Weapon System Officer online?

[CptDesire]

Gents,

AFCO have just informed me WSO is now an option? Can anyone elaborate on this? Can't see anything on the careers site. Although both AFCO and site are notoriously unreliable. I've been out 18months now, most old oppo's I've contacted can't confirm either.

[downsizer]

If you are an ex-WSO I'd get in touch with your ex-deskie or OASC.

It isn't currently an option for DE entrants.

[CptDesire]

downsizer, unfortunately not, however I am tired of selling my soul as an energy trader and really feeling like I should join back up.

[dagowly]

Opening it up for P8 by the looks.

[CptDesire]

And "backfill Tornado extension" from AFCO.

[NDW]

A few people I know who sat their CBAT a month or so after me (October 2015) mentioned that WSO was on their grade sheet. However, as mentioned it wasn't available for DE.

[CptDesire]

NDW, same, WSO was on aptitude sheet for me too. However the AFCO are now saying this is open to DE aswell.

[downsizer]

The Afco is wrong, it is not open to DE.

[Pontius Navigator]

From the tittle I thought it meant I could do it from home on the internet.

[Courtney Mil]

We need more "tittles", PN. :ok:

[2Planks]

Mmmmm, how much would it take to tempt me out of retirement? A lot, but I'm not sure my body would be up to another round of Friday SCT with Courtney Mil ;) on the refresher.

[Pontius Navigator]

2Planks, how about a half-way house for piloted remote nav vehicles?

Biggles hurls the woner jet around the skies while his trust nav sits in ground control watching the fuel, pigeons and the rear view cams :)

Perfect all round.

[Courtney Mil]

Mmmmm, how much would it take to tempt me out of retirement? A lot, but I'm not sure my body would be up to another round of Friday SCT with Courtney Mil on the refresher.

I'm game! :ok:

[CptDesire]

Downsizer, I thought I'd create this thread as I had my suspicions regarding the AFCO being up to date and informed on anything too. Lo and behold they still have not changed since I originally joined.

[thelizardking]

they are re-opening WSO training as they are very low on manning, the question you need to ask yourself is, do i want to be on P8 at Lossie? if the answer is yes, get involved, if the answer is no....don't bother. The rumour is very much true though. PS personally i cannot recommend WSO to anyone who hasn't joined already, it will be a very dry and thankless career, plus the new 'retention pay' scheme means that you won't get any extra pay than that of an admin or or OC bogs and drains for a considerable time, by which point you would have been promoted in either role.

[camelspyyder]

...or you could be on one of the 100 new Reaper/Protector crews, or new Shadow/RJ/E3 crews and not be at Lossie at all. In fact there's probably double the number of new WSO slots at Waddington in the next 5 years than there will be up North.

[CptDesire]

Lizardking, camelspyder are either of you two WSOps?

[camelspyyder]

CptD see PM

[Guernsey Girl II]

I think it's still evens that P8 won't be going to the Costa Del Moray. As Uncle George says, the storm clouds are gathering and the major infra build required up north will be just as the big squeeze kicks in in public spending. Another quick basing study and it ends up at North Kesteven International, where the light blue, (stand fast the ex kipper fleet with housing interests in the NE) and Boeing thought it was going before 'call me Dave' decided to stick it to wee Jimmy Cranky.

[camelspyyder]

True. Basing decisions get changed. After all ISK was supposed to be the home of the GR4 from 2013-2025 with F35 going to Lossie in a similar timescale.

[Biggus]

Why does either role, P-8 or Reaper, have to done by an officer (WSO) as opposed to a SNCO (WSOp)? History? Indeed, I thought many 'back seaters' in the Reaper fleet are currently WSOps?


Someone on here suggested any ex-WSOs who are interested should contact their ex-deskie or OASC. Surely if the RAF are serious about this then someone in manning should be going through the records of all WSOs who have left in the last 4-5 years and cold calling them (maybe they are?). No doubt you wouldn't find some of them, and there would be a fair share of polite and impolite rejections. But some 'maybe' and 'yes' responses would make any effort expended worthwhile.


Camelspyyder

Was putting Tornadoes into ISK ever a serious suggestion? Basing a FJ at an airfield with a known Geese problem?

[downsizer]

They are trying to contact them Biggus.

[camelspyyder]

Biggus - the F35 basing study indeed rejected Kinloss due to single engine v's geese concerns, hence F35 to Lossie and Tonka to Kinloss was the plan from 2013 (The MRA4 basing at Kinloss was only guaranteed to 2013 - Burridge's grand plan was to concentrate all the ISTAR at Waddington after that).

P8 manning is 2 WSO & 4 WSOp per crew I believe. Reaper crews have either 1 WSO or WSOP, but WSO's are in the majority.

[charliegolf]

Ah, the old, "We've gone and bought 'planes that mustn't go near geese" error! :D

[PostMeHappy]

To clarify, Tonkas to ISK was only ever one of the options when Dave was coming to Lossie....and simply to make room for what was 4 F35 sqns and an OCU having to relocate the Tonka OCU anyway...but old news anyway since then all the goal posts have moved since those halcyon days.

