letter that RAFNEWS would not print

[ukmil]

The following has just been posted on e-goat the unofficial RAF Rumour service- I cant see why the RAF News won't print it????????



I]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 peoples opinions on the contents. I]

I was pleased to see the letter from Sgt Mark Clay in issue 1136 of the RAF News, I'm sure his comments are welcomed by many, his point about the low morale of many personnel within the ground trades should cause concern. In recent months many have been affected by E2E Studies, Leaning and amalgamation, no doubt more will be, either by loss of individual posts, whole sections, or by leaving the service due to redundancy or natural wastage. The changes occurring within most ground trades vary from mild to traumatic, the rapidity of some of these changes in the interest of saving money does smack of knee jerk reactions to political or monetary pressure, it's only a matter of time before a few baby's get thrown out with the bathwater.

My reason for putting pen to paper is to ask if/when the people who have made all the changes to date are to be 'leaned', namely the management structure and the officer corps. The collocation of the two Command Headquarters may see a reduction of manpower by 1000, but most of this manpower will be civilians who are no longer needed when one Headquarters closes. Interesting debates will no doubt follow if this letter is published; here are a few points to ponder.

Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting. How many of these posts can be justifiably classed as essential cogs in the machine required to produce a cost effective operational force? The ratio of executive officers per operational airframe must cause some raised eyebrows in Whitehall; add all the pay, gratuities and pensions together over 10 years and you can easily afford a few more Typhoons or JCA's. 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? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.

The career structure of the officer corps can also be improved upon, why is it that officers only do 2-year tours; can this be classed as good value for money? The methods used in End to End studies is to compare the work done to a large factory, using phrases such as 'customer', 'product' and 'materials'; continuing the theme, any civilian company worth it's salt would bend over backwards to keep a good manager in place, and would act quickly to move on or dismiss the worst. A two year tour gives little time for development, the first six months learning the job and getting to know people leaves just 18 months of actual productivity. Officers who excel within a certain post move on all too soon, often to an area that bears little or no relationship to the post they leave behind. With competent NCOs shouldering the burden a less adept manager can keep a low profile for 2 years relatively easily. A four year tour will allow the better officer to shine through career-wise, and allow the less competent to be seen for what they are and, hopefully, correct their failings. Other benefits would be increased stability for the individual, not to mention a reduction in training and movement costs.

I read with interest the article by ACM Sir Brian Burridge in issue 1,135 of the RAF News entitled 'RAF is adapting to new challenges', where he made some interesting comments on the changes to the structure of the RAF currently being undertaken. He concluded by saying 'we need a relevant Air Force; that's relevant operationally, and relevant in an economic or a value for money sense.' Adding 'We need fewer, but more adaptable people.' I have served over 26 years and like Sgt Clay have seen many changes, from the end of the Cold War to today's E2E; adaptability and the good old 'can do' attitude have been bywords that have been applied to airmen throughout. Speaking as an engineer we have seen the demise of the Flight Line Mechanic, Direct Entrant technician and the Apprentice, the Mech(Mech) and Mech(Tech) system quickly replaced with the SAC Tech causing the loss of the J/T rank, amalgamation of TG1 trades and the re-introduction of the Flight Line Mechanic in the form of the AMM. One area that has never changed in this time is the way the officer corps functions, and to my knowledge no one has looked into it's efficiency and effectiveness; with the future manning of the RAF giving a ratio of almost 1 officer for 2 airmen perhaps it's time to do so now.

In the late 80's it was said that you could get the whole of the RAF into Wembley, nowadays everyone would fit into the average Division 1 ground; but if seats were allocated by status the terraces would look empty, whilst the VIP boxes would be packed solid.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

As the person who would have replied to your letter would have been a "Royal" it comes as no surprise to me he/she ducked on this one:rolleyes:

I always use as an arguement "Would Branson do it like this" when trying to reason with our "betters" as to the barking mad way the O Corp do business..... but 414 Gp Capt's would love to hear someone justify that..................:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Olly O'Leg]

Brilliant!!!! :D

[soddim]

Circa 1976 General Alexander Haig said 'The British Forces comprise mainly Admirals and bands' - most of the bands have gone but the Admirals remain (and the Field Marshals and the Air Marshals).

