Manning Undershoot Imminent? [Archive]

Lima Juliet

14th Dec 2014, 00:35

Jayc

Air Cdre and above over manned by 115%. All ranks from Sqn Ldr are also overmanned.

Stats can be quite misleading. There are something like 75 Air Commodores in the RAF (for comparison it is the same in the RN and there are about 160 Brigadiers in the Army). Now your 115% is 11 extra Air Commodores over the 75, making a total of 86. When you take into account the size of our manpower that is 0.03% of our manpower that we are overborne by (an example of how stats can mislead!).

However, you need to consider 2 things:

1. Air Commodores are only as good as their next posting. If they do not get a posting on the Air Rank Appointments List (ARAL) then they get a 'blue letter' telling them they are to retire - directed retirement. So getting rid of 11 is quite easy when you no longer need them!

2. We probably need these extras for now with 1-star jobs in the Middle East (ISAF HQs, EAWs, etc...). Don't forget, for every out of area post you need 2x Air Commodores - 1 on work up and 1 doing the job.

So all in all, old fruit, I don't see the 'shock and horror' of 11 extra Air Commodores that can be switched off in an instant (well about 12 months when you bring in their resettlement).

LJ :ok:

Selatar

14th Dec 2014, 01:07

I brought this up a few months back in the "Wakey wakey manning" thread.

Before discussing the light blue it's interesting to note the army have reached their 82k manning level and are hurtling south past it! Probably the only element of FF2020 that will happen.....

The light blue seem happy to be still shrinking at over 100 a month. Unless recruitment nearly doubles they too will reach the FF2020 figure of 31500 by next April. All of this is from the MOD manning figures before someone shouts security.

It's a complex beast of established posts no longer needed and unestablshed posts that are manned but on the black economy, mixed with the 1000 or so folks that have left and on ressetlement but still on the books and throughput from training. Mannings job is not easy but they are working to a smaller Air Force plan than SDSR 10 direction. Equally, being at or below your 2020 figure in 2015 in time for the defence review is not really stating your case for more people.

just another jocky

14th Dec 2014, 07:06

.....and also Home to Duty payments to them as well.

It's already happening.

Roland Pulfrew

14th Dec 2014, 07:17

So all in all, old fruit, I don't see the 'shock and horror' of 11 extra Air Commodores that can be switched off in an instant (well about 12 months when you bring in their resettlement).

Don't forget it doesn't actually take much to change that tiny percentage for the worse very easily. Rumour doing the rounds in big building in London last week was 6 air cdres have PVR'd in the last few weeks! If they are some of your best, one has to ask whether they jumped before they were pushed or whether they have no faith in the future of the RAF?

The manning shortfall is even more worrying when you look at some of the other 'levers' being employed - transfer 200-ish previously aircrew annotated posts to 'any' - which of course means if you are posted in to one of them as aircrew, your "flying pay" clock starts ticking - and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).

jayc530

14th Dec 2014, 07:25

Leon,

It's 115%! Whether it's 11 or not, it's hardly leading by example and the excuse that the army and navy have equal numbers is tiresome. Sqn Ldr upwards are all over manned, how can this be allowed to happen?

In the same paper of statistics, manning levels in all but a few ranks and trades is in deficit.

But hey, as long as everything is rosey at the top who cares.

BEagle

14th Dec 2014, 07:51

Roland Pulfrew wrote: ....and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).

What problems would those be? Finding enough people prepared to take the extension? Or something else?

Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem....

golamv

14th Dec 2014, 09:19

BEagle posted:
"Roland Pulfrew wrote: Quote:
....and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).
What problems would those be? Finding enough people prepared to take the extension? Or something else?

Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem.... "

I am in a situation where I wish to sign on past the age off 55, to enable me to complete 30 years service (late joiner, ground trade), and I was informed several months ago that this would be possible under the revised rules of the NEM.
The announcement was due to be made in Oct but, as is the norm, this has been delayed and the rules regarding Chf Techs (does not affect me) being allowed to sign on past 30 years service (which was due to be announced first) has not yet been released. Looks like it will be too late for me as my exit date is early next year.....

All of this info can be found on the www, so no opsec issues here:

OR (Ground Trades – less exceptions below)

• Initial engagement of 12 yrs.

• Offer EDP (20/40) on promotion to Cpl.

• Offer LOS 30 on promotion to Sgt.

• Offer LOS 32 on promotion to Chf Tech.

• Offer LOS 35 on promotion to FS and WO.

• Offer Mandated End Of Service (MEOS) to age 60, based on

Service need.

jayc530

14th Dec 2014, 09:29

golamv,

An IBN was released last week detailing this issue.

camelspyyder

14th Dec 2014, 09:37

Geardown107:

Well, WSOps of all specialisations are flush still, esp Aco and EW.

I don't think so - there were over 50 PVR in the 12 months after tranche 2, and I get the impression there is a new flood of PVR /NGR imminent from the ISTAR fleets right now. Combined with no recruiting or training being done for over 4 years, soon we'll be hooking any surplus from Brize /Benson /Odiham and turning them into siggies.

MaroonMan4

14th Dec 2014, 10:21

I would suggest that the (future) issue is not going to be purely numbers, but the quality, and most importantly of all the experience of the individuals leaving.

With so much experience gained over the last 20 years in both operations and joint/coalition staff appointments by our personnel, it is those experienced personnel that I see moving onto pastures new. Not only weiry of constant deployments, many (of all ranks) have just had enough of the constant eroding of their terms and conditions (and that is without the full details of NEM known, and the Chancellor's renewed efforts to again review the AFPS in the next Parliament), from what I see as the brightest and best easily sliding across into civvie street. The numbers of people required by the MoD /Treasury may have reduced, but the number of tasks and workload has not, resulting in those left behind invariably doing 2-3 jobs in one job title. Interestingly those that I witnessed leave do not always go into the airlines/rotary industry (one returned to the station only 5 months after leaving with a property portfolio that was maintaining a very nice life style, and another had invested in a well known franchise that had also improved his family's quality of life).

As I approach the Terminal Fix in my career, bound only really by pension and some misguided loyalty to Queen and Country, I look around and I either see a lot of new keen enthusiastic youth, or a disillusioned youth a few years in already planning their exit strategy, or people like me that are either too idle or not bright enough to actually make the jump.

Sadly what I have witnessed is those experienced personnel left, counting down the pension or CEA clock until they leave have lost all of the ethos, enthusiasm and loyalty with which we were so proud. With the belief that the MoD no longer values them, many appear to view their work place as purely a job, where they are always on the look out for an early stack, or dodging work/duties-its not like the city or the private sector where there are often bonuses or they are bound by contracts that include TOIL. No one gives theses older experienced personnel work beyond the bare minimum as they know it will be done with minimum effort, need constant supervision and probably not be on time.

This sets a very poor example to the youth, initially eager and keen, who invariably get lemoned with the work that the more experienced personnel should be getting. FTRS has been seen to make this worse in some places as some view themselves as pseudo civvies service providers with a contract that that they believe prevents them from being involved in the less appealing aspects of service life.

