RAF size and balance

[typerated]

Whilst reading the UK is the 4th largest military thread I thought I would have a look how the RAF compares

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/emptys/101015/world-air-forces-2013.pdf

Assuming it is correct I find it interesting reading.

It suggests the RAF is the 10th largest air force.

Flying in the face of the perceived wisdom that the RAF is just a fast jet club I see that Turkey (in 10th place for number of combat aircraft) has 331 fast jets so I wonder how far we are down the list as we have 177 fast jets. France has about 290 in fast jets in service. Germany, Greece and Italy all have more than we do!

In fact it seems to me the ratio of combat to support/training types is far too low.

Thoughts?

[Pontius Navigator]

I thought we were correcting the ratio by civilianising the training aircraft?

[Wetstart Dryrun]

Count up the number of Air Marshals.

...thats power

wets

[Pontius Navigator]

At one particular high powered visit where I was acting as a doorman I remarked to a visiting wg cdr that I had counted 21 stars so far.

He was so unamused that he reported me to my Boss where I duly received a ritual bollocking.

I am pleased to relate that the wg cdr was medically discharged not long after. There is a doG :)

[jayc530]

The imbalance starts with the number of commissioned officers currently serving, a rediculous number compared to non-commisioned personnel.

Far too many Gp Capt nif, nat and trivia, Wg Cmd A,B & C and Sqn Ldr tea, white, one sugar.

Have a look at the Air Force List on the Manning website, it's a joke!

[goudie]

number of commissioned officers currently serving, a ridiculous number
Well I hope they all subscribe to the Royal Air Force Club!

[Lima Juliet]

Jayc

The problem that you state stems from the fact that if we want representation in NATO, Joint Service organisations (PJHQ, JHC, etc...) and other such organisations then we have to match 'like for like'. If you post in an equally competent but 2-4 ranks lower individual then they will likely get nowhere due to the rank conscious environment in all Armed Forces.

Furthermore, one could argue that there are too many Flt Sgts and WOs kicking about. Why do most Admin Wgs have a SWO, a Chief Clerk, a WO catering and often a WO Chief Cashier? Normally these are backed up by Flt Sgts as well.

I think that it all lies with career progression and it is normally easy for a Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr to do the job these days on a computer that used to involve a plethora of LACs/SACs/Cpls to do.

Finally, the RAF has always been SNCO/WO/officer top-heavy in the past due to the all-officer/all-WO/all-NCO aircrew policy - it's got even worse in recent years with the transition to more officer aircrew that matches the policy of most NATO Air Forces.

Would I change the current constitution of officers:other ranks? Probably not.

LJ

[airborne_artist]

I'd ask if the RAF and the RN and to much the same extent the Army have changed to take into account the level of education that many NCOs (not just SNCOs) have attained prior to joining or during their service.

I know of a guy at Brize who has just been accepted onto an MSc course. He's also just been given a date for his promotion to Sergeant.

How common was this even twenty years ago?

[Lima Juliet]

AA

Not a dig at your individual example, but don't forget that since Nu-Labour's 'everyone get a degree' mantra, there are an awful lot of degrees in Under-Water Basket Weaving out there!

Furthermore, in yesteryear, most aircraft engineers had degrees or HNDs.

LJ :ok:

[jayc530]

Leon Jab'

Surely it should be down to an individuals ability not their rank. If it were down to ability, half the Air Force List would be gone. Majority are just hoop jumpers only looking after themselves. Poor excuse for made up positions within MoD and stations.

Also, how many Wg Cmd's and Sqn Ldr accompany ever Gp Capt?

[Avionker]

Degrees of dubious worth, or appropriateness, are hardly a new thing. I remember sitting in a classroom at Cosford, on my Air Radar Technicians course, having the finer points of waveguide theory "explained" by an RAF Education officer. She was very proud of her Zoology degree.......

[Pontius Navigator]

jayc, are you reading our replies? What part is international comparisons do you not understand? You seem to ignore those replies or parts thereof that do not fit your argument.

To give an example to LJs post, I was on a particular NATO committee for 3 years, that met 3 times per year. As we stayed in hotels in different NATO countries, including two not in the unified structure, and for security reasons, we wore civilian clothes. The personnel from the host country wore uniform. This had the advantage of giving an RAF NCO (non-voting) the same right to be heard as the voting members at sqn ldr and wg cdr equivalent.

