Where do they get this c***

[Lafyar Cokov]

Just read an online article about the PAC report into Battlefield helicopters at http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=621365

which states : "It takes 77 RAF officers to run 17 helicopters in Northern Ireland - while the Army has 38 officers to run 43. "

Does anyone know from where this complete tosh is brought into being???

I can only think that there was a very misguided sponser of the Adidas Athletics Club on the board. The most worrying line is... the MoD should now examine whether the "leaner Army command structure" should "set the pattern for harmonisation".

God help us all!!!

[wg13_dummy]

Err, they have a point maybe?

This may well degenerate into a crab/pongo slanging match but the fact is the Army side of the equation has been operating more with less. I dont think it needed anyone from Teeny Weeny to massage the figures.

The harsh reality is the AAC have (not because they've wanted to!) been just as op effective as their RAF counterparts with fewer people. Ok, you can argue that the RAF have the responsibility of the Station as a whole but sqn wise, the manning is more streamlined on the green side. The RAF have an exclusive Officer frat piloting the aircraft as opposed to the AAC NCOs making up the numbers. That may well slant the argument. There is a balance to both sides.

As an aside, do the RAF chaps think that in a conventional SHF Sqn, are they over or under manned?

The same question to the pongo chaps with regard to their set up.


It may well push the argument for the RAF to revert to some front seat NCO positions. ME, SHF etc....Mmmm.

[The Rocket]

And there was me wondering where on earth 'totalwar' and 'rafloo' were recruited from:rolleyes:

[SASless]

It is for sure the Army does not pride itself upon independent thought nor seem to enjoy it as do the funny blue suits.....nor with the sheer good humour of the briny bunch. Must be they are so short handed they do not have time to stop and smell the roses like the other two services.

[wg13_dummy]

It is for sure the Army does not pride itself upon independent thought

Tis true possibly in some branches of the Army but in the lesser circles of Avn, independant thought is almost desired. We (the shop floor type pilots and operators) are pretty much the same weather we have bar codes on shoulder, tapes on arm or that gold stuff the boat boys love.

From my side of the trench, I see our groundies being the undermanned section. How is it in the other suits?

[althenick]

wg13_dummy,

Taken from 801 Sea Harrier Webpage

"The Squadron is manned by 13 Officers, 34 Senior Rates and 78 Junior Rates. The majority of personnel are directly involved with flying or aircraft maintenance: however, the Squadron is a self-contained unit with its own administrators, cooks and stewards."

Seems quite lean also, I wonder what an equivilent (GR7/9) Squadron has in the way of manning.

as for RN helo squadrons I cant find very much The lynx squadrons are broken down into flights for example (815)

" A Lynx flight is made up of 2 officer aircrew, one Aircraft Controller, and a team of 7 maintainers led by a Chief Petty Officer Artificer. This flight is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the aircraft both ashore and afloat. "

assuming 12 a/c fully committed to sea = 24 Officers and 84 men but that wont include cooks, stewards, and the like. Feel free to correct this.

[fagin's goat]

Anyone pretending to justify RAF manning v that in a similar sized AAC or FAA squadron is simply 'head in sand'. HM forces are not a job creation scheme. If the job can be done with fewer then it should be done so; the more personnel you have the greater 'footprint' in the ground (or ship) and the greater the support and financial burden. Keep it lean I say. I know for a fact that jointery has shone a harsh and uncomfortable light on RAF manning when compared with RN/Army in similar roles - enough said.

[foldingwings]

Maybe that is why the RAF is currently downsizing from 52K to circa 43K.

So cut the drivel, chaps!

[fuel2noise]

43,000 repeat 43,000 people to operate how many aircraft??

Let us examine the teeth to tail ratio shall we? Comparisons with the commercial sector would be illuminating and frankly, long overdue.