I find it interesting to note that there is much less whinging on Prune these days as the majority of these posters have got the message, if you don't like it then leave. The manners actually have a relatively easy job making the numbers fit the spreadsheets and data bases.

I personally believe that the silent threat though is actually capturing exactly what levels of skills and experience (not just the qualification) of the VO. It may only be a small %, but if that small % is either the most talented or most experienced in their field of expertise then there is a fall (tactical failure?) waiting to happen as the political assumptions of SDSR 10 and FF2020 already seem so out of date.

The B Word

14th Dec 2014, 10:33

FTRS has been seen to make this worse in some places as some view themselves as pseudo civvies service providers with a contract that prevents them from being involved in the less appealing aspects of service life.

Oh, really? I spent Christmas and New Year's Eve doing stuff in support of the fire strike, spent some time in Berkshire putting sand in sand bags and have been duty staff on the station as part of the normal out-of-hours manning requirement. I am also not alone with other FTRS mates on the same station.

Just Another Jockey - FTRS do not get HTD at present, whereas all other Reserves do. There are a very select few in London or those with a very special case through Manning that get it.

The B Word

MaroonMan4

14th Dec 2014, 11:42

B Word,

Apologies if offence caused-not my intent, just a personal observation.

I chose my language carefully by using words like 'some' and 'believe'.

I certainly recognise that in some areas FTRS provides the continuity and experience that appears to be fading from the majority of all 3 Services and is realistically the only solution, but sadly I have also witnessed some that view FTRS as a retirement job where they do not have to get involved with the less appealing aspects of service life or areas that they believe is beyond their 'contract'. Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments.

I most certainly would not tarnish all with the same brush.

The B Word

14th Dec 2014, 13:27

MM4

Thanks matey - yes, I can see your 'some' now that my my red mist has subsided! :ok:

On the deployability - any FTRS can choose to deploy at any time (I did this recently). However, as Home Commitment don't get X-factor in their pay (which for me is £7.5k per annum) then the voluntary ability to commit to deployment is welcome. However, don't forget that it is a shortish term contract and so if the FTRS person doesn't volunteer occasionally then the chain of command may be unlikely to renew. Those on Limited Commitment can deploy up to 21 days at a time and up to max of 35 days per annum total (again they can volunteer for more and I know one of the RAFRLOs was well over his 35 days last year). Limited Commitment get 1/2 X-Factor. Full Commitment is the same as a Regular and gets full X-Factor of 14.5%.

As ever, there are wakners in every branch, specialisation or commitment type, but I think you got it spot on - FTRS gives back continuity and experience, which is something that has been missing recently.

B Word :ok:

The Nip

14th Dec 2014, 13:40

MM4,

Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments

With respect, FTRS don't choose not to deploy. This is decided by the job spec.

Home commitment = no deployment
Limited. = limited days
Full commitment. = deployable.

Remembering that on HC you are not entitled to any med, dent, housing, etc it would make it difficult to deploy someone who you have no access to their med records.

MaroonMan4

14th Dec 2014, 14:43

TN,

For clarity, my point was that FTRS is not the panacea to the MoD's directive to reduce its numbers and then try and balance the books by re-employing the same people on different (cheaper) contracts, either as a Reserve or FTRS.

Not to get lost in the noise is the key point that it is the experience that is/will be missed, not necessarily the pure numbers count.

If FTRS, in any shape or form, manages to mitigate that experience deficit then I personally am for it, but the policy may have a potential long term affect on those left behind and they either become a VO statistic or lose all sense of ethos, loyalty and pride and view it as a job.

The moment one views the Armed Forces as just another job then I fear that there will be trouble ahead, especially if the future situation looks to get worse than better for Service Personnel. If not more with less, it looks as though we will be doing the same, but with less.

Biggus

14th Dec 2014, 17:10

First of all I'm not a Tory....

Having got that out of the way, Cable is a politician, and so if his lips are moving....

Also an election is not far away, and the Liberals are painting themselves as having been the "..voice of restraint..." against the evil Tories as a way of separating themselves and preserving their share of the vote.

Maybe there're right. Personally I would look for more impartial information, somewhere like here:

UK Government spending ? real and as % of GDP | Economics Help (http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/)

The Tories want to reduce government spending as a percentage of GDP, in order to reduce debt. But the sort of figures they are talking about is the % of GDP that the government spent 1999/2000/2001 - were we really that badly off then as a society?

All the parties admit that spending will have to be reduced, it's just how much and how quickly that they argue about.

Personally I wouldn't consider the defence budget to be any safer in the hands of Labour or the Liberals, and especially a Labour/SNP coalition!

Still, vote for who you want, but try to find some solid facts beyond politicians soundbites!!

Fox3WheresMyBanana

14th Dec 2014, 17:18

And if everybody votes UKIP, you'll get UKIP, not Labour.

langleybaston

14th Dec 2014, 17:48

I fear that my wife is not a farage bride.

MaroonMan4

14th Dec 2014, 18:26

I get it totally - we have a deficit that we have to reduce and the majority of the current British population want to ring fence health and education, which will squeeze other departments.

But if politically and financially we have to bite the bullet with a reduction in the Defence budget then politically we should also accept that we cannot afford the Defence roles and tasks that we currently have and the short notice tasks we suddenly sign up for. If we as a nation really are going to make further cuts and ignore what is going on the world then we really will have one option but to become an armed gendarmerie for wars of national survival and concentrate on protecting our borders and internal security only.

The politicians cannot have it all and the British public cannot suddenly look to its Armed Forces in a time of need after years of cuts and belief that there is no requirement to have international interests requiring well trained/motivated, rapidly deployable and high readiness forces. Both politicians and British public alike should not be surprised that on the current trajectory it is likely that there will be a future military failure. When Helmand went awry after some early strategic mistakes, eventually the MoD managed to realise and recover the situation. When/if it goes wrong in the future I do not see any depth, resilience, resourced sustainment to enable a similar recovery/re-inforcement/reserve.

A decision needs to be made otherwise I fear another Neville Chamberlain moment in history, but in a multi-cultural, multi-faith, and multi-faceted UK it will be interesting if we could pull off the Blitz mentality and personal sacrifice for any potential war effort for national survival while a proper (Churchillian) leader stepped up to the plate - heaven forbid if it was required.

Melchett01

14th Dec 2014, 18:40

And just what is the Conservative's policy on defence? I only ask because, and this might just be me being a bit thick or short sighted (both a very realistic possibility these days!), for a party that thinks the defence should be the first priority of government ....

Actually scrap that past point. I think I've answered my own question. On re-reading his speech to the party faithful at the last conference, I thought Mr Fallon had said Defending the country was the first duty of government. He didn't; he said "the first duty of government is to keep Britain safe". And that is most definitely not the same as defending the country being the first duty of government. Defending your home from intruders would be claymores on the front lawn, HMGs mounted on a watchtower overlooking the back fence, big dogs with sharp teeth and a car that explodes if someone tries to pinch it. Keeping your home safe would be making sure the roof doesn't leek, that your little ones don't put the cat in the washer for fun or stick their fingers in the plug sockets, that aunt Mavis doesn't trip over the loose carpet on the landing. Defence and safety, two very different things.

