Interesting thread on e-goat..

[plans123]

Worth a read.....


E-Goat (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=754)




Discuss?

[WIWOWessex]

It makes so much sense and is so true...
There is absolutely no :mad: way anyone in the ivory towers is going to pay it any attention. After all why do away with such a fantastic old boys club!!!

[ConingsbyFlyingClub]

Never has a truer word been spoken. I saw some stats the other day that said we have the same out of Wing Commanders in 2006 as we did in 1990!! and I think we have as many air ranks as we do Sqn's if not more. Oh well no point moaning as it will always be that way.

[insty66]

Just read it.
A well written post with undisputable facts. It'll never catch on.


edited to remove some silly booze fuelled question.

[Dan Winterland]

A well written , intuitive, reasoned and balanced argument with many good points. This means it will be ignored.

It does seem that many of these posts are self serving. Unfortunately the culture that exists is one of self generation where these posts are deemed essential for service and career development. The reality is that in a short two year posting, the incumbent feels he has to do something to get noticed and get a good report. This is why so much keeps changing so often and why people lower down the scale feel they are getting unnecessarily b*ggered around.

It was bad for morale 5 years ago when I was in and was one of the reasons why I left. It seems worse now.

[Pontius Navigator]

One point at which the rot may have started, but I don't have figures to back it, was the Hodgkinson Report around 1969.

This heralded the change to a single list. The rationale was that many supplementary list officers had potential that was not being recognised. By introducing the single list all officers were created equal.

The loss of the B-exam and then the C-exam meant that one could get promoted to first flt lt on time and sqn ldr purely on the basis of reports rather than an exam.

The other thing that changed was the hidden promotion list with the half-yearly promotions and the feast of the passover. Together with open promotions came the decision not to post newly promoted sqn ldrs mid-tour. They would continue overborne until tourex.

He also introduced the '300 overborne' sqn ldrs; sqn ldrs without true exec function. Virtually overnight a V-sqn went from wg cdr-sqn ldr and 53 fofl to wg cdr, 5 sqn ldr and 44 fofl (we lost a crew as well).

Spec aircrew were introduced too with additional sqn ldrs cluttering the crew rooms. We now had experienced senior aircrew sqn ldrs and inexperienced sqn ldr execs. A right recipe.

In 1990, with the then current round of redundancies being set out, two figures stuck in mind. There were 842 JO Engineers and 845 sqn ldr Engineers. This of course was rather adjacent to the number of aircraft in the RAF. Of course there are many flavours of engineers and many do purple jobs rather than light blue.

Also in 1989, Roger Honey, the then air sec, stated that there was a requirement for just 1 000 FJ aircrew (I think he excluded the multis but I could be wrong). This was the precursor to 'terminating' effectively ex-aircrew wg cdrs. All that actually happened was a tweaking of their pay and conditions but not there numbers.

[Zoom]

This is just another tedious, badly-written squaddie moan of the usual 'officers useless, squaddies fantastic' ilk that fills E-Goat, so it's no wonder he hasn't had a reply. :hmm:

[insty66]

"This is just another tedious, badly-written squaddie moan of the usual 'officers useless, squaddies fantastic' ilk that fills E-Goat, so it's no wonder he hasn't had a reply. "

There have been replies, try using the scroll wheel.:ok:

A quick look at the replies here should give you a good idea on the quality of his post.

Hope you run your hotel better than you post on pprune:ok:

[dessert_flyer]

I dont think it is a post that can be argued against, with the introduction of lean and all the other cost saving measures surely we cant afford to have an old boys network anymore. We have been cut to the bone where we cant even afford some of the basic spares for our aircraft, however can afford to keep many high ranking officers in posts that dont even need to exist. We have somewhere lost our way, and need to realise that our aim as an organisation is largely to put aircraft in the air, something that seems to be lost on many people within our organisation. If we are to be recognised as an effective airforce then we need to adjust our focus from being an organisation that is there to help many officers reach their career goals at the expense of achieving our primary role.

rant over

D-F

[Dogfish]

We have somewhere lost our way, and need to realise that our aim as an organisation is largely to put aircraft in the air,

A large number of these officers are in non jobs and their aim appears to be the opposite. Many of them are in post to cope with the huge raft of trivia that is all pervasive in our ''modern'' service. Just why do we need 400+ group captains? Looking at the redundancy figures it appears that very few officers are going, it all smells of ''jobs for the boys'' to me, perhaps one of our junior ringers would care to respond. :*

[pvr not dwr]

The ratio I heard was 1 air rank to every 10 wing commanders, 1 wing commander to 10 Sac's.

