Future Force Structure

[whowhenwhy]

Anyone able to say anything definitive about the future RAF Force structure? Heard chat about the dissolution of the Gp structure, creation of 1* Force Commanders rusticated out to MOBs but was after something a little more solid.

[Lima Juliet]

Yup, 1-star and below "rustication" of Group staffs is going to happen to new super-FHQs. Another reason why I left as it will be a piggin' disaster.

LJ

[sidewayspeak]

RAF will be just about a third of the size of when I joined in 89.

I will not be in it, but I will have a few stories to bore the old people's home care assistants with. :\

[Lima Juliet]

Likewise, joined with 98,500 and left 22yrs later with 33,500...:(

[N_1]

If this is going to happen do we know the rationale behind it?

[Bill Macgillivray]

Oh Gawd, I feel old!! Joined in '56 and left in '80. I think we probably had more JP's at Linton in '67 than the RAF has total aircraft now! BUT, had a great time with great people and they haven't changed that much!! (Just not very many of them!). Still the best Service, despite all political attempts to make it otherwise!!!:ok::ok::ok:

[Jumping_Jack]

It changes on an almost daily basis. Not long ago the CinC did his 'Town Hall' thing at Air, the slide he showed of the structure changed between the morning and afternoon seeeions. :ugh:

[cazatou]

Often attributed to one Gaius Petronius:

"We trained hard but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any situation by reorganising and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."

[PostMeHappy]

CinC's latest Town Hall on 7 Nov gave the current picture from 2013....available on t'Intranet if you route around.

[downsizer]

Any chance of a clue as to where?

[Stuff]

The hopeless Defence Intranet search engine failed to find it but did suggest that the preferred term for 'town' should be 'urban area'. :ugh:

I guess I'll spend the next 30 minutes trawling around various illogicaly linked pages looking for the document rather than actually reading the information I was looking for.

[Bismark]

I know it is not nice seeing reductions but you guys have got to get real. It took you ages to recognise that you were vastly over-manned despite many studies reaching just that conclusion. You have the most luxurious deployment ratio (1 in 5, compared to RN's 1 in 3 and Army's 1 in 4), which results in extra people and extra aircraft. I know it may not feel like it but it is true.

The government requirement is for expeditionary forces that can enable to maximum flexibility in their options for effect. It is why they have stuck to their guns on the carriers (not because there was a watertight contract - although it was convenient to assume this was the case).

The other thing you chaps need to realise is that the rotary (post Afgh) and F35/F18 guys are going to spend a lot of time at sea - especially the latter as "cats and traps" skills need loads of practice. The USN use the "once at sea, stay at sea" mantra for their FW sqns.

[Odigron]

Bismark, you are comparing 'apples with pears'.

There are sound reasons for the different harmony targets. I say targets because not all elements/forces achieve them.

If we all strive to achieve the lowest common denominator from each service we will be in a very poor place.

Not sure I understand the 'once at sea, stay at sea' bit - could you shed some light?

[Melchett01]

Bismark - could you point out which studies showed we are vastly overmanned?

Without wishing to come across as terribly single service, but I currently work alongside the Army and even they are now acknowledging that they cannot justify their current numbers in the post cold war era . As such they are looking to slim down a lot of their cold war logs chain that was needed to support the heavy armour and artillery units that will rarely be called for in future.

If 30,000 and a handfull of sqns is overmanned, then what commitments do you propose we drop? Because frankly, we are struggling at the moment to meet those commitments with what we do have; we will meet the commitments levied on us, but there is little to no flexibility or capacity to do anything else at the same time.

[Willard Whyte]

I guess I'll spend the next 30 minutes trawling around various illogicaly linked pages looking for the document rather than actually reading the information I was looking for.

30 minutes?!

Bloody hell, I spend days looking for stuff I ('m told I) need to read only to realise I wish I'd never bothered looking in the first place once I do find it.

[Clearedtoroll]

I am bored of hearing about harmony ratios. The army is 100k - if they truly operated anything like 1 in 4, then they would have 25k deployed. Clearly, some elements of the army hardly ever deploy and some go much more frequently than even 1 in 4. The same applies to the RAF. Much of this is unavoidable if we want to retain a balanced force mix - we can't just switch fast jet squadrons to rotary for a few months and vice versa. Both the army and RAF are doing what they can to introduce more flexibility. As for the Navy, I admire those who wish to join and are prepared to spend a great deal of time away from home, but it was ever thus and it is intrinsic to the job.

[PostMeHappy]

Only can find military (DII) link - search for HQ AIR CSR Portal & 'Current Messages'...