[insty66]

BITE

Everyone of our 3 services are highly respected and professional outfits. We have different jobs to do and very different systems of work. Each system of work has developed over time to best suit the needs of each particular service.
Those of you who only look at bare numbers show IMO an incredibly simplistic approach to modern military a/c operations, which if applied across board would mean that there is no scope whatsoever for future "surge operations."
The sooner all military personnel stop thinking about "business" and start getting down to how we all might do our business better. Then perhaps we can get rid of the bloody consultants and concentrate on developing military type solutions to our own peculiar military needs.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

I enjoy banter as much as the next man/woman/person of unspecified gender but this "mine is smaller than yours" willy waving is beyond belief.


harrumph

[jindabyne]

The Rocket

And now you can add fuel2noise to that list ------

[Biggus]

If the RAF is overmanned please explain to me, and my wife, why I have been working so hard since 9/11. And we are not even in a full blown shooting war right now.

I thought the miltary in general was supposed to be able to continue to function once it had taken losses in combat, the system needs to function when various elements are removed. Therefore by definition it needs some built in 'fat'. Otherwise the loss of one particular man/woman/section brings everything to a halt and we can only conduct peacetime ops!

[FJJP]

Actually, fuel2noise does have a point, but the subject can be tackled in different ways.

I have been involved directly in an establishment review - the justification for each post must be proved BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER and savagely fought or you will lose it. The word REASONABLE does not figure in the vocabulary of the subject. It is a major exercise in looking at the minimum numbers you need for the stated task. This is conducted at unit level.

However - and I directly challenge all of you still in uniform [and comment back to this topic] - find a copy of the MOD and Command telephone directories [try your Unit or Base Commander's PA] and you will be staggered at the sheer size of the organisation. I'll bet you could tear out big chunks at random and dis-establish the posts therein and few would notice the difference. The mind boggles at the function of some of the people and offices!

And bear in mind that it is much easier to dis-establish a uniform than a civil servant....

[fuel2noise]

jindabyne - delighted to be added to any list of those prepared to challenge the indefensible! Fact is UK forces need to change to survive in a cash starved future. I do not question the need for (say) current aircrew numbers but just look at the huge infrastructure to get relatively few aircraft in the air. But. I am told that there are just about enough commissioned air engineers to have one per airframe in the UK armed forces (possibly 1 per engine fitted to said aircraft - I trust a ppruner will provide the accurate figure); this is mad. Much forces waste is self inflicted; e.g. endless paper pushers to 'administer' travel forms and payments, etc. The cost of ensuring service personnel do not make a dodgey travel claim (for example) is gigantic and would not be supported in business life where people are trusted/given a hire car/allowance/etc without difficulty. This is one trivial example of a culture that can not be afforded unless we want to see our shrinking forces becoming a 'self-licking icecream'.

May not be comfortable but what choice is there?

[foldingwings]

Anybody know how many anti-submarine ships/helos the Navy has and what their purpose is? Where is the sub-surface threat these days other than perhaps in Bander Abbas? At least the RAF is controlling its Nimrod numbers and retasking them into an ISTAR role!

Off we go then! Let's have a p1ssing contest into wind and see how wet our trousers get!

[pr00ne]

althenick,

You cannot compare a SHAR squadron to an equivalent RAF outfit, in the RAF 801NAS would be called a flight, 6 or 7 jets versus what, 13 or 14, used to be 16.

Double the aircraft complement yet NOT double the manpower.

[fuel2noise]

Agree foldingwings.

No need for a pissing contest as all 3 armed forces need to examine their belly buttons on the manpower issue. Navy ASW (and other roles we could think up in other services) may well need the spot light treatment. It is not just a light blue issue. Pity some ppruners seem a tad defensive and unable to think the previously unthinkable. Got to face the fact that defence is not going to be given shed loads of new cash to preserve the status quo. Let's cull the bean-counters/blunties/excessive engineering bureaucracy and their obsessive self-serving paperwork and focus on the job of delivering effective military capability.

[J Urby]

there are a few factors that appear to be missing in the numbers game that some of our members are playingjavascript:smilie(':*')
Bah.