So now I've cleared that up in my own mind, just what EXACTLY is the Conservative policy on defence? I looked and I've looked and I can't find it anywhere (this is probably me being thick). All I can see when I go to the Conservative's website is cutting the deficit. That might be part of keeping us safe, after all we are fortunate enough to have "Prime Minister who puts defence at the top of his priorities. And a Chancellor who understands that strong defence depends on a strong economy." Lucky us.

And then I looked at Conservativehome.com, allegedly the home of Conservatism. The closest I could find to a statement on the Conservative Defence policy was an article slamming the Labour Shadow Defence Secretaries since 2010.

Not to worry I thought, maybe it's still in draft format, what with an election looming - they're titivating it. So I had a look at their Euro election manifesto as a pointer to what might be in their next big manifesto. Errrrrrrrrr. Found it. Page 24 of 28, tucked away just behind farming, fishing and agricultural policy. The key points in the first paragraph on security - note not defence - is on mass migration, poverty and spreading democracy.

I was starting to worry by now. An election round the corner but no hint of any sort of policy put out there to say how they planned to keep us safe and secure for the next 5 years. So I read Mr Fallon's conference speech again in case I'd missed something. Apparently not.

It seems Mr Fallon is keen to take credit for the delivery of a more agile armed forces with lots of hard working reserves (apparently citizens twice over) who will get a new decoration for 10 years service and for fixing the defence budget which means they can spend £164 billion over the next 10 years. Although spent it on what he doesn't say - people, pay, paper clips, hugely wasteful contracts that don't deliver what we need on time? Your guess is as good as mine. But fear not, all is not lost. Mr Fallon is keen to trumpet 7 new hunter killers for the RN, more new fighters, surveillance aircraft and new transport planes for the RAF and 600 new Scout vehicles for the Army.

Erm, sorry to be a pain Mr Fallon, but weren't they nearly all pretty much squared away before your time? In fact how many of those programmes were squared away whilst 'call me Dave' was still campaigning for his seat in Parliament back in 2001? Given all this Mr Fallon, just what is the plan for Defence? I mean you do have one don't you???? And I mean other than pissing everybody off so they leave and then snatching people from the jaws of despair by employing them on the Defence equivalent of a zero hours contract i.e. You want something for nothing.

After all this, I came to the conclusion that Defence is royally screwed and that to get anywhere in the Armed Forces of tomorrow I realistically need to be a Reservist working in J8 Finance. Only then will I have a voice and a role that might actually mean something.

The storm clouds are gathering, and given the current state of the world I have a horrible feeling that Winston's gathering storm could well look like a light spring breeze by comparison if we're not careful.

Lima Juliet

14th Dec 2014, 18:58

Crikey, all this vitriol on FTRS!

Take a look at the numbers in the data at the link in my first post. If you look at "Table 4 - Royal Air Force - Trained and untrained strength of all Regular, Full time and Reserve, Service personnel" you will see that FTRS make up just 790 personnel - 210 RAuxAF and 580 Regular Reserve. 790 personnel are around just 2% of the current strength of the RAF and only 260 of these are the non-deployable Home Commitment (HC) which is less than 1%. Like the B Word I was on 'stag' for the fire strikes with a Chf Tech and the local RAFRLO - all 3 of us FTRS working over the Christmas holidays alongside a whole bunch of guys in Air Cmd and SJC(UK) that were also FTRS. I also led a bunch of guys doing sandbagging in Windsor during the floods. So tell me, how is this really going to "tighten the circle of pain" for you?!! You would have been more than welcome to take my Christmas/New Year 'stag' and then I, and the rest of my "mongrels", could loaf about at home with our families!

May I suggest that if you can't take deployments anymore then fill one of the FTRS(HC) posts that are so very hard to fill, with most being advertised twice over a 8 month period until someone suitable comes along? We are still a voluntary organisation, the last time I looked...:ugh:

LJ

minigundiplomat

15th Dec 2014, 15:41

Melchett,

I fear the conservative defence policy is to provide whatever capability it is possible to deliver, given the starting number provided by HM Treasury divided by competing single service arguments and multiplied by the square root of the media campaigning on the issue.

I hope that answers your question.

snippy

15th Dec 2014, 19:23

:D well said LJ:D

From a FTRS (HC) person, who has done numerous dets, courses, etc as a reservist and displays considerable more commitment to my job than a large number of the regulars who I work alongside.........

VinRouge

15th Dec 2014, 19:33

Probably down to said colleagues having their pensions raped whilst reservists typically will have a 75 windfall...

snippy

15th Dec 2014, 19:38

VR...I'm in a better position to comment on them than you are...and I have never met a bigger bunch of lazy bar stewards in 36 years of service...and I've met a few..

MaroonMan4

16th Dec 2014, 09:49

Please let's not let this thread degenerate into a Reserve/FTRS versus full timer slagging contest.

As I have said the elephant in the room for the Treasury and MoD when they mutually high five each other on achieving the 'numbers' is the deficit in military experience, corporate knowledge, often gained after many years loyal (operational) service and some very expensive courses.

This includes all ranks from the starred, down to a Cpl I believe, even lower in some trades where niche skill sets are required.

Yes, FTRS and Reserves are mitigating this experience deficit short term with what appears a cheaper and more flexible option to deliver the same effect (in some cases). However, the clock is ticking for those experienced ones left as they count down their pension or wait for kids to finish their schooling.

But with pensions becoming significantly less of a pull factor, continued erosion of terms and conditions, all combined with extra work load as the loss of physical numbers has not been balanced with a reduction in workload (affecting quality and family life), then we will be left hoping that in time of need that the Reserves and FTRS will deploy because there will be very few genuine, experienced, loyal personnel left.

Where as I admit I am short finals for my pension, so it would be mad for me to leave, and I still have pride in what I do (more so now on a local scale, rather than the old days of when I was proud of everything my uniform stood for).

But I have to agree with snippy and my word there are SOME seriously experienced guys that have just lost the whole ethos, loyalty, pride and their fighting spirit-becoming grey men that do very little but just contribute to the manning stats (SQEP and other qualifications). They might have the qualification, but they actually do the bare minimum and view it as 9-5 as far possible, or try and negotiate a shift pattern that ensures a 40 hour week (and in some cases a lot less). Adding absolutely no value whatsoever in mentoring, leadership or really caring about the organisation/team they work for.

This bunch will eventually go on retirement, but as I have alluded to the next generation of potential experience (the young guys, one or 2 tours in) are already planning their exit strategies as there are absolutely no pull factors to keep them in, with many more push factors, both now and about to occur in the next 5 years.

The Reserves/FTRS will provide the first field dressing for this haemorrhaging wound, but it will not provide the cure, and I am not too sure if it will even bridge the golden hour until it is recognised that a long term (strategic!) fix is required.

I suppose we could always go down the US model and if an individual was warned off for a Det/Op they couldn't PVR/VO, and then 3 weeks before the end of their tour warn them off for another one in 18 months time to handcuff them for as long as the manners needed.