(Soz but I'm rubbish with hyperlinks...:()

[Bismark]

Melch,

I can think of 3 since Option for Change, one conducted by an RAF senior officer and 2 by a joint team. Much focussed on the requirement to man and support so many DOBs (hence the CMR) when no-one could imagine a situation where so many would be required. The studies also looked at sqn structure whereby a sqn appeared to be manned for, say, 14 aircraft when actually there were only 9 or 10 on the front line strength , the rest were in depth maintainance etc - the RN certainly only manned to the front line strength (ie 9-10 a/c). Your "white ticket" calculation also made you look over-manned compared to the RN and Army.

Re "what should we drop?" One of the first things you could do is extend your deployment lengths beyond 4 months and one day (or whatever it is). It has just been reported that PW is going to the FIs for 6 weeks rotation - what does such a short rotation cost? Why not 6 months rotation like the RN do down there.

Odigron,

Not sure I understand the 'once at sea, stay at sea' bit - could you shed some light?

Cats and traps flying requires constant practice and is not something you can hop on and off with (as the RAF did with Harrier). The USN flies daily at sea for pretty well the whole deployment - just look at the many videos to see why constant practice is required.

[Odigron]

Bismark, thank you for the explanation.

As for deployment lengths, I don't support the 'this is what the RN do, therefore, so should you' approach. I'm also not convinced that there is significant evidence to support the hypothesis that longer tour lengths equals savings.

[Wrathmonk]

The studies also looked at sqn structure whereby a sqn appeared to be manned for, say, 14 aircraft when actually there were only 9 or 10 on the front line strength

Surely the squadrons are manned to their FEAR requirement which then drives the number of aircraft required at the front line to meet the training and currency needs of that manning?

'this is what the RN do, therefore, so should you'

How is it sorted where there are 'independent' single service units within a joint organisation? For example did the NSW undertake 6 month roulements on HERRICK (because they could within the RN rules)?

[Bismark]

Wrath,

The RAF system used to be more complicated than that - maybe it still is. The RAF system was based on things like the following: core working day, entitled training time, duty time, leave time, sickness time etc etc. it is why an RAF sqn always seemed over-manned compared to an RN sqn and why there were always more RAF people on training courses than the RN - training time etc was built into the "white ticket" calculation whereas in the RN it wasn't/isn't. RN manning is based around the "watch and station bill" and the ability to man 2 defence watches at sea - core working day etc did not come into it.

Re NSW and 6 month tours....if they were under RN control they would have done, but they were operating an RAF roulement. The issue above is also why 800 and 801 struggled to achieve full manning and hence formation - the RAF insisted on areas of manning on sqqns that the RN structure did not support - QFIs being a classic example.

Odigron,

You may not agree with the RN system but the facts speak for themselves...the RN is the leanest manned Service and when the financial stops are visible then what is the case for the RAF system of manning. It is interesting that RN PVR rates were always amongst the lowest in the 3 Services so the 1 in 3 system can't be that bad.

[Odigron]

DASA figures, released yesterday do not support your statement, they indicate that the Voluntary outflow rate from RN is higher than RAF.

[Wrathmonk]

Thanks Bismarck - of course the true formula for working out RAF manning is deliberately complicated in order to cause confusion amongst the RN and Army!;) The calculations used even differ, within the RAF, between the FJ and AT fleets - which is fine until you have to explain them to your 1* dyed in the wool light blue wearing joint force helicopter chap ...:ok:

[Clearedtoroll]

IMHO anyone who thinks running a long-term 1 in 3 deployment plot is a good way of looking after the well-being of our people has either never worked such a plot, or has no real interest in a family life. That's not to say I don't have the utmost respect for those personnel of all 3 Services who are working such plots.

As for the Falkands, RAF officers in ground tours do do six month tours (I've done one) for continuity reasons. There are good Service reasons why SAR aircrew do not do six month tours; in addition it is far better for individuals - let's not screw people if we don't have to!!!

[Widger]

Defence Analytical Services and Advice (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&thiscontent=5100&date=2011-11-10&pubType=0&PublishTime=09:30:00&from=home&tabOption=1)

[Bismark]

Odigron,

My piece is written in the past tense. Also, I am not sure whether current stats are particularly relevant to a steady state, non redundancy, situation.

By the by, I could not find any PVR stats in the DASA tables. can you provide a link? All I could see were overall outflow rates the majority of which will be normal leavers at the end of their commissions/service.

[Odigron]

Bis,

I can't see any PVR stats on the DASA site either. However, the site does say that 'Voluntary Outflow is defined as all exits from trained UK Regular Forces which are voluntarily generated by the individual before the end of their agreed engagement or commission period.' I guess that's close to PVR.