1. An AAC or FAA sqn, while small in numbers and self-contained, rely heavily on 2/3rd line servicing and on the entire infrastructure of the Unit where/upon which they serve, could they really run on their own for any length of time without referal to an outside agency? At least the numbers for the RAF mean everyone.

2. The RAF operate a mixed fleet mainly comprising of old/v old and highly complex aircraft. Both of these factors mean that the servicing is far more intensive in manpower and hours; which of the other 2 Services could, on their techie stength even think about operating a VC10 or tonka Sqn?

Grow up guys,javascript:smilie(':E')
EvilThis is the same old argument that has the bean counters rubbing their hands in glee and forcing cuts or amalgamations 'cos "look, even the other Services think the RAF is wastful"!

Imho, if there is any cutting to be done while maintaining a useful capacity it is at Cmd and MOD level not the front linejavascript:smilie(':E')
Evil

[L1A2 discharged]

The difference between 'us' the military and civil enterprise is that the civvies have to make a profit. We merely have to die gloriously in equipment supplied by the lowest bidder, 'we' are manned for war, therefore are viewed as expensive in pecetime .... when we eventually reach peacetime we could revisit this, however with the multitude of deployments current and forthcoming when will that be?

L1, unhappy, near a grass airfield, shortly to be somewhere else without the 'right' kit 'cos 'we' don't need it said a face somewhere really dangerous like behind a desk in a suit. :mad:

[ShyTorque]

The UK flying military haven't been taking large numbers of casualties for some years. If it ever does (God forbid let's hope it never does but who knows what scheme today's politicians have in their sights next?), it as a whole will need all the aviation manpower it can get. So why whinge from within? Do you want even more overstretch? :rolleyes:

[insty66]

Bloody hell!!!!!!!!!
you're still all at it!
We are different with different jobs, do your zips up and get on with it:uhoh:


Beer is a wonderfull thing:ok:

[DP Harvey]

..." 'we' are manned for war, therefore are viewed as expensive in pecetime ...."

Interesting comment by L1A2. "war" in our enlightened times actually means "concurrent operations", which can mean anything that requires the (armed) forces. Op Fresco is reason I put the word "armed" in brackets (parentheses for the officers among us).

Therefore, in order to to head off the argument regarding the unnecessary expense of paying for the armed forces to do nought, the government and our defence chiefs are continuously looking for work for us to do.

[Bag Man]

And another thing, I can remember when the GR7 bouys (!) first went to sea. The FA2 men were gobsmacked, not only to see how many maintainers were 'required' by the RAF, but also by the fact that the crab maintainers were on NVG when there was insufficient money for the RN pilots to be issued with NVG.

Now explain that!

[fuel2noise]

Bag Man hear hear!!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Bagman/F2N

Perhaps forward thinking procurement by the light blue? And something to do with the fact that field ops (where light tends to be in short supply) required NVGs? Something to do with the fact the FAA always sucked the hind t1t compared to the RNs priority of boats?

And whilst we are on the RN - people in glass houses.....

Saw a presentation on the RN (by the RN) recently which showed that the number of ships in the RN had reduced by over 50% since the 1980s but the number of personnel had only reduced to 65%!! The same cannot be said of the RAF. Overmanned - who??????

And the RAF target is 35000 by the start of the next decade (according to figures being discussed in the "centre"). So it will be lean by then, and leaner than the RN!! And still do a better job!!

[Lafyar Cokov]

When I noticed the headline that started this thread I was more surprised by the facts that the report claimed that the AAC managed to run 43 aircraft in province. I know I've never counted this many and I think the most they've managed to task in a day is about 8. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I in no way meant this to be an inter-service pi55ing competition (hang-on this IS pprune....) but I was just amazed at the totally arbitary (and I belive factually incorrect) stats behind these figures. So what how many 'officers' it takes. These officers also run most of the admin of Aldergrove that benefits the AAC (and the RN det when it was there). I was just really rather shocked that this report had particularly singled out some random 'officer to aircraft' ratio that means nothing.