Or recognise that we are losing people after tours, so let's just extend tour lengths and really squeeze the juice out of them and their families before they go.

The manning levers available are endless.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

16th Dec 2014, 14:52

Defeated militarily again.

Selatar

16th Dec 2014, 16:19

Geardown: I obviously should have been an accountant but the stats seem to show circa 270 folks leaving every month of which half are PVRs. Snag is only 150 per month are joining. Noting a circa 3 month lag in the stats.

Easy to fix with more intake potentially. Retaining SQEP much harder. Also I should imagine ups and downs in recruiting will cause troughs and peaks (mostly troughs) of SQEP in years to come.

snippy

16th Dec 2014, 16:52

Maroonman4..pretty much a nail/head comment:D

Lima Juliet

16th Dec 2014, 17:55

Team of civvies?

Yup, apparently so...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-reform-unit-starts-work

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-reform-an-independent-report-into-the-structure-and-management-of-the-ministry-of-defence--2

Working well, isn't it? Good job that some of these consultants aren't being paid between £1500-£3000 per day, then...allegedly! :cool:

LJ

jayc530

16th Dec 2014, 18:05

Levene ref 11a.
The Department should reduce the size of the senior cadre of Defence
and the management levels below it. To enable this, the Department
should review all non-front line military posts from OF5 (Captain / Colonel
/ Group Captain) and civilian posts from Band B (Grade 7), to determine
the need for the post, whether it needs to be civilian or military, and
optimum management structures.

This has clearly not been implemented despite stating The Liability Review complete in Apr 13.

Courtney Mil

16th Dec 2014, 18:30

please be quiet if you have no solution fella.

...or unless you simply want to express an opinion, ask a question, comment on another post or anything people do here. No one here is under any requirement to fix the MoD's manning nightmare, but plenty are posting excellent, informative and informed thoughts. Thank you for that.

Selatar

16th Dec 2014, 18:38

I think egdg is shouting at me with those six exclamation marks.

Of course retention is critical and it is here where much of the issue lies, especially loosing too many of the wrong people. But people do leave, 10% a year give or take, it's always been thus. So, ensuring you recruit the right quality and quantity of people must happen. The scores for entry have been dropped in the past and that's not good, perhaps that's when egdg joined?

internationalplayboy

16th Dec 2014, 19:06

long time lurker, first time poster. for those of you that are no longer serving, are significantly above the "coal face" or are otherwise on the periphery I would like to contribute my two penneth... things have never been so bad morale-wise. and not in the "another weekend sdo" "but I've never really wanted to do the c course" or "shouldn't we get paid more" way they have ever been. the rot has truly set in spurred on in my opinion by widespread contractorisation (and its work to rule offshoots), worsening and lengthening deployments, non-optional fundamental changes to return of service and chronic fear of budgets, risk aversion and political correctness in senior officers. make absolutely no bones about it - with very, very, few exceptions everyone in the jo cadre has considered, if not planned, an exit strategy. in my opinion it is about one full tour away from collapse. the litmus test for me is the number of sqn uncles/pa spiners/3rd & 4th tourists packing up shop with very little notice in the very recent past having been tipped over the edge by things that are, in isolation, minor but are the proverbial straw to the camel's back. when young(ish) fg offs and flt lts see these guys check out via the junta office they start wondering whether they want to be in that position in 20 years time or whether one of the, now numerous, alternatives are a better answer.

MaroonMan4

16th Dec 2014, 19:39

Thanks LJ,

Really informative, thank you for the links. As a JHC wokka mate, under Army TLB I found the whole JFC/enabling chapter very interesting, but with regards to this thread then Para 13 - People was worth a read on what this body of wisdom recommended a few years ago. Notably the paragraph copied below on specialist functional areas:

d. Defence should place greater emphasis on recruiting or developing people with the right skills and expertise, particularly in professional or more specialist functional areas.

It is not an ego trip when I genuinely believe that those involved with aviation are professional and specialised, both operators and those required to fly a desk.

At the risk of asking a rhetorical question, the obvious question is why this pretty simple recommendation has not only been ignored in the air environment, but the original issue identified appears to be exasperated?

Selatar,

You miss the point my friend - of course if a VO rate of say less than 15-10% then decision makers will not be that concerned. Even if in professional and specialist areas the VO rate is currently below the manning trigger levels, there appears absolutely no recognition that in the next 5 years the numbers may look absolutely fine, but the experience levels and true definition of SQEP will not. Why should those currently involved in manning worry about the next 5 years as they will be onto their next posting, and as long as they keep day to day business ticking along then not only are they very busy themselves, but also understandable if they don't put their head above the parapets or attempt to quantify exactly what the issue is/will be and more importantly how to resolve long term to avoid future 'boom and bust' manning levels and requirements.

As long as everyone is aware of this risk, then I am sure SQEP matrices and posting requirements, qualifications and experience can all be compromised to ensure a bum in cockpit or at a desk. Not tieing staff posts to aviators is a good example of where the 'E' of SQEP as non aviators is missing 'mitigated' by their Service 'air awareness' or having completed induction training or a specialised course prior to assuming the role.

But the MAA cannot then bleat about its concerns of lack of SQEP or we do experience military failure, procurement and/or airworthiness errors.

No such thing as a free lunch, you don't get something for nothing, you reap what you sow and all the other cliches out there!

alfred_the_great

16th Dec 2014, 20:44

If anyone cares, Manning is the single biggest factor to the 3 Service Boards and the Defence Board, and they are working hard to fix it. What may, or may not, be palatable to the general audience is that the fix isn't going back to the way we did things before.

MaroonMan4

16th Dec 2014, 21:02

Thanks Alfred,

Always appreciate your top level view.

So go on then, if all of our gumpf on this thread is pure hot air is acknowledged, what is the Defence Board's future solution looking like (and please don't say NEM and AFPS 18).

We are smaller now, we are broke and future budget cuts inevitable - I totally get it, but how does the DB intend to hang onto its experience, highly trained people and still deliver motivated, high readiness capability with a genuine Service ethos.

Lots of press releases on shiney new equipment and procurements, but how is this new kit going to operated effectively and safely? More regulation? Less mission command? Less appetite for operational risk - as long as numbers/recruiting and training pipelines are maintained - all viable options, but I fear military capability/Whole Force Concept will be reduced or end in failure.

Or is there another plan to mitigate this loss of experience over the coming years?

Roland Pulfrew

16th Dec 2014, 21:33

What may, or may not, be palatable to the general audience is that the fix isn't going back to the way we did things before.

And therein lies one of the problems. If the seniors do not understand, or care, how hard people are working, for constantly declining TaCOS, with gapped posts and an attitude of just do more with less, but without the perks, then no-one should be surprised that HM Forces are in a terminal decline. It is a simple fact that regular manpower across all 3 armed forces needs to be going up not down.

alfred_the_great

16th Dec 2014, 21:34

MM4 - I hold no brief for the DB, nor do I know the fine detail on every single proposed measure. Feel free to ask CAS.