The stats back to 2006 all show RN Voluntary Outflow is higher than RAF. I can't seem to access stats before that. Nonetheless, I think they could be considered relevant.

[Wrathmonk]

Bismark

Try this link - clicky (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=160.13&date=2011-11-10&type=html&PublishTime=09:30:00)

(source document - clicky (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&thiscontent=160&date=2011-11-10&pubType=1&PublishTime=09:30:00&from=home&tabOption=1))

[Bismark]

Ta. They are all pretty low rates.

[Easy Street]

The logistic requirements for swapping deployed sqns is minimal - a single movement of 100-200 pers being the sum total for a formed unit move such as practised by Tornado sqns, or a steady drip-feed for non-formed deployments such as the FI. The aircraft, tools and spares all remain in situ. That small logistic requirement is a small price to pay for the goodwill of our people.

I think that 4 months is already too long for some kinds of deployment. Deployed operations will only ever involve part of the skill-set for which a sqn trains - FJ sqns in Afghanistan, for example, will not get any routine low-flying, radar SAM evasion or air-to-air work for the whole time they are deployed, and the rate of weapons employment is low with a narrow range of options available. In-theatre training is impossible, with the sole exception of a very limited strafe facility at the KAF range. After months of this, skill fade is a serious issue - would you like to be a JTAC danger-close to a target being strafed by a pilot who hasn't done a pass in 6 months? You can mitigate this to an extent by rotations for simulator training in the UK - but then you might as well rotate sqns instead. Afterwards, sqns need a significant period of consolidation to recover other skills. 6 months would make this problem even worse than it already is.

The standard TELIC det for the Tornado force was 8 weeks per squadron. After such a brief hiatus in normal sqn activity, training for contingency roles could easily pick up where it had left off. Not the case any more, where the longer dets (with their associated extended post-op leave) come to define the whole year - particularly when the amount of pre-deployment bo**ocks now adds up to about 2 weeks of no-fly!

Many of us would not have joined the RAF had routine 6-month deployments been part of the deal; those who chose to join the RN did so in full knowledge that they would be away for a significant proportion of their time. There are upsides to the RN lifestyle - a degree of geographic stability for families for one, which is emphatically NOT the case in the RAF. Our downside is a 2 - 3 year posting cycle to locations in all corners of the UK, and postings between front-line / training / staff tours virtually always require a move. It looks like the Army will be joining the RAF in this lifestyle as they take over our old airfields!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Bissy,

I don't see what is wrong with the RAF system of using many different factors in calculating manning on the sqn; surely core day, sickness, leave and so on provide a far more realistic plot. Perhaps you can view it as the RN have got it wrong and they are not being realistic with their figures/assumptions and, thus, screwing over their own?

Just a thought.

[Bismark]

There are upsides to the RN lifestyle - a degree of geographic stability for families for one,

Why is it any different for the RN? You could be deployed to a Plymouth, Portsmouth, Faslane unit, and if any aviator as well then Prestwick, Yeovilton and Culdrose come in to the equation. For shore-based tours (ground tours) you could find yourself all over the place - as much as the RAF surely?

[Easy Street]

I did say a degree of stability. Yes, there are some RN jobs all over the country but the overwhelming majority are in the south. There is no one area of the UK that someone in the RAF can settle in and expect to spend the majority of their career within an hour or two's drive. Unless you work on the transport fleet!

[Spurlash2]

Bismark;

It has just been reported that PW is going to the FIs for 6 weeks rotation - what does such a short rotation cost? Why not 6 months rotation like the RN do down there.

Send a UK SAR crew to the FI for 6 months and all SAR orientated currency starts to fall away. Yes, you can work 24 on, 24 off, for 6 months with your two 4 man crews, (with the regular incursions into your 24 off) but it would become debilitating after a very short period. I've done it loads of times (24 on/off, that is).

The training required to recover UK flying awareness after 6 months away would be a significant cost, and, as there is a paucity of crews, a 6 week rotation is actually cost effective in returning a crew as quickly as possible back to UK SAROp standard, and maintain the expertise that the UK needs.

The deployed time for a SAR crew to the FI is a balance; to retain optimum skills at UK and MPA, with minimum time (and cost) to get back online, and do it safely.

Different ships, different cap tallies. When the RN deploy for 6 months, they don't go and do another 6 monther on return to the UK. The tightly manned UKSARF (RN/RAF/CG) is watchon-stopon, all the time.

In summary; Manpower available (Cost), Maintaining skillset (Cost), Flight Safety (....).

[Bismark]

The tightly manned UKSARF (RN/RAF/CG) is watchon-stopon, all the time.