[SASless]

Back during the Second War World, the US military had approximately eighteen million in uniform.....today about one and half million. Anyone care to guess how many more Flag Rank positions there are now compared to the end of WWII?

[AC Ovee]

Writing to the RAF News was never going to produce a response. It is an interesting letter, spoiled by one or two emotive phrases. It also asks pointed questions, but not in a structured manner. Take out the swipes, round up the questions in a summary and address the letter to the politicians on the Defence Select Committee. This should not be a debate between airmen and officers in a newspaper but a subject to be explored by politicians demanding answers from the airships.

[4Greens]

A service that requires officers to fly all the planes leads to giving those officers some incentive in the form of promotion. Inevitably this leads to an oversupply.
Aircrew pilots can solve the problem.

[Sunfish]

The author of this letter should be up on a charge........We will think of something.

[Mr Blake]

Letter already posted and commented on in the "meltdown" thread.

[Matt Skrossa]

All three of our armed forces have websites and newspapers which purport to include 'News'. However, on closer examination they very rarely include any 'bad' news, which leads me to the conclusion that they do not take a balanced view and only 'spin' good news. This makes them little more than propaganda in my view.
I recall a few years ago that a Petty Officer had been accused of murder, which was widely reported in the proper press but got no mention in Navy News. Even today four soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment, are due before a military court accused of smuggling guns out of Iraq, but there is no mention of this on the Army website, so don't be surprised your letter to the RAF News wasn't published.

Link to BBC report on Army gun smugglers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/6167735.stm

Link to MoD/British Army report on Army gun smugglers:

There isn't one!!!

The serving sailors/soldiers/airmen of our Armed Forces are not stupid and have access to a wide variety of media info, so start some honest reporting of everything of interest, not just the positive PR bits.

[StopStart]

It's a shame we don't churn out something like Army Times or AF News etc like the yanks do for their folks on det. Whilst they are obviously a little skewed in a certain direction editorially they still print contentious articles from other newspapers giving the paper some balance. They also cover news items about servicemen charged with civil offences etc.

The funnies are rubbish though.

The C17 news is only really any good for playing spot-yer-mate or laughing at some unit or another bigging up their non-existant role.

:hmm:

[The Helpful Stacker]

... because they didn't try hard enough at school. :p

(A fact my teacher wife throws out all the time) 80% of all education is received outside of formal education establishments.

Some would argue they learnt where it counts.:p

[Kitbag]

Judging by some of the comments elsewhere in this forum re cuts and demoralisation, it would seem that a large number of contributors believe that the selection of our senior officers and future CEOs is not very successful. Too much time spent studying theory rather than practise?

[sharmine]

[quote=Pass-A-Frozo;3013684]... because they didn't try hard enough at school. :p:ugh:

Most WO and FS are far smarter (not better educated, just smarter) than junior officers, however, they are also paid more. Therefore it doesn't make sense to replace junior officers with these grades because it would be more expensive in the long run. :ok:

Sharmine

[The Helpful Stacker]

Yes and that's why all CEO's of successful international corporations dropped out in the 6th grade :rolleyes:
Burn the books! Education means nothing! Just think of all those millions our governments are wasting on education!
You mean the "some" who didn't get a formal education!

I'm a 'some' who did manage a formal (degree level) education although I bothered to get it whilst already serving. Whilst I agree that qualifications gained through university may show an interest in bettering yourself they do not in any manner display leadership qualities.