MaroonMan4

17th Dec 2014, 09:15

You surprise me Alfred!

Many of your posts provide an insight into 'the big picture' (which even I recognise there is) at the 'top of the shop'.

We both know asking CAS during one of his get togethers/'informal' chats with his guys will not get anywhere near the reality of what the Defence Board is really talking about and planning.

MaroonMan4

17th Dec 2014, 11:53

Good to see today's PMQs seeing questions posed on the Armed Forces:

12:19 Armed forces
We are now onto questions from backbenchers. Tory Richard Drax urges a future Conservative government not to make any further cuts to the armed forces. The PM says the UK is spending 2% of its GDP on defence and will spend £160bn on new equipment in the next decade.

Not so good to see that the perception is that cuts equate to Armed Forces equipment and not to TACOS, working conditions and quality of life of its people that will operate and direct this equipment.

Big Pistons Forever

17th Dec 2014, 18:31

The issues that are being discussed in this thread apply to all Western Militaries. All of the issues around manning are a symptom of the bigger problem, that is a widening commitment vs capability gap.

Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks.

Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due......

Big Pistons Forever

17th Dec 2014, 18:32

The issues that are being discussed in this thread apply to all Western Militaries. All of the issues around manning are a symptom of the bigger problem, that is a widening commitment vs capability gap.

Senior leaders of all services have aggressively pursued a strategy of "do more with less" but that is nearing it's practicable limits. The reality for all the middle level powers is that it is becoming impossible to maintain all of the legacy capabilities and decisions need to made about what current capabilities are no longer affordable and must be jettisoned. By that I mean getting out of the big ticket items, not just dropping ancillary tasks.

Unfortunately no senior leader wants to dismantle the organization he spent a lifetime working to lead. This coupled with the willful ignorance of the political leaders, who want us to respond to anything, but won't acknowledge the true cost, means that the it is very tempting for current military leaders to mortgage the future knowing someone else will have deal with fallout when the bills inevitably come due......

Fox3WheresMyBanana

17th Dec 2014, 18:40

but that is nearing it's practicable limits.

Nope. It's well past those.
I recall a Paratroop Colonel in 2002 saying during a discussion on when it was going to change "We're going to have to lose a couple of wars".

Well, we've lost two, and still no change.

alfred_the_great

17th Dec 2014, 18:57

MM4 - I wasn't being glib. First has been pretty blunt about the state of the RN Manning challenge, he also taken multiple questions on his latest tours of the dockyards etc about what he's doing about it. Z is a pretty positive chap, and will always accentuate the positives, but there also needs to a recognition that the old way isn't necessary the best way. As an example, the majority of the RN leaves after about 5 years; how on earth have come up with a training system that takes 10+ years to deliver an engineer? Why is it we are so inconsistent with training paths, and where are the silos based? Is there utility in taking a French system for nuclear engineers, where regardless of where you work (SSN, CdG or power station), you are employed by the state, and where we can give you shore drafts with some stability but keeping you current?

There is also something about Leadership, and accepting that we are where we are, but sometimes you just need to 'knife and fork your way through something'. Don't get me wrong, most of the NavSec (and 2SL himself) area probably need to be sacked, but the RN is expanding for the first time since WW2.

What needs to be cut - ruthlessly - is the OF5 buggers muddle, blurring the line between First's clear direction and able/willing sailors who want to crack on and do their jobs. There is far too much consent and evade, 'side-con' and working group-itis at the moment.

BEagle

17th Dec 2014, 19:12

internationalplayboy, welcome to the PPRuNe virtual crewrrom and thanks for your 'coal face' gen.

All I can say is, what a bl**dy shame. Regrettably, I can no longer recommend to anyone's youngsters, no matter how enthusiastic they might be, that it'd be worth joining today's RAF.

:mad:

Loveditandmovedon

18th Dec 2014, 07:49

Hello all- casual observer for many years!

Beagle- Why be a dream stealer? We all heard the stories while we were young and aspiring about how things were not as good as they used to be and my overriding memory was of the many, many nay sayers both mil, ex-mil, and civilian. Did it stop me? No. It made it feel like running through treacle though!
Surely it is now our role to encourage the passion in the next generation in the knowledge that we understand the essence if not the detail of how things will be for them in the current and future military.

Any words of discouragement would be based on our paradigm, not theirs, and it is not fair to be the wet blanket when we should be the ones making their eyes sparkle as we describe our own journey.

For me it was all about the flying and there are few places anyone can experience the type of flying we did than in the RAF. I'm pretty sure that many aspiring pilots will feel the same. Somehow I feel that the length that people will serve will reduce significantly though.

Lima Juliet

18th Dec 2014, 18:14

Somehow I feel that the length that people will serve will reduce significantly though

Which is what they want - less pensions to pay out until age 65+...:cool:

LJ

alfred_the_great

18th Dec 2014, 19:49

Apart from the fact the majority of people who have served in the Armed Forces leave at or around the 5 year point.

Lima Juliet

18th Dec 2014, 20:48

Alfred

I agree with your fact in part. Yes, 64% of personnel leave around their 3-9 year point, but it is the costly 20% that leave around their 16-24 year immediate pension point that I suggest is being targetted. The very few that go the full way to 55 (soon to be 60) number less than 2%.

There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point. So in the spirit of the greatest conspiracy theories, it is suggested that the perceived erosion of terms and conditions has been done in a targetted manner in order to reduce the pension burden. :cool:

"Get 'em in while they're keen, use them while they're young and then get 'em out before they cost too much" - sounds like a manning strategy to me! :ok:

LJ

Marly Lite

18th Dec 2014, 21:57

There are only HUGE savings to be made if it costs little to train your pers. This is generally not the case for technical forces of the modern era.

False economy. "Different budget" springs to mind.

jayc530

19th Dec 2014, 06:15

But the NEM is not about saving money. Really?

Lima Juliet

19th Dec 2014, 06:29

Marly

But if you're going to lose them at 16-24 years anyway and if you make things so bad that the initial enthusiasm wanes at 12-15 years then that could be the strategy? Yes, the churn has happened slightly earlier.

Also, don't forget that those on 16 year AFPS75 pensions are dwindling fast - the last will be past that point in 2020. So holding out for 18, 20 and 22 will be required for an early departure payment.

This is complete guess-work on my part, but just like NEM not being a cost-saving exercise, it does all seem to point to a strategy that saves money in the longer term.

LJ

gr4techie

19th Dec 2014, 09:06

I agree with your fact in part. Yes, 64% of personnel leave around their 3-9 year point, but it is the costly 20% that leave around their 16-24 year immediate pension point that I suggest is being targetted. The very few that go the full way to 55 (soon to be 60) number less than 2%.
There are HUGE savings to be had if you reduce the number that make an immediate pension point or early departure point.

But (in the aircraft techie world) the savings is offset by the loss of suitably qualified and experienced personnel.