How you dare to compare the deployment ratio of a warship against the SAR force leaves me speechless! The average SARF guy/girl almost certainly lives within 30 mins of their home and is probably present in that home at least every other day when on duty and every day when not on 1st call (I've done it).

My neighbour's son is in the RN on a running warship and he has hardly been at home all year - an 8 month deployment, short leave and maintenance on return (6 weeks), then back to sea for 5 weeks exercises with France etc, off to Libya on the gun-line, return and now working up for the next 6 monther at Christmas. He loves it - mainly because he is saving loads of dosh for a house and the ship's morale is sky high.

EASY, If a survey was done I would be interested to know what percentage of staff at Lossie have spent their career to the N of Aviemore or in the Lincoln clutch, or at Benson/Odiham.

[Odigron]

Once again Bis, I agree with somethings that you say, but disagree with others.

I have no difficulty accepting that your neighbour's son loves all the time at sea. Nearly all young service personnel I have met love the time away in the beginning. But how long will he love it for? Another 5 years, 10 years, more? People's circumstances change, they get married, they have children and their love of spending time away can often dwindle.

I do have sympathy with your outrage at the comparison between RN ship deployment and SARF deployments. That said, I also suspect that an RN deployment is rather 'cushier' than most 6 month army deployments. You are rightly proud of your service/former service, but let's not get into the compair and contrast argument, each service does things in a different way for good reasons. Something's the RN does are better than the Army, some are not.

[Spurlash2]

Bismark

I wasn't comparing deployed time. Your question was about cost.

[Could be the last?]

So why doesn't the SARF deploy to FI for 4-months?

How long do the Q crews deploy for?

[Arcanum]

The other thing you chaps need to realise is that the rotary (post Afgh) and F35/F18 guys are going to spend a lot of time at sea - especially the latter as "cats and traps" skills need loads of practice.

I'm curious about this.

Having read PPRrune for a while a common (and reasonable) concern is the lack of flying hours. If there are only a small amount of flying hours per month how many of these hours would be needed just to maintain cat-n-trap currency rather than focussing on the other skills that are required - low-level, CAS, ACM, etc? (Obviously, no matter what the training mission, you've got to get back on the deck at the end)

Along these lines there's an old jibe from the USAF towards the USN about how the USN would be the clear winners in any war providing that it was fought on the basis of being able to land on a carrier.

Given the likelihood that flying hours won't be going up in the future, is it a cost effective use of what flying hours there are to spend them on maintaining cat-n-trap currency?

[FODPlod]

...I have no difficulty accepting that your neighbour's son loves all the time at sea. Nearly all young service personnel I have met love the time away in the beginning. But how long will he love it for? Another 5 years, 10 years, more? People's circumstances change, they get married, they have children and their love of spending time away can often dwindle...

What makes you assume this man is young and single? Ships are manned (and wo-manned) by older married officers, warrant officers and senior rates, too. Perhaps he is living in MQs and saving to buy a house before he leaves the RN?

As for:

...I also suspect that an RN deployment is rather 'cushier' than most 6 month army deployments...Less hazardous maybe but "cushier"? Try telling that to those working 6 on/6 off in defence watches for months on end without the opportunity to take an afternoon off, wander into a McDonalds, kick a football around the square or have a few zeds in the sun. Or to these fellows who are currently spending the best part of ten months at a time submerged in a sardine tin:

http://www.navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/img/cms/11111001ax-5.jpg


This is the Trafalgar Class SSN Turbulent which is currently away for 10 months. When Triumph returns next year, she’ll have been away for 13 of the previous 17 months. Their sister boat Tireless completed a ten-month deployment in the spring.

Sometimes, the differences in the services, and their ethos, are really laid bare.

[Bismark]

Arcanum,

The secret is in the way the USN operate. They complete a full combat work up at Fallon as an air group and then deploy to sea for 6-12 months. Once carrier qualified all flying is conducted "from the sea" so they maintain day and night currency. That is combat continuation training is conducted from the sea not a shore base. They will deploy ashore to a fixed airfield for short periods but the bias is totally towards sea operations rather than vice versa - this is the way the RN FAA operated until the RAF took control of the operational cycle where their ethos was (understandably) to operate from a fixed land base. This will have to change in the future.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Not sure how a thread on (flawed in my opinion as it looks remarkably like we have just up-ranked our Station Commanders) RAF C2 arrangements became a discussion on comparisons on RN vs RAF force structures – but, in for a penny….

The big difference between the 2 services is that most RAF deployed units are away from their day job and routine training. The RN are able to do them mostly in the same time and space when afloat. If we are doing fair comparisons you would have to look at all tasks/commitments, not just those outside the UK.