Fuel2Noise mentioned the statistic "43,000 repeat 43,000 people to operate how many aircraft?? " How ever many it is, this figure includes all support, personnel, ATC, Regiment, Tac Comms, Tac Supply, training staff, catering, airfield maintenance, Infrastructure org, logistics engineering. etc etc. Thse benefit all three aviation services and are also the backbone to any armed service. One could say of the Army - "110,000 to operate 10% of the RAF's ac - that really is ridiculous" but the figures are just as misleading.

The only way that cuts of personnel can be implimented is by the civilianisation of many tasks - and the losers will be - all those in the military because the shi77y jobs will be spread over even fewer military personnel.

[opso]

43,000 repeat 43,000 people to operate how many aircraft??

Let us examine the teeth to tail ratio shall we? Comparisons with the commercial sector would be illuminating and frankly, long overdue. Well, BA has roughly 47,000 personnel operating 291 aircraft (2004 Q4 figures). So this works out to be 162:1 without the ability to deploy self-supported. It also doesn't include much of their catering, handling, etc, which is sub-contracted. Nor do they have to provide their own air traffic, employ capable FP personnel for nasty locations, nor man positions in embassies worldwide... etc etc.

Meanwhile, the RAF (figures from the current RAF website) has 464 aircraft (plus another 291 in training or misc roles excluding EFTS and BBMF) with 52804 personnel. So exclude the training burden and we have 114:1 (70:1 including training ac) doing all of the above and more (including animal slaughter and firefighting when necessary!). That said, BA would expect approx 285 of those ac to be available and flying on any one day whereas, given the state of our knackered old ac and poor supply situation, we would be hard pushed to get 285 of our ac airborne in a day. :(

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Our seamen fellows are indeed shouting from the crows nest about the 'senior' service a lot these days.

Out of the 3 services it should be the navy that gets 'Leaner', was it not mentioned in the AFPRB that the airforce on average works more hours per man per week than the navy, and also loses more annual leave.

In the current situations Afghan/Iraq the RAF/Army are indeed working hard and the public/MoD/(politicians:uhoh: ) are aware. However the Navy are the junior players at the party, and as such when the money comes around :D

Apart from the Sub's with TLAM's, who needs so much of a navy? Where as the Army/RAF have adapted to the recent world changes the navy is still struggling for a role post cold war.

[Widger]

Fire and forget.

OK I've bit. You are spouting utter Cr@p. If you are indeed serving at the moment, then I suggest you talk to some of your more astute brethren, including those who have been to Sea.

Quote: from the AFPRB

• As with previous surveys, the results showed those with the highest average duty
hours were RN personnel at sea and Army personnel in Northern Ireland.

You assertation that because the RAF gets less leave taken, this means you are working harder. B**l*cks. One of the reasons some, not all, get less leave is that some of your managers are not controlling manpower correctly. As I have said in previous posts, the light blue need to press PMA for Personnel Functional Standards. These place emphasis on budget holders to comply with conditions of service, including leave.


You assertation that the RN has no value is equally without foundation and totally out of place in the joint environment in which we work. I do not want to get into a deabte about who does what or more but it is worth highlighting a few facts to put right your ignorance.

The RN has been active in many areas. As we are concentrating on the middle east lets start: The Royal Marines have deployed both in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the first assault of GW2, the Royal Marines were part of the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula. The first non-SF UK serviceman to touch foot on Iraqi soil was Lt Jason Blackwell RN..mentioned in despatches here:
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/op_honours_31oct.htm

The assault was supported by Mk7 ASACs from 849 Sqn operating from HMS Ark Royal. There were also RAF personnel within 849Sqn. The ship and squadrons spent over 100 days continuously at sea.

You will also remember that two crews lost their lives coming back and going to, an operational sortie suporting forces on the Al Faw. Your comments do their memory a dis-service.

On a wider note, I appreciate that this is PPrune but, the days of bickering amongst the services about who does what are long gone. All three services are under great financial pressure from HM treasury. There have been many in the Light Blue who have tasted life at sea and put in a great deal of effort to ensure that our integrated approach works to mutual benefit.

We will not improve our lot in any service with pettty gibes.