[plans123]

Zoom, your comment smacks to me of someone who was more bothered with the 'Officer Lifestyle' than the interest of the service. People with attitudes like that, I can (and often do) do without.
You should open your eyes sometime and have a look around, but I get the feeling you are somewhat of an ostrich. :}

[Rangeblind]

Good call- A certain west Country Navy Airbase use to sport a good 15 Squadrons (big ones at that) back in the 80’s now we have 5/6 smaller units. Most now have SO1 bosses as opposed to Lt Cdrs. We still have, Captain (ok so it use to be a 1 star), Cdr, Cdr LS and Cdr Eng O and of course Wings and all the trimmings O and they invented force commanders at So1 level J

[Oggin Aviator]

The changing rank structure of the FAA was to bring it into line with the other services and allow parity between CO's on the boat (dark blue and light blue as it was in the not too distant past). Having SO1 rotary force commanders also allows a HEC to be allocated to the boat should the need arise in order to add some balance to the force structure with the FW element. On the whole not a bad thing, IMHO.
Oggin

[Beeayeate]

Coming from an RAF of many years ago (dare I say around BEag's time) it seems to me that the root cause of all the problems in the current mob is the lack of a creditable national 'enemy'.

I know you 'youngsters' scoff at the witterings of us older types but there was a certain, what. . . clarity of purpose in those times.

Seems to me that it all started to go downhill with the first mutterings of that evil phrase 'Peace Dividend'.

[Zoom]

Well, I've copped some flack on both sites and fair enough, and so I think I shall make a tactical withdrawal from this one. But innsty66, you are certainly 'way too blind' (by your own admission) as you clearly didn't read the first sentence in Tino's post; even Michelle Jenvey did that. And no, plans123, I'm not an ostrich, but my post was directed more at the tenor of Tino's post and less at the content, since Tino has used language redolent of that tired old 'us against them' struggle. (I'm neither 'us' nor 'them', by the way.) This sort of stuff permeates E-Goat, which has quickly become a very tiresome website, and it is not particularly easy to take any of its material seriously. I went there today only at your suggestion.

But plaudits that Tipo has received about his writing style are not warranted and therein lies his problem. The impression that his letter gives me is of another whinge in a long list of whinges by a disgruntled NCO; I might be right or I might be wrong, but that is the way the letter strikes me. If he doesn't want it to give that impression and wants it to be taken seriously, he should make it briefer, correct his facts, get rid of the cattiness - and then get one of those many under-employed (staff) officers to rewrite it properly for him.

[Pontius Navigator]

Actually 1 Wg Cdr to 10 SAC actually seems quite a good ratio.

While we might seem over burdened away from the coal face there are a lot of non-blue jobs around. A friend of mine has been at SHAPE for a number of years drifting higher up the stars. Lower down that tree, a flt lt on my first sqn had, by 1992, been at SHAPE for 15 years as a wg cdr. There is a fair sprinkling of Britmil and light blue with our allies. They are part of the numbers game but certainly out at the edge of the war fighter scenario.

Then there are the diplomatic posts, no less important and we were talkinh of one man a year or so back, TEL Jarron.

These might be considered 'fat in the system' although many, once in these posts, remain war-fighter ineffective until they retire. What to do? Slim them down and go grey suit?

[16 blades]

One of the reasons we are so 'top heavy' in comparison to the other services is that the vast majority of our actual warfighters are officers (pilots / navs) - this is not true of either the Navy or the Army. The reasons why every pilot or nav is an officer have been done to death on here before and I won't kick that one off again, but the RAF draws it's executive from these branches also, adding to the perception of top-heaviness.

Agree about E-Goat - many posting there seem to have little understanding about the Officer Corps - although I also agree there seem to be a great many bluntie O's (AND sneks) in not-entirely-necessary and self-justifying jobs nowadays.

16B

[Biggus]

In my opinion the comments made on E-goat are perfectly valid. However, this is not the first time these points have been made, and will probably not be the last.