The real question might be how many RN personnel are deployed today away from their role or training reqt, compared to RAF?

If we are going to use USN comparisons, let’s see some numbers on Carrier Air Groups/Wings vs numbers of Carriers and let’s see some figures on deployed time away vs US based trg.

Arcanum raises a good point (and one that is acknowledged by the USN), a CAW will lose many skills over time on deployment (apart from the ability to land on a heaving deck for which they get very good at) – they get away with it by having another CAW ready to take their place – we will not have that luxury. We will need a different model, because we can’t afford the USN one. That could mean more simulation (including deck landings) and regular UK-based ship-borne training opportunity just off UK shores - it is how we did it with Ark and JFH with bi-annual short deployments for wider collective training and engagment. This will avoid the huge costs of maintaining a semi-permanently deployed asset which will slowly erode tactical skill sets, harmony and resource. Better to keep it on a close tether, accept a slightly longer deployment time, train near home, save money and preserve capacity for when you need it.

I have nothing but respect for the hard working RN sailors – but I can’t help wondering that they are paying the price for an RN hierarchy that is trying to create the illusion (and pressure) for an East of Suez, world-wide Navy, when they have the funding for one that needs to limit its ambition. Truth is, if we declared the real cost of the RN that the Naval Board would like, the conclusion in the next SDSR may very well be to reduce it further and limit its role….Sailors are working harder because they are pawns in a game of brinkmanship on resource and task. I accept that the other 2 services are no different but, as has proved the case in the Army they may have slack to give - the RN can't raise the true cost of personnel and running costs because it would bite in to ship numbers - Catch 22! Hence the need to seek savings from others and their constant carping from their retired grandees (and friendly posters).

[Bismark]

Pug,

Now you've started it!

How many aircrew in JFH were ever fully night deck qualified.....almost none. How many RAF SOs thought they could fly to a deck with no practice and got it wrong?

As far as I am aware there are roughly the same number of CAWs as there are CVNs. The JFK CAW sails with the ship and returns with it, no swapping. The USN look in disbelief at the "hop on, hop off" RAF philosophy. All aircrew lose some currency when deployed away, including the RN rotary chaps. But that is why training opportunities with allies are programmed, flights disembark abroad for GFP etc and they have a swept up deployable training team. The QEC will have at least one F35 sim built into the ship.

The RN E of Suez activity is a result of Govt policy not because they ((the RN) want it. SDSR is a Govt document signed off by the NSC not a military one. It says be expeditionary - no brainer that the RN argues for world-wide deployability. In addition it is much better to train in the region where you may be reqd to fight so you know the people and conditions. No point in practicing ASW in the N Atlantic if the threat is in the Indian Ocean, Gulf and further East. Don't forget the greatest threat is to our sea lines of communication from whence 95% of our oil and goods arrive.

Presumably the 1* Gp system is rusticating to make way for the MoD staffs under CAS to rusticate to HW next year.

Way off thread but now off my chest!

[FODPlod]

...most RAF deployed units are away from their day job and routine training...

Not that I disagree with you but just what is their day job meant to be, then? :)

...The real question might be how many RN personnel are deployed today away from their role or training reqt, compared to RAF?...Applying your definition, I discovered an interesting statistic last month:



Operation VERITAS/HERRICK OSMs (Operational Service Medals) and/or clasps have been issued to 16,714 Naval Service personnel (8,591 Royal Navy and 8,123 Royal Marines) for service in Afghanistan since 11 Sep 2001.

Not bad going for a service which also has naval bases and air stations to run plus a fleet of ships, submarines and aircraft to man, maintain and operate worldwide but only numbers 35,430 (incl Royal Navy & Royal Marines) vice 101,300 for the Army and 40,090 for the RAF. (link (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2011/c2/table205a.php))

Mind you, this is before the forthcoming reduction of 5,000 Naval Service personnel which constitutes a significantly higher proportion than the 5,000 redundancies for the RAF or 7,000 redundancies for the Army.

[cazatou]

Bismark

In the Norwegian Campaign of 1940 the Gladiators of 263 Sqn and the Hurricanes of 46 Sqn landed successfully on HMS Glorious (despite never having done a Deck Landing before) and despite a day of almost continuous combat. The Carrier Captain elected to proceed with a fast (no flying) passage to the UK as a result of which no warning was received of the Proximity of the German Battlecruiser "Scharnhorst" which proceeded to bombard and sink HMS Glorious. Only 2 Pilots from 46 Sqn survived the sinking - none were saved from 263 Sqn.

