RAF Strategy

[mmitch]

RAF Strategy has been posted on their website.
RAF - RAF Strategy (http://www.raf.mod.uk/role/strategy.cfm)


http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/B9FB695F_5056_A318_A8BC2CA5A1362C13.pdf


mmitch.

[NutLoose]

They missed a bit

It should read "Delivering a World-Class Air Force...... at 3rd rate levels"

[Arclite01]

Almost cringeworthy and embarrassing to read.

Just like the trite rubbish that the corporate world puts out these days - just a bunch of nursery school graphics and buzzwords loosely linked together............. for delivery to an uninformed (and largely uncaring) target audience.

Arc

[Fonsini]

I work in corporate these days, and I see meaningless BS strategy presentations like that on a weekly basis, the diversity and inclusion statement is a classic - "diverse organizations make the best decisions" - err, any actual evidence for that bold statement RAF, or is it just a nod to political correctness ?

Of more interest, can anyone clue me in on the new helmet design on slide 29, what are all those "nodules" ?

[57mm]

They're part of the Helmet Mounted Sighting System (HMSS). Or, he overdid the hair restorer....

[newt]

Must have cost half of this years budget! What a load of tosh!👿👿👿👿👿

[Whenurhappy]

I have to disagree. I was involved in drafting the previous strategy and it is linked to getting resources. The difference that this is a strategy for growth, not managed decline. For the first time since WWII, the RAF is growing in numbers of personnel and aircraft: that needs a strategy to ensure we have SQEP, the kit and the operating space. This growth won't happen by itself if we are to avoid (further) inefficiencies, delays and loss of operational capability. I may be old and smell of wee, but this is a good peice of work, clearly articulating priorities.

[Martin the Martian]

I think it is not so much the strategy itself that is receiving scorn, but the way in which it is presented which, frankly, is pants.

[Red Line Entry]

Okay, so how would you have it presented Martin?

Service Paper format is unlikely to be widely read. It needs to be attractive enough that people will skim through it and get the core message - growth, predicated on efficiency (whether or not you agree with it).

[NutLoose]

The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men,
He marched them up the capability hill,
And he marched them down again.

And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.


That about sums up RAF Strategy post WW2

[BEagle]

Whenurhappy, I agree with you. Actually the document is largely fee of biz-speak corporate wanquewords (no 'overarching', 'imagineering', 'blue water thinking' or similar guff) and is quite readable.

It would be nice if Regain control of our estate and restore our reputation for owning good infrastructure were to include Heaven in Devon though...:hmm:

[Whenurhappy]

How many if those who criticise the strategy have actually bothered to read it?

We lost the infrastructure lead when our supine Admin Sec branch actively gave it away - and the fact that there were no professionally trained officers. (civil engineers, chartered surveyors and the like)

Membership of the Institute of Facilities Management doesn't count...

[Bigpants]

Guilty, I have not bothered to read the link for the simple reason that I judge the RAF on its results and unless one is highly optimistic about the future or on prozac the past 20 years reveals an organisation in decline.

Strategy is useless if Senior Officers lack the Balls and resources to deliver it. Bader had the courage or arrogance to declare his Sqn non operational in 1940 how many of today's Sqn Commanders would deliver that kind of news to Group?

[gr4techie]

..... For the first time since WWII, the RAF is growing in numbers of personnel and aircraft: that needs a strategy to ensure we have SQEP, the kit and the operating space. This growth won't happen by itself if we are to avoid (further) inefficiencies, delays and loss of operational capability......

So what have you done to retain those SQEP ?
And how does the ever declining perks / expenses, the introduction of AFPS16, NEM and a pay cut for Armourers restrict the PVR rate ?
In their stats on manpower levels, do the trade sponsors see any difference between a LAC straight out of school and a fully productive and valuable SQEP ?
Thanks to NEM and AFPS16, what incentive do these young LACs have to stay in past their 9 year point?

[Hangarshuffle]

As a document I think its actually very good. And well done SAC Berry for the MBE.
Where's the Navy's comparable document anyone, Bueler?

[NutLoose]

I felt it said nothing about everything.

[downsizer]

Retired crusties knock the current RAF on pruuuuune. I'm shocked :ok:

[NutLoose]

We aim to please.... But to be honest, when we have to reach out to borrow other Countries capabilities for the likes of MRA as an Island Nation, something is seriously wrong with the grand plan.