As the author says, his research has largely been up to the rank of Group Captain. Back in the late 80's or early 90's I remember a letter which appeared in 'Air Clues' on this very subject. The author of that letter used figures from the (freely available) Air Force List for 1946 and for the current year (198?/199? - I can't remember which) and looked at the number of officers in each specific rank from Group Captain upwards, in tabular form. In 1946, with WWII just having come to an end, the RAF had nearly 1 million men serving in it, and well over 100 front line squadrons, many Groups, overseas Commands, HQs, etc! At the time the letter was written the RAF was about 100,000 strong. As for the comparison in numbers, well the number of senior neddies had reduced by about 10-20% over the period!!

Comparisons have been made in the past with the Israeli Air Force, which probably now has more combat aircraft than the RAF, and I believe is headed by a 2* (but I am working from memory, not research, I hasten to add!).

I believe the UK armed services are very "top heavy". It is not just the RAF, compare the number of Admirals in the RN with the number of warships left today.

Every so often a newspaper picks up on this story and runs with it, but most of the time it just carries on regardless!!

[Kitbag]

Zoom, what factual inaccuracies are there in the letter?

[maxburner]

The original was a good post, well written and well researched. It makes a valid point and it deserves an answer. Who is the Air Sec these days? One of you still-serving chaps (are there any?) should forward this thread to him.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Zoom, what factual inaccuracies are there in the letter?
Not an inaccuracy per se, but a half truth perhaps:
yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties
That does not mean that you do not need to be an experienced operator. Many "ground tours" are annotated non-flying duties but ARE flying related. You simply cannot put an ATC SNCO or an Eng WO, no matter how competant in their own secialisation, into a post that requries intimate operational, role or type experience.
I have no argument with some of the sentiments expressed in the original letter, but a lot of it is simply niave and perhaps points to a lack of awareness on the part of the original letter writer. any civilian company worth it’s salt would bend over backwards to keep a good manager in placeAlternatively they would recognise his merits, allow him experience in a particular area and then PROMOTE HIM. If civilian companies want to keep their best then, just like the military, they need to pay them a better salary. In the civilian world this can be done through bonuses (something that does not exist in the military, so we reward by promotion) or they promote them to a senior manager/director/VP post. For many staying in one post for too long means they just move to different company, with better pay or promotion prospects, or with better benefits packages.
The letter writer also does not recognise the need for turnover of personnel. We are increasingly working our personnel harder, there are fewer 'respite' tours and the airlines are recruiting like mad. Without sufficient personnel in the training system, and without a healthy turnover, the force becomes stagnant. Promotion becomes dead mans shoes and the whole system becomes stale.
Finally many personnel get bored if they do one job for too long (I know I do) and if you want the best to lead the 'company' then ideally you want wide experience levels, that means short tours, do well, get recognised and move on up (and I do not include myself in the best other wise I would have been promoted long ago;) !

[plans123]

Some very valid points here, but it doesn't get away from the fact (especially to the man on the street) that we are top heavy in the cost of management. Surely if this was a civil company and you wanted to reduce costs or divert more money to the 'shop floor' you make the cost cuts higher up the chain rather than to the shop floor workers.............:}


Don Kevlar helmet...........:eek:

[Capt W E Johns]

Seems to me that the RAF is running up against an economy of scale issue: downsizing by x no. of groups/aircraft/squadrons does not necessarily equate to a proportional reduction in the size of the command required to ensure appropriate employment thereof.

