Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
I absolutely agree with you. But the one metric that I believe should be applied when deciding the leader of the Air Arm of the British Military is an intimate knowledge of the use and application of Air Power allied to a decent understanding of our airborne platforms. Any aircrew officer would understand that (I do not believe they need to come from FJs) but I struggle to see how an engineering Officer can fully understand the application of Air Power.
I realise Mike Wigston was a terrible example of the benefits of a pilot as CAS but what happens when our new CAS finds himself in a meeting with a foreign Air Force chief and he is questioned on his inventory. Does he turn to his PSO to ask the load out of a Typhoon, or the range/endurance of an Atlas or the load carrying capacity of a Puma?
I know that’s a slightly glib way of putting it but can you see my point?
I will agree with you that an Engineering Officer will likely possess some brilliant leadership and management capabilities. I will always struggle to believe they can be credible as the leader of a military air arm.
BV
Edited to add: it’s not really any of my business any more and I will be absolutely delighted to be proven wrong. You are more than welcome to rub my nose in it when recruitment, retention, morale, capability, budgets and the non-proliferation of never-ending bullsh1t are all sorted within the next three years.
Rich Knighton knows that trite stuff inside out.
And if aircrew were any good as strategic leaders, then surely the RAF wouldn’t be in this position…