How many......

[Heathrow Harry]

How many serving RAF officers are actually working in Whitehall, Washington, Abbey Wood and other non-military locations......................

Any idea???

[esscee]

"Working" or just happen to be posted at the locations you listed?

[alfred_the_great]

HH - put a FOI request in and find out.

[Gemini Twin]

About half of them.

[MG]

FOI? Really? I have the job of putting together the answers to requests at our place. They're a pain in the bum to handle, just because someone is curious or a reporter knows that we can do his research for him for free. Of course there is the absolute right to know and be open and honest, but please, have a care!!

[Wrathmonk]

Click here (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/publications/people/military/quarterly_location_statistics/2013-04-01/1_april_2013.pdf?PublishTime=08:30:00)

Go to Table 1.1b where you will find the International figures.

If you know which local authority each of the UK units of (your) interest are based you should be able to use the rest of the document to answer some of your other questions (for example Table 3.7b would suggest that there are 280 RAF officers and 80 RAF other ranks that work in the London borough of Westminster....)

[alfred_the_great]

MG - Manning should be able to pull that together in about 5 minutes, and best of all it will be accurate.

FOI remains the way forward, even if it cause you some work:ok:

[MG]

I have no objection to the principles of FOI but I do object to them originating out of idle curiosity. It won't take Manning five minutes, it will take longer and it will mean that other things get pushed back and have to be done later.
By all means raise an FOI if it is important. If it's just to scratch an itch, do as your Mum told you and leave it alone!

[Canadian Break]

In reply to HHs original question I would venture to say "most of them". Whilst I do not expect you to take my reply at face value I can only say that having worked at MOD (once) and in NATO positions (twice) my experience is that 95% of the Brits are working hard. My rationale for this? Most of the people in MOD work for someone (at whatever level SO2, SO1, 1 star etc) who are pushing hard for their next promotion (not discussing the rights and wrongs of that here) and are therefore pushed very hard. In NATO appointmets my experience is that the majprity of work will be pushed the way of the Brits because they are "native" speakers (let's leave the Americans out of this). Thus, there is nowhere to hide even if you wanted to! Sorry if this is at odds with your view, but it is what my experience tells me.

[TomJoad]

How many serving RAF officers are actually working in Whitehall, Washington, Abbey Wood and other non-military locations......................

Any idea???

Harry if you don't mind me asking - why do you want know? Just curious.

[Stuff]

Sorry... for a minute I thought Alfred posted something about manning and being able to provide accurate information. I laughed.

[SRENNAPS]

Heathrow Harry

Do you have any form of problem with regards to the Services, those that serve in the Services or anybody that used to serve in the Services? I can’t quite put my finger on it but I do get the impression that something is not quite right with the attitude of some of your posts. And I know we have had a difference of opinion in the past!!

[WhiteOvies]

HH - Just because they're not on an RAF base or sat in a cockpit does not mean they are not doing something critical for the defence of the realm. Not sure if that was the point you were trying to make?

The Pentagon is very definitely a military establishment btw.

[wilnot]

Some very interesting facts in this document - for instance, there are only 100 military personnel based in the Falklands: 60 RAF and 40 Army. Not exactly an impressive capability if the Argies decide to have another go!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

It's interesting that the South Atlantic numbers show no Naval presence. That simply illustrates, though, the meaningless nature of such an answer because it relies on a very precisely aimed question. The Navy is in Theatre but will appear on Fleet's head count and not CBFSA's.

The original question, though, asks about non-military locations. Arguably all HQ locations have and always will have a military element. The key question, perhaps, should be how many Mil staff are on tasks previously performed by Civilians or are otherwise not core Military. For example, many Naval appointments in DE&S are to Posts previously filled by Civilians in DG Ships and DGST(N). Another point to note is on Page 2 of the QLS;
Section -1 civilian personnel total includes Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA). RFA civilian personnel cannot be identified by location as the data are not held centrally.


I mention that because some RFA staff are now fulfilling functions previously undertaken by Civil Servants and are destined to take on even more.