The art of putting people bombs and bullets on target is being done by progressively fewer, progressively more precious assets. The same jobs we do now will be done in future, only with less airplanes. But if there are the same number of theatres, and the same number of different aircraft types, and the same requirements for policy and plans, what's really changed?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Plans
Very true, but what if your company requires, not just needs, but actually requires the skill sets of those people that you have promoted? What if you still operate globally (unlike the IDFAF - let's not reignite that flawed comparison)? What if you still do a multitude of different roles where you need experts in all roles? As W E Johns says we have now hit a pivotal point. We may be reducing the numbers of ac we operate, but are making them more capable. Just because we reduce the numbers does not mean that all the rest of the jobs disappear. You still need planning staffs, policy staffs, procurement staffs, airworthiness staffs, HQ staffs - notice the trend here? Just because there is only 10 of a type left rather than 20 or 30 or 100 doesn't mean that the support functions disappear. You may be able to reduce the ranks of those in the support area, you may have a Gp Capt IPTL or reduce it to a Wg Cdr, but you sure aren't going to reduce it WO or Flt Sgt!
We are reducing numbers of senior officers, a point ignored by the poster on 'Goat', its not just 1000 civilian posts that are going when PTC closes there are many military posts going as well. But the question still has to be asked what do you do with those officers whose post has been disestablished? Remember these personnel have a "contract" to 38/55. Of course we can make them redundant (v expensive) and there are large numbers leaving at 38 or 44 point and large numbers of Wg Cdrs took redundancy in the last rounds and left to join well paid civilian jobs. But until we reach a steady state of 1 command, 2 groups (or is that 3 with Training Group) and 9 or 11 operatonal stations, until we decide what planning and policy work we need to shed, until we decide what HQ functions can be civilianised (for which read screwed up) we cannot just ditch the senior staffs. If we did and then decided that we still need the same planning, joint, policy staffs we would have to promote people faster :ok: thus denuding the frontline of experience, thus increasing the training burden, thus requiring greater recruiting.
Nor can we just ditch frontline aircrew. We are haemorrhaging aircrew at a rate that we cannot replace them. Many are leaving to the airlines because of better pay or maybe the grass is greener or who knows so how do we replace them? We recruit them therefore OASC and IOT still need senior officers, we train them therefore we still need a training system with senior officers, we support them with admin, engineering, supply etc etc therefore we still need senior officers in all of these roles, we protect them so we need senior officers to manage and train the Regt, the police etc. They fly so we need ATC and FC officers and they need senior officers to manage those branches. We remain part of NATO and the EU military so we need senior officers to support and fight for our roles within these overseas (non flying but flying related) posts. We support wider defence diplomacy so we still need DAs in these non flying posts. Etc etc etc.
Senior officer numbers will come down, in time, it just cannot be done over night, and nor should it.
PS I think leaning is complete @rse and it is yet another stupid business idea but what of multi skilling our trades(wo)men? Multiskilling means fewer engineers (but with better employment prospects for when they have had enough of the military). Is multiskilling a bad idea? It seems to work for the airlines!

[plans123]

RP, a well put forward case, can you do the same for the junior ranks then? lol
Increased dets, guard etc etc etc with reduced manpower, we all do it, but some more than others .........:}

[insty66]

"I sent off a version of the following as a letter to the RAF News a while back, and have yet to receive a reply for some reason. It will be interesting to hear other people’s opinions on the contents."

Is the first sentence that was typed on e-goat. Can't see how any conclusions can be drawn from that.

The post was put up here on PPrune for discussion and I asked a question (withdrawn before you posted) regarding the "apparent imbalance". Nonetheless various other posters have in some way answered it. Folk like Roly have sat down and typed up informative replies that go towards explaining why the "apparent imbalance" exists.

What blindness on my part are you referring to? I certainly don't recall admitting to anything here or on the goat! especially on these threads. Additionally I haven't resorted to calling you names like you did to Mr Jenvey.

Explanation and education is better than out of hand condemnation.

[Roland Pulfrew]

RP, a well put forward case, can you do the same for the junior ranks then?

Plans

Yes. Exactly the same applies. The problem is we are being driven down a politically directed route - an Air Force of 41K. But 41K isn't enough to do what we are doing NOW. Until we start to shed commitments and/or stop misemploying personnel (ie doing guard duty) we need more than 41K, we probably need around 48K! But that is contrary to THE PLAN. IMHO we should get to the planned force structure, review all posts and then make those that we do not need redundant - NOT the other way round! But then that costs money, money that Trust me Tone and Gordon 'I'm British nae Scottish' Broon want to throw into the black hole that is the NHS.:mad:

[TheBeeKeeper]

I just can't resist adding my 2p worth!

Why can’t some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field?

a. Where do you think JO's gain experience to become grown ups?
b. WO and FS are expensive! (Have you seen how much they earn?!?)

I do agree with much of the letter, although folk often forget the number of SNCOs and Officers at Wyton/STC etc that support the stations/IPTs. I believe a study has been carried out regarding making 600 Eng Officers redundant in favour of contractors and civvies! (The findings have yet to be published!) So the question begs to be asked, would you rather have D grade civil servants filling those posts or JO's?