A kid straight out of school won't have the experience, skill set, knowledge and more importantly these days... the auths to get an ac serviceable when you need it. Bear in mind when kids leave Cosford they're still not auth'd / qualified, especially to work on Typhoon.
It's the difference between spending all night looking at a fault, chasing your tail and the ac still U/S after the shift has ended and an experienced guy having seen the fault before and knows how best to fix it.

golamv

19th Dec 2014, 10:58

Late reply to jayc530:

Thanks for the info on the IBN (64?).

I have read through this and also spoken to PSF, it appears that things have been delayed (no surprise there) and that the offers for an additional 2 years service will be going out in Feb 15 and I am out in Jan 15..... So I will not be in the time frame- a bit annoying as I feel that I still have a lot of experience and knowledge to offer the Service.

But, c'est la vie.

alfred_the_great

19th Dec 2014, 18:59

I think there is another way to look at this: don't invest your training in those who will leave at the 5 year point. If someone has stayed in past there, they become part of a "long tail" that heads to 20+ years. Therefore start the investment (i.e. the serious stuff) at year 6, with an associated ROS/inducement factor.

snippy

19th Dec 2014, 19:30

The RAF techies who received their llicences on Future Tanker were obliged to stay in for five years after they gained them......that five year point is nearly up.....The figures for how many bang out from that initial lot will make interesting reading. ...

Lima Juliet

20th Dec 2014, 18:20

From a flyer on the latest of the Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review:

The SDSR 10 established a future RAF front-line smaller, but more capable,
than the RAF of 2010. This means that in the 2020s and beyond there will not be enough experienced officer aircrew available to fill all of the ground jobs that they have historically filled. The Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review (OASR) examined, in consultation with job holders and the non-flying Branch Sponsors, how many and which ground jobs the reduced number of Regular officer aircrew could fill in the future. The Review recommended that the other jobs be transferred to either a non-flying Branch or the Reserves. The Air Force Board Standing Committee has agreed that appropriate jobs, across all ranks up to
Gp Capt, should slowly be transferred to non-flying Branches in order to keep the Flying Branch ‘balanced’ as its strength declines. This could mean that the non-flying Branches could have to recruit and train more junior officers in order to take-on these jobs in the future. A further review of which Flying Branch posts, both flying and ground, could be transferred to the Reserves or deleted will be conducted in 2015.

More recent OASR work has identified that the number of pilots and WSO’s being trained is insufficient to provide experienced junior-officer aircrew to fill some of the non front-line flying jobs such as flying instructors and loan-service aircrew. In particular, a shortage of flying instructors on flying training and operational conversion units could limit aircrew training and front-line manning, a vicious circle which we must break. Moreover there is a risk that the reduced number
of junior officer pilots and WSO’s could restrict the RAF’s ability to expand or to extend its front-line flying capabilities at short notice. Consequently, the need for aircrew to fill non front-line posts is being reviewed to ensure that appropriate priority is focused on filling the front-line flying posts. The Flying Branch is facing significant challenges; Air Sec’s team is focussed on ensuring that the RAF has a capable and resilient Flying Branch fit for the future.

Standby for some more FTRS posts for aircrew in the New Year then...

LJ

iRaven

20th Dec 2014, 18:45

The Air Force Board Standing Committee has agreed that appropriate jobs, across all ranks up to Gp Capt, should slowly be transferred to non-flying Branches in order to keep the Flying Branch ‘balanced’ as its strength declines.

This could mean that the non-flying Branches could have to recruit and train more junior officers in order to take-on these jobs in the future

So let's get this right we're going to recruit MORE non-flyers to fill the flying-related jobs. Is it time to become the Royal Force and dispense with 'Air' altogether? Lord Trenchard must be turning in his grave at this latest madness! :ugh:

iRaven

Onceapilot

20th Dec 2014, 18:49

Leon, that carp reads as though the RAF is just contracting by 10% from 1970 levels.
God help us all!

OAP

MaroonMan4

20th Dec 2014, 19:58

Oh deary me,

How sad. What am I missing? What don't our airships get? Don't they recognise that those in aviation need the non-frontline jobs for a rest, not back to back tours?

Especially when the quality of life, TACOS and family life are being eroded. Don't the MoD and airships recognise that those in aviation have been doing the extra mile (well in excess of any X factor) for over 13 years?

In the full knowledge that because of 'our' own policies good quality and experienced people are leaving, we are just going to open the cheaper recruiting and training pipeline to put (inexperienced/less qualified) bums on seats. Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies.

BEagle

20th Dec 2014, 20:13

In particular, a shortage of flying instructors on flying training and operational conversion units could limit aircrew training and front-line manning, a vicious circle which we must break.

No sh*t, Sherlock! Didn't some of us warn that's what would happen if the madness of the early 2000s continued to spread like a cancer across a once proud RAF?

:mad:

alfred_the_great

20th Dec 2014, 20:27

Does the MoD/Treasury maths add up, ignoring the SQEP, risk to military failure blah blah, but seriously is NEM/AFPS/reduction in TACOS as cost effective to warrant these policies.

The single biggest fear of their Lordships is that we will be called upon to do something, and we won't be able to to do it*. At that point, everyone will legitimately ask what on earth they are spending 2% GDP on Defence for. Trying to explain that jets are grounded due to a 'lack of pilots', when actually those pilots are doing desk jobs any silly bugger can do, probably won't wash. Especially if it turns out they're being paid flying pay despite not actually flying. Things like SQEP, the Moral Component of Operational Capability etc are expressed, but the cliche about "use it or lose it" exists for a reason.

Someone had a post on this thread (I think, but I can't find it), that pay should be increased "to industry rates, with X Factor on top, and OOAs reduced". This line of thinking sounds a bit like the protests about paying feeding charges back in the day - you know, that it was unfair for someone to pay 7 days a week for food when they only had Monday Lunch to Thursday Dinner, and ate at home for the rest of the time. So they introduced PAYD, so that you were only charged for the food you ate. And everyone complained about the awful quality of the Food and the appalling service - but you got exactly what you asked for, forgetting that the 3 days worth of food you weren't eating cross-subsidised the 4 you were eating. If you ask for Industry standard levels of pay, expect to get treated like an Industrial workforce. If the comments on PPRUNE are anything to go by, that means little to no training for free, limited pension or medical provision, an expectation that you'll go where you're told, when you're told; but balanced by relatively high "take home" wages.

Sometimes I think our noses are in danger of our facial spite.....

*Disregard our loss in TELIC and HERRICK - at least we turned up.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

20th Dec 2014, 20:39

*Disregard our loss in TELIC and HERRICK - at least we turned up.

http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-12-05/etc_elephantroom50__01__630x420.jpg

Forgive me, what's the historical precedent for being unable to win small wars and yet still being able to win 'the big one'?

alfred_the_great

20th Dec 2014, 20:57

F3WMB - we have to ignore the elephant, otherwise we'd all be disbanded. And I don't believe in the "a big boy (i.e. the Politicians and CDS/COS') made me do it and ran away" theory - all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

20th Dec 2014, 21:08

That's my point though; once the primary mission is ignored, every other idiotic change 'makes sense'.