[Hangarshuffle]

On page 5 of the document can someone tell me what the weapons actually are and what they do? I'm guessing L to R Asraam, Brimstone, Some sort of air to ground missile, a laser guided bemb, and another guided weapon. Very impressive.
People have to remember these sort of documents are really aimed (pardon the pun) at people who know even less than me, and they are out there.

Though they might have included a picture of the inbound new MRA, but lets face it, its a little embarrassing to some people of power.

[downsizer]

ASRAAM, Brimstone, Drop tank, PWIV, Meteor.

[jindabyne]

Intellectual and well presented. But it lacks two words.

Not enough.

[andrewn]

Wow, surprised so many are saying this is a good doc. I thought it was a shocker, poorly constructed with no common thread, jumps around from one topic or ambition or objective to another, repetitive but really says nothing at all of any substance. I think I gave up when i got to "Thinking to Win" - who thought that one up?

Hopefully something good will come of it for those actually serving.

[Sky Sports]

Strategy for the future !?!?!?

A bit bold when they don't even know how to 60 gliders serviceable again!

[dervish]

I think the opening line about growth invites cynicism. Growth from what? Decimation.

[andrewn]

I think the opening line about growth invites cynicism. Growth from what? Decimation.

My thoughts exactly :)

[Red Line Entry]

Actually (pedant mode on) it's been a lot worse than decimation.

In 1984 we spent 5.5% of GDP on Defence, now we spend (after some accountancy fudges) 2%. Each aircraft is also, proportionately, more expensive than those of the 1980s. So it's hardly a surprise the front line is radically smaller than that of yesteryear.

So what should our current leadership do? I suppose they could just sit on PPruNe and winge about how life is so unfair, but I far prefer it that they try to articulate how they intend to build a future with the resources they are being given.

[edwardspannerhands]

Guilty, I have not bothered to read the link for the simple reason that I judge the RAF on its results and unless one is highly optimistic about the future or on prozac the past 20 years reveals an organisation in decline.

Strategy is useless if Senior Officers lack the Balls and resources to deliver it. Bader had the courage or arrogance to declare his Sqn non operational in 1940 how many of today's Sqn Commanders would deliver that kind of news to Group?

That's easy.......None! Knighthoods and Pensions to worry about don't you know. They'd rather run their personnel ragged than admit what's staring them in the face. Sadly, the "can do" attitude of said personnel saves their ar$e every time.

[Whenurhappy]

I think there's a few posters here who seem to lack (or prefer to ignore) the state of public finances against the eye-watering costs of maintaining modern Armed Forces.

As I said above, the RAF and the RN are going from a period of managed decline to one of growth. Wehether you ike it or not, this requires buy-in from staff, as well as a strategy on how to deliver it.

I agree it's sad that we no longer have RAFG, Singapore, over 100 bases in teh UK etc, etc...but that's the reality of trying to run an expensive organisation within a budget. Oh yes, we also employ gays and women these days, so yes, the RAF is a dverse organisation.

[A_Van]

I beg your pardon in advance for commenting on this purely UK-internal business. Looked at those slides just out of curiousity.

This document reminds me a collection of slogans from the communist party activists in 70's and 80's USSR. In reality, such docs usually start with a threat model (quantitative) analysis (e.g. scenarios such as "Russia", "failed state", "jihadist insurgency", "Argentina-2", etc.), then own forces state-of-the-art analysis vs. identified threats and scenarios, etc. etc. and ending up with the timeline to reach the required numbers of various kinds of equipment through the lookahead period.

I am sure such a real (and top secret) document exists and is regularly updated, while the published one is rather for a general public, kids and civil bureaucrats (like EU).

[Kitbag]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigpants View Post
Guilty, I have not bothered to read the link for the simple reason that I judge the RAF on its results and unless one is highly optimistic about the future or on prozac the past 20 years reveals an organisation in decline.

Strategy is useless if Senior Officers lack the Balls and resources to deliver it. Bader had the courage or arrogance to declare his Sqn non operational in 1940 how many of today's Sqn Commanders would deliver that kind of news to Group?
That's easy.......None! Knighthoods and Pensions to worry about don't you know. They'd rather run their personnel ragged than admit what's staring them in the face. Sadly, the "can do" attitude of said personnel saves their ar$e every time.

