Originally Posted by
Tourist
MAD Boom
Are you having a bit of a class war moment?
I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.
Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.
It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.
If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.
Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.
Officers and NCA go through exactly the same recruitment process
Regarding cost of training, that is kind of smoke and mirrors. IOT teaches the same course as NCA but crammed into 9/6 months vs 12 weeks. NCA attend exactly the same leadership exercises and are taught most of the same lessons in the same building and classrooms. SMEAC is SMEAC!
Costs are largely irrelevant as Phase 2/3 training is where the real costs come in. Cost does not translate to quality of the individual... Perhaps officer's need more training as they are slower on the uptake....
As an aside, there have been several WSO promotion boards where NCA SJARs have been slipped into the OJARs with NCA scoring very highly. Incidentally, I dont know of a single NCA in nearly 20 yrs that has applied for commissioning that has not been successful, albeit not always their first choice.
Can NCA run the military, no. Is this an ability issue or the way the RAF is set up? Does that mean as CAS has never been a Nav that only a pilot is capable of running the RAF? And let's be honest, the military is not exactly the most efficient beast, regardless who is at the top.
I think your ideas are a tad outdated (are you still serving?) and not because I am a "socialist worker" in any way.
HG