TBK

[southside]

Good call- A certain west Country Navy Airbase use to sport a good 15 Squadrons (big ones at that) back in the 80’s now we have 5/6 smaller units. Most now have SO1 bosses as opposed to Lt Cdrs. We still have, Captain (ok so it use to be a 1 star), Cdr, Cdr LS and Cdr Eng O and of course Wings and all the trimmings O and they invented force commanders at So1 level J


Unlike another West Country airbase where the CDR and Wings are one and the same bloke. Why have a CDR and a CDR (Air)...sack one and get the other to cover his job....save yrself £60g in a stroke.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I always thought one of the problems we had was that people couldn't be rewarded for success in a job without leaving it.
If someone is posted into a specific post for 3 years, our career structure generally means they'll be going somewhere else at the end of 3 years. So, they either move to another equivalent job or stir things enough to get noticed, get promoted, and move up to the next rung.
Perhaps if we had a system where someone successful in an SO2 post could be prompoted to Wg Cdr but remain in the same job, we'd have better luck? Man in the job gets his reward, his extra pay, and his promotion, but we get continuity in the post, someone even more experienced (6 years in one job!), and those working under him don't have to run through change as often.
There shouldn't be issues regarding chain of command; if said SO2 becomes a Wg Cdr, he'll still be deputy to an SO1 post. Even if both are the same rank, the SO1 still calls the shots.
Or is that complete madness? There are training squadrons around run by Sqn Ldrs who have Sqn Ldr aircrew on strength; is there any reason why an excellent Sqn Ldr pilot couldn't be promoted to Wg Cdr without needing to leave his Sqn Ldr Flt Cdr job?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Slightly off the point, but.....
I remember someone telling me not so long, that there were about 3.5 engineering officers in the RAF for ever aircraft engine we had!!
Kind regards
TSM

[Pontius Navigator]

5 Forward 6 Back,

Non-exec wg cdrs? I thought that was the purpose of PA although they would not be wg cdrs. When spec aircrew came out SA Wg Cdr was a possibility but I only knew of one.

On the command side, Hodgkinson proposed the overborne sqn ldr. What you are proposing is effectively an overborne wg cdr.

One naval unit I used to visit was headed by a 2.5 - Sir. The rest of the staff consisted of 2.5s with one Lt. They were all Tom, Dick and Harry or Claude or whatever Naval officers are called.

Overborne wg cdrs? No, we are too lean for that. No spare slots and no more wg cdrs than we need:D

[ralphmalph]

This is obviously a very emotive subject!

You guys in the RAF always talk about having too many senior officers!, however because of that fact you as a service are very well spoken for in the corridors of whitehall etc.

It has been mentioned here that perhaps some personnel should be fulfilling their primary jobs rather than man a gate........fair one....but perhaps there is scope for some rationalisation in the RAF?. Not meant to be a wind upbut, why do you guys still have Wg Cdrs in charge of Sqns and officers paid to do absolutley nothing but fly??. Surely there is a happy medium to be found?

Cheers

Ralph

[Climebear]

This is an old one- the same can be said as to why the British Army has majors commanding companies when it used to have capts - indeed the US Army still has capts commanding companies (oh and by the way I do know the answer - the change heppend when sub-units started to work independantly in colonial policing roles). Lt cols still command bns that now number 660 (albeit higher when operating as a battle group - but know where near the 1000+ that used to comprise a bn when we were giving the french a good hiding in Spain and then at Waterloo. Moreover, an inf lt col commands nearly twice as many men as a cav lt col.

The moral of the story is that things change. A modern inf bn has significantly more capability than a 19th C bn did. A modern FF/DD is manned by fewer people but has a greater capability than its predecessor and it is still commanded by a cdr. Likewise a modern sqn can produce significantly capability that its WW1 or WW2 predecessors. Don't get hung up over what you call a unit or how many people it has in it (a very crude measurement) but by what that organisation can bring to the party.

[buoy15]

Pontius
Most PWO's I met were called Jewemy, Wodney or Wodger, and they all spoke like Jonathan Woss
Most aspired to higher command - must have mastered the 3 'r' s at some time!
"Wodger, wait, out"

[soddim]

I remember many years ago during an exchange tour a newspaper headline:
'The British forces comprise mainly admirals and bands'.

Well, the bands seem to have largely disappeared but the admirals remain unscathed.

[Pontius Navigator]

Buoy 15, I was mixing with AWOs. Maybe they had done the course.

Mind you, met one 4 ringer with a name associated with male hens and that cross betwixt a ewe and a ram, wam.:)

[Danny_Boy]

I remember many years ago during an exchange tour a newspaper headline:
'The British forces comprise mainly admirals and bands'.

Well, the bands seem to have largely disappeared but the admirals remain unscathed.


and Admiral Jonathan Band