[teeteringhead]

Bismark
It is interesting that RN PVR rates were always amongst the lowest in the 3 Services ...and .. er .... Bismark They are all pretty low rates. ... so why bring them up in the first place?

Do I hear backpedalling???

[Capt P U G Wash]

Bismark, I think you’ll find you started it in Post #12…

I disagree with all your rebuttals, but let’s leave it at that and return to the thread….

Presumably the 1* Gp system is rusticating to make way for the MoD staffs under CAS to rusticate to HW next year.

The RAF Group system is a mirror to the RN and Army 2* Command structure and provides the 2* Operational Duty Holders under Haddon-Cave principles. I understand that they will not relocate or disband as a result of this move; I think CAS will fit quite easily into the CINC’s office without anyone else needing to move. The move of Group’s 1*s and support staff will cause some difficulties I suggest.


The RAF Group system is already farily lean, because it double hats Duty Holder responsibility with deployable Command (The RN require 2 with a seperate 2* COS Aviation and 2* COMUKMARFOR)



Questions for the RAF changes:

How much will this cost to create new office space on already full stations.

How will they work with the resident Gp Capt Station Commanders.


Where are all these 1*s coming from?



How does this sit with the principle of centralised control, decentralised execution and empowerment to the lowest levels?


How will AOCs function with less staff? They were already the minor element of Air Command with a relatively small staff (less than 15% of Air Command staff costs I think).

Answers on a postcard?

[Capt P U G Wash]

FodPlod (or should I say Navel_Gazer?), it’s a bit lazy to post data copied from Rum Ration, but using your quoted figures:

Excluding the RMs who take their turn magnificently in the HERRICK arms plot, that means an average of 859 RN personnel have been deployed on HERRICK each year, or, assuming they are on 6 month tours, about 430 at any one time. From a regular RN (minus the ~7,500 RMs) that equals less than 1.5% deployed. Doesn’t sound so good now does it?

[SOSL]

Anyone got any good rumours about the future force structure of the RAF?

[Bismark]

Cazatou,

A some what disingenuous statement re 236 and 43 Sqns. The Gladiators were flown onboard by the FAA and then flew off on arrival in Norwegian waters to operate from ashore. The Hurricanes landed on in flat calm conditions with Glorious operating at max chat (30+kts) as the Hurricanes had no tail hook. They too just transited prior to disembarking to Bardufoss.

PUG,

What has COMUKMARFOR got to do with aviation apart from tasking embarked ships flights? COS AV is there purely because there needs to be an aviation 2* (as the "competent" duty holder in the command chain). One could argue that when Adm Zambellas takes office in Jan he could be the "competent" duty holder.

Re working with Gp capt station Cdrs....why can't the 1* be the station cdr like Yeovilton. Presumably the 1*s are coming out of the HQ?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Capt P U G Wash

Surely you're not saying that personnel serving aboard deployed ships do not count as being deployed?

[cazatou]

Bismark

I was referring to the Evacuation from Norway not the arrival prior to the assault on Narvik. 46 and 263 Squadrons operated in support of the attempt to capture Narvik. Both Squadrons operated for 12 days and claimed a total of 37 German Aircraft.

PS King Olaf of Norway was sufficiently impressed to present 46 Squadron with its Standard in 1969.

[CrabInCab]

Bissy,

I can absolutely confirm that the Army does 1 in 5 the same as the RAF (as indeed does 3 CDO Bde), the so called rule 5. I suspect you may be confusing it with a ratio of 1 to 4 which is the same as 1 in 5. Feel free to look at the latest Land Cts plot or indeed any Land Cts plot from the last umpteen years if you don't believe me. The RN do indeed have a quicker rotation in their Harmony rules although I was under the impression it was 1 to 3 (1 in 4) rather than 1 in 3.

[FODPlod]

FodPlod (or should I say Navel_Gazer?), it’s a bit lazy to post data copied from Rum Ration, but using your quoted figures...

As it was my FOI request that gleaned the figures, no accusations of laziness or plagiarism, please. :=

...Excluding the RMs who take their turn magnificently in the HERRICK arms plot, that means an average of 859 RN personnel have been deployed on HERRICK each year, or, assuming they are on 6 month tours, about 430 at any one time. From a regular RN (minus the ~7,500 RMs) that equals less than 1.5% deployed. Doesn’t sound so good now does it?Knowing you by reputation, I can understand your keeness to downplay the achievements of the Naval Service but even over the course of ten years, 16,174 Afghanistan OSMs/clasps for an organisation numbering c.35,000 still constitutes an impressive contribution. The same can even be said for the 8,591 OSMs/clasps among the c.27,000-strong RN component, especially in a 'land war' which is not its core business.