[VoicesFromTheCreche]

Apart from the Sub's with TLAM's, who needs so much of a navy? Where as the Army/RAF have adapted to the recent world changes the navy is still struggling for a role post cold war.

Fire 'n ' forget - What a great grasp you have of littoral warfare and UK defence policy. We can only hope the crabs contribution to future expeditionary warfare is as great as that they offered the Nation in the Falklands conflict.

Put your :mad: away and get on with your job you loser.

[bader'sbalance]

Apart from the Sub's with TLAM's, who needs so much of a navy?

Aren't there some subs with somthing called a D5 too???:E

[Widger]

There thinks I ....what the **** is a D5?....Google search....Ahhhhhhhhh I getcha!!!

Learn something new........

Am I bothered, ask me if I'm bothered

Computer says no!

[Maple 01]

We can only hope the crabs contribution to future expeditionary warfare is as great as that they offered the Nation in the Falklands conflict.

So what you're saying is that the last time the Navy took the lead in OOA ops was 23 years ago? Still bitter and twisted about that? Honestly, you get rid of your carriers and then expect air cover! ;)

[bader'sbalance]

We don't care that much either, but it is thicker, longer and has a much larger load than yours infact it makes yours look........................"invert'd":}

[Widger]

Maple 01,

I take you tongue in cheek comment in the spirit it was meant. I also take it from your handle that you are an F3 mate.

Point of order. The loss of the carriers was as a result of the RAF assertation, that TASMO would provide air cover anywhere in the world. As you probably know there was some jiggery pokery with Australia that went on at the time.

You are right to allude that 1982 is old history.. Also the RAF do not have the assets to provide Air cover world wide using HNS.

Some of your colleagues in other platforms (GR7A, Chinnook, Apache) have done sterling work over the last few years in demonstrating the strike ability of maritime (notice I did not say naval!) air power.

Looking to the future the CVF will benefit all three services. We must all pull together and get away from this ridiculous pi$$ing contest. Yes we are pi44ed off about the loss of FA2, and the late arrival of T45 in insufficient numbers and the late arrival of Typhoon, that is not carrier capable, and all the other hot topics of the moment.

Fact is, after some moving of the goalposts by No11, we are all skint. Defence dosen't win votes..the Chavs don't care about the military and unless we all speak with one unified voice, our respective services are knack$$ed


Am I bothered, ask me if I'm bothered,

Computer says no.

[totalwar]

Yes we are pi44ed off about the loss of FA2 I'm not....good bloody riddance to the wingeing fagbags.....heard today on Yeoviltons #2

Ground "Vixen2 request you reiterate your warning out, there appears to be some confusion"

Vixen2 "negative, warning out is correct"

Ground " roger, but can you explain which profile you are planning to fly. Are you the aircraft intending to head North"

Vixen2 (agitated) " I am not about to explain my sortie profile on here"

Ground " roger well at least then can you give me the pilots name and we'll work it out"

Vixen 2 "Negative"

Ground " roger, backtrack and taxi to dispersal.... taxi clearance cancelled"

Laugh, I nearly cheered.

[pr00ne]

Widger,

The loss of the carriers was a cost saving measure resulting from the withdrawal from East of Suez, itself done to try and solve a massive financial problem, as was the axing of the TSR-2, P1154 and HS681, then the F-111K.

The alleged “moving” of Australia was an RAF attempt to protect the F-111K force when a compromise attempt to retain a UK presence in Australia and on island bases was half heartedly attempted around the time of the devaluation of the pound, which was the final nail in the financial coffin.

Agree on CVF, if it happens it will be a genuine joint asset providing deep strike capability and a future AD capability if that ever proves to be needed in some far off future scenario.

[althenick]

Just got this back from the Mod…


The RN and RAF Manning strengths as at 14 Mar 05 For JFH
are:
(Actual Figures)


Squadron/Juniors/Seniors/Officers

1 Sqn/127/37/17 (1)
3 Sqn/123 (17)/37 (14)/22 (4)
4 Sqn/129 (18)/37 (11)/18 (4)
801 Sqn/75/36/12
899 Sqn/41/43/11

the numbers in brackets are the RN personell currently on these Squadrons.