To be fair, a Tornado squadron at Lossie did just that two or three years ago, its in Air Clues somewhere.

[Heathrow Harry]

I think Van has hit the nail on the head on this one.............

[Hangarshuffle]

Thanks, downsizer for the brief.
I think whenurhappy hit the nail on the head.

Also, how many people actually look at other corporate websites to compare and contrast about mission statements and all the rest of it?= I've just looked at Tesco, J Sainsbury and was quite impressed. Up to date info, quarterly results, the board.... the whole caboodle. Maybe all UK Armed Services should take a lead from them.
But the two banks I've just looked at as well...terrible as regards trying to glean what their strategy is... but no surprise there (Lloyds and Barclays).

Going to try and find the Navy website.

[Trim Stab]

Echoing my comment on a parallel thread - I bet the French don't put out waffle like that. In fact, I bet they don't even have VSOs sitting around writing stuff like that. In any case - as another poster pointed out - just who is the intended audience for that baloney?

[Sandy Parts]

no plan survives first contact with the enemy or treasury! I did like the bit about increasing ISR capability though (guess they had to put that in as we've gone and said we're buying lots of it...)

[Wyler]

In other words, it is perfect for today's audience.
Had a presentation a few weeks ago regarding current recruiting strategy. Presenter started off by saying that what you are about to see is not aimed at those who have been in for a few years, those who have been in for more than a few years and definitely not for you civilians who retired years ago and are now back as CS/contractors. This is designed for the RAF of tomorrow and we need to encourage the 'popcorn society'. Youngsters who want to be able to absorb information in digital form, no great depth, attention getting and offers them the opportunity to be able to do more than one 'job' in what will probably be a maximum of 12 years in uniform.
Very apt and as the father of two who are in their 20s I can see where he is coming from.
Times aren't changing, they have changed and although the link is not to everyone's liking it is, IMHO, targeted very well at the actual audience it is intended for.

[gr4techie]

I think there's a few posters here who seem to lack (or prefer to ignore) the state of public finances

But the two banks I've just looked at as well...terrible as regards trying to glean what their strategy is... but no surprise there (Lloyds and Barclays).

How Lloyds performs doesn't matter, if it all goes wrong we will magically print £20300000000000 to pay them. We're never that short of money when it comes to awarding bankers for failure.

Government loses another £130m on Lloyds Bank bailout after cutting stake below 7% | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lloyds-bank-taxpayer-bailout-cut-stake-government-share-sale-a7471296.html)

[kintyred]

I've just read CAS's foreword.

"The future will inevitably present us with new challenges as our enemies adapt and it becomes harder to retain and recruit the people we need, but we control the levers to address these problems."

Is he saying that the remuneration package offered to servicemen is in his gift or maybe he's happy with the current experience levels of RAF personnel and doesn't need to pull this 'lever'?

A small further point

In the the penultimate paragraph there a space missing before the penultimate sentence. Pedantic perhaps but if you're going to publish such a document for public consumption at least proofread it first.

I'll get back to you when I've read more.

[Training Risky]

An Air Force that is "growing"!!??

What an awful piece of doublethink rubbish.

It is only growing in the sense that the Luftwaffe was ripe for growth on 8 May 1945...and it did grow....from nothing.

[Bigbux]

Looks like the VSO overruled the consultant who produced it, and tried to make it into a Service paper.

I see several different audiences for various pieces of information contained in it - but never the whole lot to everyone.

[Whenurhappy]

An Air Force that is "growing"!!??

What an awful piece of doublethink rubbish.

It is only growing in the sense that the Luftwaffe was ripe for growth on 8 May 1945...and it did grow....from nothing.
Two additional TYP squadrons anyone?

(As announced in SDSR)

[downsizer]

Is that really a growth? They just aren't retiring them as quickly....and they'll probably be manned by FTRS....?

[BATCO]

Trim Stab said "..... I bet the French don't put out waffle like that. In fact, I bet they don't even have VSOs sitting around writing stuff like that......"

Oh yes they do. The AA version is (just) classified, but the AT version is not. They have just followed up "Au Contact!" (which itself superceeded "Scorpion") with "Action: Terrestre Future".

Whether they really shape the future (rather than 'events, dear boy') is harder to judge. It might be management cliché, but change really has been the constant of my 35 years.

Regards
Batco