Incidentally, why are you so eager to divorce the RMs from the Naval Service when they are a proud part of it? I also note that your own interpretation does not take into account the many personnel who have deployed more than once (three or four times in many cases, esp Medics, FAA and RMs). Your own 'percentage' statistic is therefore risible whereas my numbers are absolute, i.e. number of medals/clasps issued.

[Capt P U G Wash]

WEBF,
no I do not, but nor should someone criticise a 6 week SAR Det down south as if it was the only thing they did. My point about HERRICK ratios was to dismiss it as a valid argument about deployed ratios.

How many sailors are at sea at any one time anyway. By Bismark's reckoning it must be somewhere near 6,550 to support his 1 in 4 rule. So what is the figure?

[Capt P U G Wash]

Fod Plod,
I was cutting you some slack on numbers, if you count repeaters than the ratio is even less than 1.5%. As for discounting the RM that was because they conform to the Army plot of 1 in 5.

My point about your cut and paste was why not leave it there on an RN rumour site. Your admittance to resorting to FOI requests somewhat compromises you as a nuisance maker (or journo), unless you only use such requests to add to rumour sites.

[Just This Once...]

Afghan medals seems a strange metric. It's 10 years since I qualified for mine and I've no idea how many times I have been back since so I don't think the figures mean very much.

The scars on my liver are a reasonable metric for the FI though.

[Bismark]

PUG,

Its 1 in 3 not 1 in 4. Including RMs it is not too difficult to see about 6000 RN deployed at any one time.

Re your SARF, where else do they deploy apart from the FIs for 6 weeks??? I don't wish to decry the amazing flying they do but when the first PFI study was done about 7 yrs ago there was no operational justification for retention of the SARF. There was then a lot of work done to "operationalise" it by talking about combat SAR and getting SH crews to cycle through the SARF on the basis of taking SAR skills into the front line. The RN case was totally different as all RN SAR crews are drawn from the operational front line where SAR skills are part of the sea-going role.

Way off thread but this is possibly because really no-one gives a T*** about the future structure.

[SASless]

As the "Force" decreases in size and numbers...should not the "structure" flatten as well? In time Wings shall actually be Flights or am I missing something?

[Capt P U G Wash]

Bismark, that may be so ,but no one here gives one either about RN terms and conditions of service. If you can't take a joke......

[Odigron]

Blimey, I go away for a game of golf and come back to a 'we've got more medals than you' stand-off. Another dangerous and unrealistic comparator!

[Herc-u-lease]

I couldn't give a flying fig about which service feels more aggrieved and which metrics we should use to prove who is hardest done by.

what i do care about is how the RAF leadership think modifying a hierarchical force structure by rustication is actually going to improve our operational effectiveness both in peacetime and for conflict.

typical pprune c0ck waving

anyone?

[Odigron]

Herc,
I cannot for the life of me see how rustication (interestingly, auto spelling corrected it to rustic action!)will improve anything. RAF needs to reduce it's top level structures and start allowing those below 1* to take responsiblities.

[Herc-u-lease]

couldn't agree more, I keep seeing more and more apparent responsibility pushed up the chain.

[Capt P U G Wash]

I heartily agree, we have enough trouble with others calling for our demise, without doing it to ourselves. We should be reducing our head count in the HQ by streamlinng not by sending them elsewhere. Most organisations I know would reduce and centralise when faced by resource pressures. We have lost our way and decided to manage rather than lead and command; what we should be doing is commanding with a light touch and trusting our boys and girls in the field to deliver by empowering them, not by adding inflated managment structures above them.

[FODPlod]

Fod Plod,
I was cutting you some slack on numbers, if you count repeaters than the ratio is even less than 1.5%. As for discounting the RM that was because they conform to the Army plot of 1 in 5...

As only one campaign medal is issued per individual, the high incidence of your so-called "repeaters" means that the involvement of Naval Service personnel in Afghanistan has been even higher than the issue of 16,714 OSMs and/or clasps suggests. For example, 3 Cdo Bde has deployed on HERRICK four times since 2001. RMs might well conform to the Army's 1 in 5 for HERRICK but they are also deployed for lengthy periods in between, e.g. this year's COUGAR 11 involving embarked elements of 3 Cdo Bde HQ and 40 Cdo.

...My point about your cut and paste was why not leave it there on an RN rumour site. Your admittance to resorting to FOI requests somewhat compromises you as a nuisance maker (or journo), unless you only use such requests to add to rumour sites.