[Maple 01]

Pass old boy, academia isn't everything, I had a 2:1, my boss had a 2:2, I, as the CIO correctly identified, had few leadership talents and was therefore not offered a commission. Tom N***** on the other hand had the potential and will probably run the shop by 2012.
I could still run rings round his earlier Fg Off self though :)

[The Helpful Stacker]

That's right. One is based on your intelligence. The other is based on avoiding death. (Congrats! You haven't died - you have built "experience"). Hang on a second. I saw my 80 something year old cleaner walking around the other day. Why isn't he Prime Minister!
Close all the universities! Close the officer training schools! (What a waste of money!!) Hundred year old turtles will save us all!
Really? Explain that one. I'm guessing that none of the English cricket team were WO's or FS's?

So your alternative appears to be to continue to employ spotty erks who have managed to pick up an academic qualification but have no real life experience or leadership qualities on the bottom rung of the leadership ladder where the meat hits the metal, so to speak?

I suppose it must work as you never hear any complaints about this system.:ugh:

In the Army the SNCO's run the sharp end whilst the officers deal with the 'bigger picture' and generally things get done. In the RAF many would like to do the same but unfortunately we have such a glut of commissioned hangers on that they get in the way.:rolleyes:

[bagsyboy]

[quote=Pass-A-Frozo;3013684]... because they didn't try hard enough at school. :p


let me guess judging by all your smart alec replys you must be a JO who went to uni
I have respect for all ranks, looks like you could try opening your mind, or is the RAF just for officers?:ok:

[threepointonefour]

It's quite surprising to go into the Officers Mess at Wyton and look at the 'named' mail slots. Last time I had the misfortune to visit (took an aircraft for some arb open day) back in 2002 there were 7 Air Cdre slots, 36 Gp Capt slots and innumerate Wg Cdrs.

Let's go back to the old days and 'lean' properly - cut the air ranks drastically and have a pyramidal career structure where each squadron is commanded by a sqn ldr, each wing by a Wg Cdr and each stn by a Gp Capt. I believe the Israelis still have something similar in place and manage to run their equally capable air force with a fraction of the 'air-rankage'. The savings made on cutting 10 AMs (£1.5M), 20 AVMs (£2.7M), 100 Air Cdres (£10M), 400 Gp Capts (£35M), 1000 Wg Cdrs (£75M) & 2000 Sqn Ldrs (£125M) would EASILY pay to 'un-civilianise' the RAF (savings of around £275M). Maybe then there would be more people to deploy!!

Using ukmil's quoted figures of 414 Gp Capts ... WHO, HIGHER UP, CAN TELL THE TAX PAYER WHY WE HAVE MORE GROUP CAPTAINS THAN AIRCRAFT?

[Shot to the Beach]

Talking of good honest open reporting (we were, weren't we?), Coningsby used to produce an erstwhile rag, 'The Irrigator', full of good honest reporting. A splendidly inciteful article on Truckie FRCs I seem to remember.
:rolleyes:

[Exrigger]

I remember back in 71 there being a glut of Fl Lts, or men without portfolio, so they invented a new job titled Divisional Officer. Each surplus officer had about 10-20 airmen allocated to him and he had to bond with them and become a father figure and mentor them, it lasted about three months. It was hilarious going for your chat with 'Dad' :)

[soddim]

Yes, Exrigger, and I well remember one of my 'division' - an ageing Chief Tech Armourer, coming to see me for the first time.

"Excuse me Sir, but I believe you're my Dad".

What a silly system.

[Two's in]

No denying that this was a well thought out letter making some very valid points, but sadly the establishment doesn't work like that. When a very smart SNCO writes a letter questioning the roles and validity of Senior Officers and their appointments, the reaction is not, "Oh my God, the man's on to something, let's immediately investigate our worth to the Armed Forces". It is more likely to be a controlled and focused Witch-Hunt to establish which Commander isn't keeping Johnny-Rebel in check.

If you really are wondering by what means enlisted men get to criticise and question the leadership, role and command displayed by their Officers, you have surely missed some key briefings along your career path.