[TomJoad]

Some very interesting facts in this document - for instance, there are only 100 military personnel based in the Falklands: 60 RAF and 40 Army. Not exactly an impressive capability if the Argies decide to have another go!

You serious! You don't need to make an impressive capability with strength of personnel alone - it's the equipment that counts. Capability has changed somewhat since since early 1982.:=

[TomJoad]

It's interesting that the South Atlantic numbers show no Naval presence. That simply illustrates, though, the meaningless nature of such an answer because it relies on a very precisely aimed question. The Navy is in Theatre but will appear on Fleet's head count and not CBFSA's.

The original question, though, asks about non-military locations. Arguably all HQ locations have and always will have a military element. The key question, perhaps, should be how many Mil staff are on tasks previously performed by Civilians or are otherwise not core Military. For example, many Naval appointments in DE&S are to Posts previously filled by Civilians in DG Ships and DGST(N). Another point to note is on Page 2 of the QLS;

I mention that because some RFA staff are now fulfilling functions previously undertaken by Civil Servants and are destined to take on even more.


Yes but hold on Golf Bravo you are assuming that is what Harry was getting at. I have asked him if he wouldn't mind to explain why he wants to know. Then a more informed answer may be forthcoming.

[Heathrow Harry]

For those of you who have asked why I asked the question the answer is genuine curiosity

Having been to parties out at Bristol and been introduced to both Civil Servants and quite senior armed forces officers working at Abbey Wood and then reading the posts on here re all the multiverse of committees, task forces etc etc it occurs to me that a substantial number of the officer corps are deskbound at any one time

Clearly we have to have input from experienced people into Government processes and decisions but my real worry is that, in the long term, success in paper-pushing will be seen as more important than front-line experience.

If the brown stuff does hit the fan the ability to manipulate committees is unlikely to be of great use ;)

[Melchett01]

Clearly we have to have input from experienced people into Government processes and decisions but my real worry is that, in the long term, success in paper-pushing will be seen as more important than front-line experience.

If multiple tours in Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other places have shown me anything, it is the power of PowerPoint!

Stop sniggering at the back there.

I thought it was barking too when I first heard that said, but given the limited amount of resources when stacked up against a usually mammoth stack of demands that far outweighs the HQ's ability to service those demands, it is those officers who know their way around the system and can produce a well written case or a decent PPoint slide for the HQ responsible for apportioning said assets that get the toys and therefore the operational effect. If an hour spent in planning and producing a decent bit of operational staff work gets you the fast air, ISR or aviation you need to execute your op, it is time well spent.

Geeez, never thought I'd find myself sticking up for staff work ... that's depressing. I'm off to lie down in a dark room to recover.

[betty swallox]

What SERENNAPS said...

[Genstabler]

but my real worry is that, in the long term, success in paper-pushing will be seen as more important than front-line experience.
Well Heathrow Harry! In view of some of your combative posts in the past, it is interesting that you are fearful about the overall competence of us military to protect you.
Don't worry old fellow! Despite the necessity for good staff work we will continue to be competent to stand on the wall so you and all other cynical civvies can sleep safely at night.

[Biggus]

....I hope you're not really 71 then!

[TomJoad]

Clearly we have to have input from experienced people into Government processes and decisions but my real worry is that, in the long term, success in paper-pushing will be seen as more important than front-line experience.

If the brown stuff does hit the fan the ability to manipulate committees is unlikely to be of great use ;)

Harry, the last statement is where you make the error in understanding. It is precisely that time when you want to have experienced military influence and expertise. Out of interest, what percentage figure of the trained strength would thing is necessary to be employed in these areas?

[Genstabler]

Biggs
Once a trained killer, always a trained killer!
Bugger, where's my other slipper?

[Lonewolf_50]

If the brown stuff does hit the fan the ability to manipulate committees is unlikely to be of great use
Harry, you are wrong about that. The "inform" or "manipulate" committees function goes on during war as well. Check out the WW II internal political work in both Washington and London for a sample.

See too, more recently, the tilting at windmills that eventually led to funding for something other than HUMVEEs for use in urban operations, Iraq. It took committee influencing to get that sorted.

[SOSL]

What Melchett said ...

Rgds SOS