[camelspyyder]

Ministerial statement on the Defence Airfields Review decisions here:

Defence Airfields Review: 17 Nov 2005: House of Commons debates - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-11-17b.1119.0)

[thelizardking]

Why does either role, P-8 or Reaper, have to done by an officer (WSO) as opposed to a SNCO (WSOp)? History? Indeed, I thought many 'back seaters' in the Reaper fleet are currently WSOps?


Someone on here suggested any ex-WSOs who are interested should contact their ex-deskie or OASC. Surely if the RAF are serious about this then someone in manning should be going through the records of all WSOs who have left in the last 4-5 years and cold calling them (maybe they are?). No doubt you wouldn't find some of them, and there would be a fair share of polite and impolite rejections. But some 'maybe' and 'yes' responses would make any effort expended worthwhile.


Camelspyyder

Was putting Tornadoes into ISK ever a serious suggestion? Basing a FJ at an airfield with a known Geese problem?
they are/have, most have given a very short answer though as the reasons they left haven't changed and day by day the benefits get less and less.

[Biggus]

Nobody has commented on my first point - why does it have to be an officer?

[akula]

Nobody has commented on my first point - why does it have to be an officer?

Because. they do not trust the WO & SNCO cadre.

[ValMORNA]

akula,


On what grounds?

[PingDit]

Akula, they seemed to have trusted the majority of my fellow MAcr when we'd stand in for the AEO when he was either 'ill' or found something more important to do (including important tracking missions!)

[akula]

ValMORNA,

Good question, I suspect that it is deeply engrained institutional dogma.

[ValMORNA]

akula,


Thank you; it confirms my suspicion.

[camelspyyder]

I thought I had replied already, but if not - there are only 2 WSO jobs on the P8 vice 3 on the Nimrod. There are/were are loads of WSOp slots on both as well as the WSO seats. Reaper, Voyager and other types fly perfectly well with WSO or WSOp in the seat. I don't see Biggus' point to be honest. The only type that is WSO only is GR4.

[Biggus]

camel,

My point was/is as follows. You say there are two rearcrew jobs on the P-8 currently being done by officers, presumably by the Americans and RAF seedcorn. Given that the RAF had stopped recruiting WSOs, no longer have an RAF WSO training system, and there will be very limited career opportunities for any future WSOs, possibly impacting on recruitment and retention, why do we have to put officers into those seats just because the Americans do and we used to in the Nimrod? We used to have NCOs in every position in Liberators, Catalinas, Sunderlands and presumably Shackeltons.

Why not use WSOps who have progressed within the P-8 from having been sensor operators, in the same why that they used to progress from 4th, 3rd, 2nd to lead? This gives career progression and diversification for WSOps, and allows for recruitment and training through a WSOp system that actually exists (albeit in greatly reduced form at the moment).

You've also just admitted that Reaper etc work equally well for WSO or WSOp. So, as you say, with the eventual demise of the GR4, we would be recruiting WSOs out of necessity purely for the P-8, with the option, but not necessity, of filling some other roles.

[Party Animal]

The only type that is WSO only is GR4.


RJ has a traditional WSO navigator on the flight deck tfn. E3-D has a traditional WSO navigator on the flight deck until 2029 and isn't the Sentinel Mission Commander also a WSO?

[The Old Fat One]

Nobody has commented on my first point - why does it have to be an officer?

It does not, as well you know. Nor do pilots have to be officers (they are not in the army) or WSOPs Sergeants (they are not in the navy).

But here's the thing. The RAF has a system that works. Be a part of it.

I spent 27 years in the kipper fleet, watching said fleet wanting to be different (some might say "special") and it didn't end well.

Slightly more joined up approach might be the way forward this time, don't you agree?

[Sandy Parts]

TOFO - I think we were very 'special' ;)
Around the time of the last downbanding, I think there were a few AEOPs in other fleets who were very glad of the 'specialness' of the kipper cadre. I remember the amount of time and energy spent by many (especially the MACr and AEOs) building a case to prove the 'specialness' of the WSOp trade. All ancient history now.
Re the Officer vs SNCO debate, some individuals could fill the roles, some maybe not. I think the more salient point for P8 will be the number of soon to be 'seat-less' ex-GR4 (and other fleet) Nav/WSOs. Why use a SNCO WSOp (who you will need to fill another seat) when you have a spare bod already?
I'm not sure this 'recruiting' drive is as widespread as indicated. Maybe a few specific individuals for specific skills?

[mmitch]

Has an order for the first P8(s) actually been placed yet? If so what sort of delivery date are we expecting?
mmitch.

[Wrathmonk]

Why does either role, P-8 or Reaper, have to done by an officer (WSO) as opposed to a SNCO (WSOp)?