[Bismark]

Quote:
What a silly system.
Unquote
Interesting that the Divisional System has worked in the RN for 150+ years, with a similar function via the platoon system in the Army. I suspect the difference is that in the RN and Army the leaders of these men are their DOs whereas in the RAF aircrew couldn't possibly look after their men/women from a Divisional point of view.

[GlosMikeP]

....
Let's go back to the old days and 'lean' properly - cut the air ranks drastically and have a pyramidal career structure where each squadron is commanded by a sqn ldr, each wing by a Wg Cdr and each stn by a Gp Capt. I believe the Israelis still have something similar in place and manage to run their equally capable air force with a fraction of the 'air-rankage'. The savings made on cutting 10 AMs (£1.5M), 20 AVMs (£2.7M), 100 Air Cdres (£10M), 400 Gp Capts (£35M), 1000 Wg Cdrs (£75M) & 2000 Sqn Ldrs (£125M) would EASILY pay to 'un-civilianise' the RAF (savings of around £275M). Maybe then there would be more people to deploy!!

Using ukmil's quoted figures of 414 Gp Capts ... WHO, HIGHER UP, CAN TELL THE TAX PAYER WHY WE HAVE MORE GROUP CAPTAINS THAN AIRCRAFT?
There's another conclusion to be drawn from this that's been missed.

Is it not possible that it's not that the management is too large, but that the infrastructure underneath it is far too small?

This would be symptomatic of running a large and complex organisation in difficult circumstances - without the right level of funding to do the job.

Ring any bells?

[Mmmmnice]

Bismark - 'Divisional' was is das? Why could your RAF not use such a system? Please explain to me........many thanks

[Exrigger]

Hi Soddim, I remember similar things, mine asked me to consider SNCO Aircrew, I responded with something along the lines of 'I am not cut out for aicrew'. I'll give him his due he started me off on the trail, I only gave it up due to my dipstick new Jengo. Though I have to say that the point I was making was the fact that a surplus of officers is not a new modern thing.

I still think the saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth' sums it up. I also have been party to the wrong end of a talking to from speaking out about the faults in numerous levels of management within the airforce (while I was still in, I might add), this was mentioned in another thread. I have also done the same to other officers and gained a modicum of success in getting the point through and learnt that there are other ways to make changes. Some good officers have also walked as their principles and the new RAF did not sit well with with their conscience or the higher managements 'new order'.

[soddim]

The best thing about experience, Exrigger, is that we all learn from it. There is understandable confusion when there are so many officers without an officers job to do. I don't wish to go off thread by turning this into a officers versus NCO aircrew discussion but giving nearly all aircrew a commission is the root of the problem.

I have learned that to change anything you first have to find someone who can change it and then convince them to do it. In the RAF the first part of the problem is the most difficult.

[DESPERADO]

Perhaps they didn't publish it because it is nothing more than a 'us and them' whine about officers. The author makes a number of unsubstantiated assertions about the worth (or not) of senior officers in the RAF that doesn't appear to have anything to back it up other than some sort of gut feeling that we have too many officers and we should get rid of some. Clearly if we did this it would fix all of the RAF's current problems overnight. If I was the RAF news I wouldn't publish. If I was PMA or MOD and asked to comment of this letter I would ask the author how many of these officers he considered to be worthless and where he got his facts from.
In my not insignificant time in the RAF (I am some way below the rank of Gp Capt), I have heard all this stuff peddled by the barrack room lawyers many times - it just doesn't wash with me that the RAF is just a 'jobs for the boys outfit'. It may come as a surprise to some of the SNCO's cheering this letter on but there are just as many officers working extremely hard as there are SNCOs. We should be a team, working together, leading the youngsters of the officer and OR corps and not squabbling amongst ourselves. The problem of poor morale is not the fault of the officers (most of whom are doing their best) or SNCOs (likewise) or the MOD machine, or even the MOD civil servants that so many in unifornm continually b!tch about - the problem lies with the fact that we are fighting 2 wars and the armed forces are chronically underfunded by our political masters. You want to see this in action you only have to visit Whitehall and see the frustration of the officers who are desperately fighting to do the best for the frontline and are blocked at every turn by Gordons' little pixies. Get off your high horse and write a letter about that to the RAF news.