Taking the long view, the only valid mechanism possessed by anyone in uniform is resignation in the face of idiotic commands. Some people have mouths to feed, what's everybody else's excuse?

And yes, all my reasons for PVRing have come true, nor was I the only one who 'told you so'.

The B Word

20th Dec 2014, 21:30

all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK.

Does anyone remember the lead exercise 'Bad Trip' at IOT. Seemed that was the trg!

Anyway, define "loss" in context of these Ops. We lost a lot of people but less than the EFs, we stopped the Taliban from trg/executing a major global terrorist nightmare during our 8 years of 'peace keeping', many of the children (including a massive amount of girls) are now being educated, the ANSF are now capable of holding a semblance of order, etc... Alright, the Taliban were not defeated, but neither were we - so at worst it is a 'score draw' in my opinion. If we knew the desired end-states of TELIC and HERRICK at the start then we might be able to claim loss, draw or victory!

The B Word

Fox3WheresMyBanana

20th Dec 2014, 21:42

If we knew the desired end-states of TELIC and HERRICK at the start

"Selection and maintenance of the aim is regarded as the master principle of war"

Current British Defence Doctrine
www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc/courses/RAFJD/Courses/jdp0-01.pdf

or perhaps more accurately, British Defence Policy is now
(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

Training Risky

21st Dec 2014, 04:32

And I don't believe in the "a big boy (i.e. the Politicians and CDS/COS') made me do it and ran away" theory

I beg to differ....

Was it CDS who sexed up the dodgy dossier? Was it CAS who was attached to Dubya's ar$e throughout 2001-2003? Was it the chief loggie who refused to allow the armed forces to conduct appropriate pre-deployment training and post-conflict reconstruction?

I think you will find that these particular gems sit squarely in ZANU-Labour's lap.

all those in Uniform from 2001 - 2014 are culpable in some way shape or form for the loss of TELIC and HERRICK.

I find that quite insulting. I reach my 16-year AFPS 75 point next year. I have been on ISTAR/kinetic targeting/intelligence analysis in support of COIN ops for 10 years. I did my best and now have had enough.

I suppose our colonial record in Afghanistan from the 19th century to today is all the fault of the Army and RAF, and nothing at all to do with Whitehall's utter failure to ever fully understand the region. And nothing to do with their constant willingness to send us into a badly-planned, unwinnable sh!tstorm every time!!:ugh:

m0nkfish

21st Dec 2014, 07:35

Slowly transferring 'appropriate jobs' to non-flying trades is at odds with the desire to 'expand its frontline capabilities at short notice'. Aside from the fact these tours are an excellent way to rest personnel between demanding flying tours they also act as a nice buffer to allow manning to flex the size of the frontline at short notice.

IMHO of course.

If manning are listening then I can tell you that from my perspective (with me rapidly approaching my exit date), the only thing that will keep me in is a FRI. Like it or not, money talks, but I understand there is nothing left in the pot (although the MP's seem to have found some spare dosh to give themselves an inflation busting pay rise so there must be some around).

Evalu8ter

21st Dec 2014, 09:04

I'm in Resettlement. I've not attained high rank, but I knew that would be the outcome of becoming SQEP in a number of off-piste areas (Acquisition/T&E) and shunning the ticket-punching route to high office. When I told Manning of my intention to leave I enquired why I'd boarded too low that year and was told I had "no USP". This was news having been told before that I was too specialised....Clearly the military is awash with Acquisition/T&E SQEP, if so, where are they? Those that were successful from my background had all carefully trodden the 'approved path', and had almost identical backgrounds/experience. You can't blame them for playing the game, and they are good blokes.

Now, I fully understand that there is a 'tariff system' in effect, but, and IMHO it's a biggie, given the historically tiny number of promotions currently occurring we are building in a layer of catastrophic 'group think' at SO1/OF5 level. People with essentially similar backgrounds, having punched the same 'high tarrif' posts, will perhaps struggle to think outside their own narrow 'swim lane'. The fanciful notion that 10mths at Shrivenham can paper over a gulf in knowledge is laughable when talking SQEP registered posts - you can't 'buy' or shortcut the E.

The RAF has recently relied heavily on a cadre of SQEP Flt Lts and Sqn Ldrs to provide the E to help Senior decision making - these are the very people now walking out of the door. To paraphrase Boyd, the "Do-ers" are leaving; what are the "Be-ers" going to do for SQEP advice in the future? Answer-we'll just pay extortionate contractor rates to "buy back" lost experience or believe anything that QQ tell us. The military need a blend of 'generalists' and 'specialists' to remain balanced and effective.

BEagle

21st Dec 2014, 09:08

'Back in the Day', I thought that a 'Spec Rec' normally implied that one should be promoted at the next available opportunity....

Clearly not though - it took me 3 consecutive SRs before I was promoted to Sqn Ldr Spec Aircrew - once described to me as 'the best rank in the air force'!

The RAF has always seemed to be geared more towards looking after the 'chiefs' rather than the 'indians'.

nice castle

21st Dec 2014, 16:32

2 very valid posts there gentlemen, imho.:D

kintyred

21st Dec 2014, 19:17

Very well said BEagle,

Throughout my 30 years I saw many cases of 'The System' pandering to discontented senior officers who threatened to PVR or complained about an unwanted posting. My service ended with my being posted (for what would in effect have been my final posting) from the fleet on which I had spent my entire career. The explanation was that I needed to be moved on to allow others to gain experience in my role. 2 years on and all those who were to gain that experience have left the Service!

By the way, the best rank for the 21st century has to be PA Flt Lt......better paid than Spec Aircrew Sqn Ldr, better pension and no requirement to undertake Service Enquiries or the burgeoning number of OOA SO2 posts needed to fill the staffs of VSOs trying to get 'operational command experience' on their CVs.

Whenurhappy

22nd Dec 2014, 09:39

When the changes to flying pay were made about 5 years ago, a number of SO1 'any branch' posts suddenly became 'flying related', effectively filtering out a stream of post ACSC ground branch officers from higher air policy roles. Many of the issues dealt with were about sustaining air power along the Defence Lines of Development Rather than specific issues of operating aircraft or employing kinetic effect.

Isn't interesting the change a few years brings...

Mr C Hinecap

22nd Dec 2014, 13:06

'Back in the Day', I thought that a 'Spec Rec' normally implied that one should be promoted at the next available opportunity....

Clearly not though - it took me 3 consecutive SRs before I was promoted to Sqn Ldr Spec Aircrew

It's called Assessment Creep and it has nothing to do with anything other than people not knowing how the system works and/or not wanting to be honest when writing assessments. If you and all your peers were Spec Rec, then who is the best and truly worthy of promotion?

I was lucky enough to observe on a Promotion Board, then to serve on one. It changed my view and writing of annual assessments. Creep just saw everyone getting Spec Recs (or 6 in more modern parlance) with no substance in the narratives. Having to explain to my troops that '5's and Highs' would get you promoted took a lot of effort, until they saw it themselves.