Why does a WSOp have to be a SNCO? Could they not be a JNCO or SAC?:E

[Pure Pursuit]

biggus,

WSOps are still very much the focus for recruitment. the WSO role is being recruited on a much smaller scale, mainly for GR4.

Rumours at Waddo about the P8 staying south of the border are starting to grow however, they are just rumours! I think we will find out more in the next 18 months or so. There are quite a few WSOs who are keen for the move north but, I'd say that 60-70% of them would prefer to see it at Waddo. The old Kipper fleet guys are trying to relive an old dream imho. Let it go at keep it at the ISTAR Hub!

[Wander00]

I see from the RIN's Navigation News that a Master Aircrew has just passed out from the Aero Systems Course at the Air Warfare School, and with an MSc in Aero Systems Studies. Is this a first?

[Arty Fufkin]

Can anyone explain to me what a "traditional WSO navigator" does on the flightdeck of a RJ/ E3 that can't be achieved by giving an couple of INS/FMS controllers to the pilots?
Is he really just there as a voice activated FMS operator in his present guise? Old rope imporium springs to mind; nice work if you can get it!

[RandomBlah]

The rumours of P-8 going to Waddington are completely baseless; The Prime Minister has stated that P-8 will go to RAF Lossiemouth, so that is where it will go.

[Party Animal]

The RJ/E3 nav does the same job as older ME aircraft navs once did, such as on the VC10 and C130K. Certainly with the E3, it's virtually the same flight deck as the original aircraft, hence the need for a flight engineer as well. I understand that the upgrade will remove the nav with a Gucci FMS and rumour has it that this will not be complete until 2029.


Not sure why our brand new RJ's didn't go down that route from day one but I suspect that just like everything else - it's all about the money.


As for NCO aircrew doing the Aero Systems Course, this is not new. Can't remember when the first student completed the course but I think it's been at least 10 - 15 years.

[Chinny Crewman]

The rumours of P-8 going to Waddington are completely baseless; The Prime Minister has stated that P-8 will go to RAF Lossiemouth, so that is where it will go.

Oh how we laughed! Politicians come and go and the current PM will be gone before the P8 enters service. Things change but in the finest tradition of the MoD the basing decision will stand until millions have been spent on infrastructure then it will be reviewed and changed.

[mmitch]

My post#39 partly answered by this. http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/uk_16-26.pdf
Just need a delivery date....
mmitch.

[Biggus]

TOFO,

You say in post 37, with regard the employment of WSOs, that "The RAF has a system that works..". My point is that it doesn't, it did in the past, but not now. It stopped recruiting WSOs, it took apart the training system, and relied, just as in the case of the Air Engineer (also required on E-3D and RJ) on there being enough left in the system to last out the in-service life of aircraft requiring their trade. However, the RAF is now about to buy an aircraft, presumably with at least a 25 year planned life, that people such as yourself are talking about manning with a trade we don't have. All I was saying is why not man it with a trade we do have?

Heresy it would appear, as I'm not following your Be a part of it. instruction, or maybe just evolution rather than revolution?

[circle kay]

Perhaps we could just all read the Shortage of Navs (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/562657-shortage-navs.html)
It's got all the usual suspects with all the usual opinions, only this one has them a year nearer any relevant experiences.

[The Old Fat One]

Biggus,

I'm not looking for controversy and my point is a very simple one. I hope the new maritime force spends a little more time being part of the RAF and a little less time trying to be the Royal Kipper Force, as was very much the case in my time. I'm sure you'll know exactly what I mean.

What I meant by my "system that works" comment, is by and large there is no need to re-invent a rank structure that functions throughout the RAF and has done for a long time.

However they man up the new fleet, gentle specialist massaging (ooh er) of the rank structure to fit the aircraft requirements would be sensible imho. As you say evolution...maybe even discrete evolution.

I'll get me coat. Taxi for TOFO.

[Toadstool]

Biggus

perhaps a wee bit more knowledge needed.

just as in the case of the Air Engineer (also required on E-3D and RJ)

The E3D does indeed have an Air Engineer, whilst the RJ most certainly doesn't. They both do have Navs, so in this you are correct. :ok:

Party Animal

Not sure why our brand new RJ's didn't go down that route from day one but I suspect that just like everything else - it's all about the money.


One of the beauties or the UK RJ, or so I'm led to believe, is that it is part of the upgrade programme as with the US RJ. There is currently no upgrade baseline that has a front end without the Nav. Perhaps in the future, but not now. Nothing whatsoever to do with money.

[Avtur]

I see from the RIN's Navigation News that a Master Aircrew has just passed out from the Aero Systems Course at the Air Warfare School, and with an MSc in Aero Systems Studies. Is this a first?

Wander00: This has been a regular occurrence since the early 2000s when the ASC became an MSc course through Kingston University. There was a Sergeant on my course who did quite well, and several Officers who did not.

[Wander00]

Party Animal and Avtur - many thanks


W