[Exrigger]

I concur Soddim, I also do not want to get of topic, but you are right the hardest thing is finding someone who did want to back up/support his subordinates, with all the officers at the top level it becomes harder to move up the ladder (and rocking the boat does not help this cause), but basically I think the letter just asks the question of with the short falls at the front line can we both justify the cost and sustain this level of management, they must be tripping over themselves in the teabar. I also have tried not to enter into the us and them arena, allthough no doubt some might feel my comments lean in that direction.

[Exrigger]

Hi Desparado:

I keep reading the original letter at the start of this thread and your response, I must be getting old as I do not see it as an us and them whine neither can I see any comment about 'worthless' officers or 'jobs for the boys' comments. All I see in lot of words is a question of balance, as I said in my previous post, it seems all that is being asked is with all the leaning and manpower reductions within the lower ranks can we justify the high level of manpower in each of the upper rank structures at the command level. To many engines and not enough trailers is not an efficient or cost effective way to do business, especially as you point out that it is the government bean/vote counters that cause most of the problems within the services.

[glum]

Is the imbalance not simply a product of our pay system? In order to keep the right people in the RAF, we need to pay them commensurate with civvy street. The only way of doing this is by promoting them, such that their rank confers them a salery equivalent to their peers on the outside. Let's face it, some of these Officers are making decisions on future fleets, and multi-million pound contracts.

Whether they get them right or wrong is another discussion, but the fact is, they are making those decisions, and signing the paperwork to place the contracts and spend the money.

Perhaps we should alter the pay system, so the ones doing these jobs are not holding high ranks, but are being paid an allowance much like the PA chaps? Train them in contract law etc, and keep training them - much as we do our aircrew.

[Yeller_Gait]

Desperado,

Quite simply, no civilian company would sustain the level of management we have in the RAF.

Can you justify why we have one officer to every two airmen, or why we have more Group Captains than aircraft? Thought not.

There have been a lot of good arguments put forward as to some of the problems with the Officer career structure, the main one being that the RAF are more interested in the careers of Officers rather than actually allowing them to do a good job. The short (2 year) postings that JO's have does not allow them time to make a mark for the good and actually achieve something useful, all it does allow them to do is to screw up, usually for the next incumbent to have to sort out or deal with.

It is also true that the more incompetent (but not stupid) JO's will stay deep and silent, allowing their SNCO's to look after him for the two years, thereby ensuring his career remains on track.


Y_G

[Wyler]

My twopenneth worth.

I see no reason why all our aircraft need to be flown by Officers only. Our one big event of the social calendar is the Battle of Britain celebration. A Battle that would not have been won without SNCO pilots. This is, however, a taboo that will not be broken because those that lead the RAF benefit directly from this arrangement. The result is you will have far too many Officers on the books and they will demand a career path in order to stay in.

I spent 25 years in the RAF and benefitted from some outstanding SNCO's. I also had to clear up after a lot of below par individuals. The Divisional system was a good idea because so many of our troops were being 'stuffed' by lazy, incompetent SNCO's who would not/could not manage them and, most importantly, put the required effort into the report writing. The Div Off helped to fill a gap and at least make sure that the balance was redressed as best as possible. Also, it proved a valuable 'wake up' to the JO's to the problems of man management.

The letter in question was not published, IMHO, because of the one or two digs at the heirarchy. Not because it is an officers rag but because anything printed by the RAF News is open to scrutiny. They cannot be seen to be party to unsubstantiated rants. I wrote a scathing letter regarding the 'perk' for Wg Cdrs and above being able to forego the RAFT and CCS. That was based on fact and was published.