MSOCS

22nd Dec 2014, 18:17

I once observed the top candidate off a promotion board get there on the merits of "B+ Yes" with an honest and praiseworthy narrative, replete with highly compelling evidence. The smattering of A/A- Excp were often scoffed at under mutterings of over-marking, especially when evidence of Perf/Potential lacked.

The promotion system is very fair and those who observe one are almost unanimously in agreement of that statement.

Lima Juliet

22nd Dec 2014, 20:29

Always A- High for me seemed to work quite nicely! :ok:

Anyway, back on thread. Seeing as there are £10k 'Golden Hellos' for joining the RAuxAF and £2k for TG4 ICT techs, are we going to see anything else in the Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report this year in light of these declining figures? Also, there was the FRIs introduced for Petty Officer Techs:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300423/Letter_to_CDP_re_FRIs_March_2014.DOC

The most telling lines in the above letter are "Why were redundancies made in this cadre when MOD knew the staffing situation was so critical? MOD should make attempts to encourage engineering personnel who were made redundant from all Services to return. There is a national shortage of engineers and the pull-factors to the private sector for Service personnel are strong." And "MOD will need to use more long-term, strategic solutions such as Golden Hellos and possibly Recruitment and Retention Pay to maintain satisfactory staffing levels."

Also, on the AFPRB, seeing as the Govt will be going into 'purdah' by the end of Feb 15 for the May 15 General Election, will we see the report earlier this year?

LJ

Fox3WheresMyBanana

22nd Dec 2014, 21:14

To draw a parallel, there are Golden Hellos of up to £25k for STEM teachers (in 2007, it was £6k; in 2011, it was £9k. At this rate, it will be £50k by 2018 and they still won't get anybody)

Actually recruited as of last month......

According to the Department for Education, some 32,543 people started – or expect to start – teacher training courses this term, compared with a target of 34,890. It represented 93 per cent of the total.
But figures showed much larger under-recruitment in some vital disciplines, despite the promise of tax-free scholarships of up to £25,000 to attract the brightest graduates.
In design and technology, only 44 per cent of places were filled, while the recruitment rate stood at 67 per cent for physics,

Government comment
"Despite a tightening labour market, trainee teacher recruitment is holding steady - with low vacancy rates in priority subjects like maths and science.

Vacancy rates are low because it is allowing schools to recruit non-specialists. In difficult areas, students can now do entire GCSE Maths courses without having a single lesson from a Maths specialist. And these are the kids that the military is trying to recruit.

But it's not just recruitment; look at retention.
40% of new teachers leave the profession within 5 years.
Ofsted chief: two-fifths of teachers quitting within five years is 'scandal' | Education | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/15/ofsted-chief-teachers-quitting-scandal)

In summary, the Government has its head in the sand about the problems, is announcing ever increasing headline amounts and levels of confidence, and facing ever decreasing rates of recruitment and retention.

The same applies to the military. Golden Hellos do not work when the major faults causing people to leave remain.

You should never try to bail the boat instead of fixing the leak.
'If Nicky Morgan wants more teachers, she needs to look after those she already has' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11303375/If-Nicky-Morgan-wants-more-teachers-she-needs-to-look-after-those-she-already-has.html)

p.s. In 2004, the Labour Government set a target of 25% of science teachers to be physics specialists, when the rate was 19% and decreasing. After 10 years of continuous effort by all three major parties, the rate is now(Dec 2013).....18%.

gr4techie

22nd Dec 2014, 21:32

The promotion system is very fair

How is a subjective narrative fair ?

Now a promotion exam would be fair.

iRaven

22nd Dec 2014, 21:37

GR4techie - I kind of agree until the good person gets "examitis" and we miss out on a good individual. However, good old ISS was a way better test of one's metal than a 4 week course at Shriv crammed into 8!

IMHO, of course!

iRaven

iRaven

22nd Dec 2014, 21:56

F3WMB

I wouldn't mind being a Physics teacher. I have A level Physics and a MSc in EW, but even with a £25k scholarship it still doesn't pay enough until I become a leader in the school (start on about £22k and after "a few years" between £38k - £58k or even £65k in London). If I compare that to the deal I could get outside with a Defence Company or what I get in the mob (Regular or FTRS), then this is the deal breaker. I could earn over £90k tax free if I wanted to go and work abroad in a similar field.

So, the Govt are in 'dreamland' when they think this will recruit and retain good physics teachers and the good ones they do recruit 'wake up and smell the coffee' to leave as part of the 40% that go.

Sadly, it is all part of the 'you can't possibly earn that as a public servant' brigade and then we wonder why we get the dross running our Councils that, quite simply, I wouldn't employ to clean my household toilet.

iRaven

Fox3WheresMyBanana

22nd Dec 2014, 22:50

I wouldn't mind being a Physics teacher.

Oh yes you would!
I think you are labouring under the illusion that, as a 'physics teacher', you would be teaching physics.

The pay isn't the main reason people aren't joining or staying. It rates around #5 on the list.

Remember, increasing STEM teacher skills and numbers has been officially the top DfE PR campaign for 10 years, with nothing but a drop in same as the result.

PM me if you want the gory details. Ditto school leader, though CharlieGolf has a the experience there, and will tell you the same thing.

You point about salary, according to what I've read, does apply to TG4 however, as does the point about not doing the job you thought you'd be doing.

Uncle Ginsters

24th Dec 2014, 06:25

The problems of losing your high-end SQEP operators aren't limited to bums-on-seats; the DH construct now relies more heavily than ever on a huge volume of SQEP input.

QED, less SQEP, and the assurance, air safety and supervision pieces are far harder to bring together.

Heathrow Harry

24th Dec 2014, 10:51

ALL branches of the armed forces are suffering from retention issues - the Army has to recruit from the Commonwealth, the Navy is taking US Coast guard assistance and shuffling crews around the miniscule navy we have and the RAF 's problems are explained above

Guess it would be too much to hope that someone would look at the problem overall rather than on a job-by-job basis ..... :sad::sad:

Melchett01

24th Dec 2014, 12:13

How is a subjective narrative fair ?

It is perfectly fair. As long as your ROs can string a coherent sentence together in order to write a cogent and well argued appraisal. And as long as all the ROs across the system play by the same rules.

If however, you are stuck with a RO who's talents lie somewhere other than written comms, or if your RO gives you a 'fair' appraisal when all the ROs are playing the system, then what on paper should be a scrupulously fair system with checks and balances becomes more akin to running the Grand National.

As for FRIs and retention bonuses, I really think they need to reconsider who they go to and broaden the scope. If the powers that be really expect people to believe that all Branches & Trades have a vital role to play in generating operational capability - and now we have contractorised as much as we have, I don't see how they can argue against that for those roles that are left in a 'blue suit' - then they need to start working out how to retain skilled and experienced people across the spectrum, not just for a very few. It's airpower vs aeroplanes and as much as I hate to say it, airpower is increasingly becoming more and more about things other than fast pointy things and bombs on foreheads and that needs to be recognised with retention payments if mission critical gaps are appearing as people walk.

Or, as I suspect will happen, they will just try to bluff it out on the grounds that the economy is still fragile and another recession is likely in the next couple of years which may stem the haemorrhage :\