You cannot compare a SHAR squadron to an equivalent RAF outfit, in the RAF 801NAS would be called a flight, 6 or 7 jets versus what, 13 or 14, used to be 16.

As I previously said, The RN squdrons also include their Ancillary staff. also I think you'll find 801's aircraft strenth is slightly higher than 6 or 7 (someone told me 9 but the MoD didn't give me that info) even so I think the FAA numbers compare favourably to the RAF ones (For 801 anyway- I think 899 disbands in a few days time)

[totalwar]

If the MOD and althenick are segregating RN people and RAF people as much as that then why is it called the JHF....?

maybe we should change it to the RN&RAF Harrier Force..

[pr00ne]

althenick,

An RAF GR7 outfit is still much larger than a SHAR outfit in terms of the number of jets.

When the transition to an all Harrier JFH is complete isn't the idea to have 2 light blue "heavy" squadrons principally manned by the RAF with a smaller dark blue contingent with RAF squadron numbers and badges, and 2 dark blue "heavy" squadrons principally manned by the RN with a smaller light blue contingent with RN squadron numbers and badges?

JOINT Force Harrier?

[Widger]

Total,

Don't be so harsh on the poor little dears, they have to do it all themselves you know, they don't have the benefit of your all singing cab and an Observer to assist.


I am slowly tracking you down!!!!!!!!!!!!




Am I bothered, ask me if I'm bothered, are you disrespecting my family?


Channel 9!

[althenick]

Proone Et al,

I've no problem with jointery from an equipment point of view. Having common airframes going through a common support system can only be good for keeping the costs down. Where I DO think it goes wrong is when you start sending guys and girls to sea on a regular basis who didn't join up to do that. I've met alot of RAF People in my CS & RNR days and nearly all of them didn't like the idea of going to sea. It didn't even work From 1918-1937. By 1921 the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force had gone from almost 100% Light Blue to 25% Mainly because a life at sea didn't appeal to them. So Yes, have the common airframes, Lets have the benefits of a pool of techical backup and knowlege that's going to be second to none. Let's even keep the RAF contingent carrier qualified. but don't subject the poor sods to 8 months at sea. All that'll happen (Is happening?) there is you'll start losing people in a big way.

BTW - I also asked the MoD for PVR numbers in the harrier community over the past 4 years - guess what? no reply!

[Archimedes]

The alleged “moving” of Australia was an RAF attempt to protect the F-111K force when a compromise attempt to retain a UK presence in Australia and on island bases was half heartedly attempted around the time of the devaluation of the pound, which was the final nail in the financial coffin.


Pr00ne, do you know of the source for that, by any chance? Would help one of my colleagues here at the purple learning centre if you did!

[pr00ne]

Archimedes,

Released minutes of Chiefs of Staff committee meetings (64-76) and some FCO documents on the debate over the withdrawal from East of Suez that were releasd in 1990.
Supported by a series of documents released by Chief SCientific adviser to MoD for the same period. Adfraid I can't lay my hand on exact references right now but it is all out there in the Public domain.

althenick,

Hard to disagree with all that you write, joint seems to be the flavour of the month right now irrespective of rationale or logic.

I know what I\'d have told them if they told me to learn how to land my mighty stead on a carrier and then go to sea with it for half a year, mind you I ended up telling them virtually the same thing anyway but that\'s not the point.

[Archimedes]

Pr00ne,

Thanks - that'll narrow down his search area considerably. (He's an old hand with the PRO catalogue, so I'm sure he can find the exact references out).

[Widger]

You think the Light Blue have it hard!

US Air Farce pilot, used to flying with NAV..exchange RAF on Harriers, has to learn to fly the puff jet and then a little while later he embarks with the Squadron and has to land it on a deck at Sea! All in the space of a few months...Respect to the guy.

Now he had reason to be Pi$$ed!