Slightly off topic but I think we should introduce not just responsibility to a post but also accountability. By that I mean if you are promoted you should also be able to lose the rank. So, if you are in a management job, either Officer or SNCO, you will be assessed not only on the job you have done but also on whether or not you justify staying in the rank. I would also allow previous units to recall individuals to justify actions taken in the past. This might help focus the mind, as too many people hide behind the current system with no fear of any real consequences.

[GlosMikeP]

My twopenneth worth.

I see no reason why all our aircraft need to be flown by Officers only. Our one big event of the social calendar is the Battle of Britain celebration. A Battle that would not have been won without SNCO pilots. This is, however, a taboo that will not be broken because those that lead the RAF benefit directly from this arrangement. The result is you will have far too many Officers on the books and they will demand a career path in order to stay in.....
As I was told it in my youth, the decision to move to all officer pilots and navigators was to do with carriage of nuclear weapons in the V force during the 50s.

There's much sense in what you say otherwise. I guess the problem now would be the RAF is so small that it would reduce the gene pool from which to draw the (later) senior management. That would hardly seem likely to improve matters.

[Phochs3]

Wyler

The bottom line is that it is some bloke or girl flying the aircraft and the rank that you wear is completely immaterial. The one important fact is that the rank structure on a sqn needs to be level and consistant; one sqn JP needs to be able to talk candidly to another sqn JP without a rank divide - therefore make them all Sgts or all Flt Lts; I couldn't care less.

The basic issue is that anyone with the right Qualifications, Med Cat and Aptitude can be a pilot - Officer, NCO or civilian; get down to OASC and pass the selection.

[soddim]

I, for one, do not buy this 'rank divide' issue. It's akin to the old CRM issue where cross cockpit gradient needs to be overcome. In any profession there is a need to discuss candidly any issue that is relevant and rank does not become an issue. If it does it is simply not professional.

[Mr Point]

Soddim, you have hit the nail on the head. Anyone who has worked on a multi-engine or helicopter unit, particularly SAR, would agree with your CRM comments.

Phochs3, I assume from your username that you come from a FJ background and have not worked with SNCO aircrew. Many have higher education qualifications and have not applied for commissioned service due to changes to terms of service and the withdrawal of branch commissions. If rank is an issue, how do the AAC manage to have a pilot chat in the crew room?

The comments made in the original post are largely accurate. With cuts made to the manning in non-commissioned posts and the magical and mythical pyramid structure that is supposed to exist in the Armed Forces, how can the MOD justify the current number of senior and air ranking officers?

[Two's in]

Like all examples of cross cockpit gradient or CRM, the AAC have both good and bad. Generally it falls into 2 very distinct domains - flying duties, and the other stuff. When conducting flying duties the Aircraft Commander is the Aircraft Commander; period. It is an appointment, not a rank, so be it a Sergeant, a Warrant Officer, a Major, or anything in between, those individuals conduct themselves as the crew of an aircraft would be expected to. There are many examples of SNCO's in command of Officers for Flying duties, particularly on the QHI stream, where they have the additionally responsibility of flying standardization within the unit. Back on the ground, the individual will assume secondary duties commensurate with their rank and expect the normal military courtesies to be observed between the ranks.

There will always be cases where some young SNCO gets a rush of blood to the head over the chance to be in "charge" of an officer while in the cockpit, just as there are some young officers who feel a tad resentful of being commanded by an old crusty SNCO, but it is very quickly recognized and resolved. Some well documented falling out in the cockpit (the Kegworth twins) have been entirely due to the unsuitability of the individual from a CRM viewpoint, which may have been exacerbated by the rank gradient, but was not because of it.

It is a well tried and tested opportunity to allow experience and command to embrace each other in a taxing, but mutually respectful environment. The AAC should be rightfully proud of the way they have executed this system, but it is also noteworthy, as an earlier poster mentioned, that the best of RAF history and reputation was founded on Officer and SNCO pilots working together.