The civilian's community support it funded by the country at large and only his pay falls to the MOD. A civilian thus costs the MOD only about 40% the cost of a serviceman.

Civilianising posts is very attractive in peacetime but leads to critical overstretch in war. Would the civilians sign up with a deployment committment? Many would not meet more stringent military employment standards.

Australia has a system of civilian engineers employed by contractors on home base but who draw an enhanced wage as they are also under contract to wear uniform and deploy - at least that was the case a few years ago. Maybe someone who knows might like to pick that up.

[Blacksheep]

Jolly well done movadinkampa747! Five in a row - absolutely brilliant! :ok:

Time to empty the keep net and throw them all back in methinks. ;)

[Skunkerama]

Get rid of pilots. After all the Navy won all of the air battles in WW2 and have been doing so ever since the Romans invaded....hic....