Just to remind you, it was you who asked "...how many RN personnel are deployed today away from their role or training reqt, compared to RAF?" (http://www.pprune.org/6803731-post42.html). For the example I used in my response, I referred to a primary source, i.e. the result of my FOI request. It was not simply a "cut and paste" from another site.

On a final note, why should asking about the extent of RN participation in Afghanistan "compromise" me? As a naval historian and commentator on naval matters, I prefer to write with factual authority, not revel in my ignorance.

[FODPlod]

P.S. You haven't answered my question yet:



...most RAF deployed units are away from their day job and routine training...Not that I disagree with you but just what is their "day job" meant to be, then? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Odigron]

FODplod,

I'm afraid that I couldn't give you the exact detail of day to day activity undertaken by the members of the RAF, but I would imagine that there is a wide some spectrum of activity depending on ones actual role - the RAF Careers Website does give a little detail on what each trade does -
RAF Careers home - jobs, recruitment and career opportunities in the RAF - RAF Careers (http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/)

I would also suggest that preparing for operations plays a major part in the day to day life of all the services.

[Odigron]

Is there a case to get rid of your Group structure in toto? Could the roles undertaken by the Groups not be subsumed into Air Command. I suspect that there may be a degree of duplication in the current organisation (but don't know this for a fact).

[downsizer]

How will this rustication work with Lossie and Marham for GR4? Or Conz and Leu/Loss for typhoon? Where will the 1* sit then?

[Just This Once...]

The FE 1-stars are moving to their subordinate FHQs so no real impact to the stations without. The stn cdr function will remain at gp capt level at all stations, irrespective of the presence or otherwise of a rusticated 1-star and his (rather smaller) staff.

How it actually works out is any one's guess. Quite a change from when I joined with stn staff at one base, gp staff at another and Strike at yet another with a leviathan of staff at various MoD locations across London.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Fod,
Perhaps you should make more FOI requests about the RAF, it would make you a more informed commentator.

The boys and girls of the RAF have very different jobs to their RN brothers and sisters. Are you suggesting that operating from home base makes their contribution any less valued? SAR, QRA, the Airbridge to operations and constant preparation to maintain the readiness for any unseen operation all shape the size of our force. Your suggestion that less (no) value should be attributed to tasks other than those physically deployed on today of all days is in very bad taste.

Each Service operates differently, suggesting that the RN are more cost effective because they have to be at sea to have an effect is so simplistic, I trust that if you ever make public comment you are more sophisticated than that, but judging by some of the jingoistic comment we have been subjected to in the press I am beginning to think not.

I thought long and hard about replying to your repeated questions in the small hours; today should be a day when we remember all of our service men and women past and present for what they have done and what they continue to do every day, whatever the colour of their cloth.

[whowhenwhy]

Right, so at the moment then we have Gp Capt DDH at a Stn (leaving aside Marham/Lossiemouth type issues) and we have platform Gp Capts at Air. Now we're rusticating out the platform Gp Capts and promoting them whilst giving them DDH responsibilities and effectively making those Gp Capts at Stn OC bogs and drains. Alternatively, we're adopting the FI model with a 1* boss and an OF5 COS, effectively making OC Ops redundant. Unless of course we're finally going to make SO2s lead Sqns and they all come under an OC Ops who's a wing leader???? I sense that this is another jobs for the 2 winged master race initiative....

[Bismark]

www,

Sounds like time to adopt the RN model of station cmd and force cdrs (seperate functions in RN). At least it would obviate the problem whereby the staish can be deployed to ops for 4 months yet leaving the station full of assets with responsibility delegated to a wg cdr - if this can be done then the staish could be a wg cdr in the first place.

[Herc-u-lease]

www,

Sounds like time to adopt the RN model of station cmd and force cdrs (seperate functions in RN). At least it would obviate the problem whereby the staish can be deployed to ops for 4 months yet leaving the station full of assets with responsibility delegated to a wg cdr - if this can be done then the staish could be a wg cdr in the first place.

and i can also do my boss's job when he's away but that doesn't mean it should be relegated to my rank permanently

[alfred_the_great]

and i can also do my boss's job when he's away but that doesn't mean it should be relegated to my rank permanently

Why not..?

[whowhenwhy]

Interesting that having started this thread last week, we get a briefing note today about this very subject. So at the Stn level which model are we having? Gp Capt OC Bogs and Drains or Gp Capt COS (upranking and re-roling the OC Ops post)? Based on the fact that IOC is early 2012 and FOC early 2013 someone should have an answer?

[APG63]

There's a little known annex to QRs that requires the RAF to redesign its structure every seven years. The most important thing is to impose the latest change BEFORE the previous one has fully taken effect.

We fear change!