On one occasion I committed the RAF to a particular and expensive exercise. I was challenged by an RNlAF major that not have the authority to s commit the RAF as I was too junior. Other nation representatives used to return to their HQs to report. I had taken the precaution to get advance authority provided the appropriate criteria were met. They were.

[jayc530]

Chicken or egg?

[Jimlad1]

I always find it mildly ironic that on threads like this, people sometimes see fit to slag off the Officer corps of the services, making hugely disparaging assessments about their ability and capability to do the job and implying that most are utterly useless jobsworths.

Were I to post suggesting a view that large numbers of the non commissioned elements of the military were useless idle layabouts who, based on the regular flow of stories about Captains Table or AGAI issues are often criminal in their behaviour and who had serious alcohol and discipline problems, and we could easily sack half without noticing, I suggest there would be outrage from the same people who slag off the Officers.

[Avionker]

Correct me if I'm wrong but....

Commissioned Officers select which officer candidates have the required qualities and abilities to successfully pass training and receive their commissions, correct?

Also no NCO would ever be promoted without the express support and approval of their Officer Commanding.

Therefore, Officers select Officers, and Officers decide which airmen, soldiers or ratings are suitable to be NCO's and progress through the ranks.

Jimlad1, if NCO's are alcohol abusing, idle layabouts with discipline problems then we know where the blame lies. Right? :E

[Hangarshuffle]

This is good.

ROYAL AIR FORCE PAGEANT - British Pathé (http://www.britishpathe.com/video/royal-air-force-pageant/query/AIR+PAGEANT)

A Royal Air Force Pageant!! Even the title got me going....smoke bombs, burning balloons and real crashing aeroplanes.
Before the H&S at Work Act 1974, obviously.

[Evalu8ter]

The size and balance must be wrong if we can't afford a MPA capability....

[Pontius Navigator]

Correct me if I'm wrong but....

Commissioned Officers select which officer candidates have the required qualities and abilities to successfully pass training and receive their commissions, correct?

Also no NCO would ever be promoted without the express support and approval of their Officer Commanding.

Therefore, Officers select Officers, and Officers decide which airmen, soldiers or ratings are suitable to be NCO's and progress through the ranks

No, you are wrong.

A commissioned officer, who is a higher rank, trains and selects. However the training is also carried out by SNCO and they report on those officer candidates. The decision is taken perhaps 2 or 3 ranks further up.

An NCO is reported on by a senior NCO or a higher rank. There is then a second reporter who happens to be an officer but we are really looking as one who is of higher rank which just happens to be an officer. The decision to promote is taken perhaps 2 or 3 ranks further up.

Therefore, Officers who are senior select Officers, and Officers or SNCOs who are seniordecide which airmen, soldiers or ratings are suitable to be NCO's and progress through the ranks.

SNCOs have an essential role in both training and reporting of both officer candidates and airmen. I think it wold be true to say that a bad report by an SNCO will carry equal weight as a bad report higher up the tree, perhaps more so even.

It is not a simple officers only system but one of rank seniority.

[Avionker]

Thanks PN. I was just being facetious ......

[Lima Juliet]

When it comes to pay, a Fg Off - Flt Lt gets about the same money as a Sgt - Flt Sgt - WO (in fact the WO is ~2k more expensive).

http://www.raf.mod.uk/community/getmedia/downloader.cfm?file=1D80B71C-5056-A318-A8D53017136B4C64

LJ :ok:

[langleybaston]

I speak as I found.

My most intensive exposure to fairly senior RAF officers came during my six years as C Met O BFG at JHQ Rheindahlen ........... I paid Mess Subs as a Gp Capt and attended Heads of Branch meetings but that is as far as "rank" went [oh! I did have a real set of combats badged as a Gp Capt in case WW III broke out].

I have to say that the vast majority at the one star, Gp Capt and Wg Cdr level that I dealt with on a day to day basis were impressively gentlemanly/ womanly, hard-working, professional and well-informed. Very few pr*cks or ar*eholes, and those mostly without a brevet.

As a taxpayer I hope today's lot are as good.

[Lima Juliet]

Jayc

I've come accross as many sh!te SNCOs/WOs in my quarter century of RAF life as I have officers - I guess that's life! ;)

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

as far as "rank" went [oh! I did have a real set of combats badged as a Gp Capt in case WW III broke out].

Would have been interesting, to say the least, had the balloon gone up. obviously it would have meant people holding the door open for you :) but would they also have been looking for leadership and direction as a gp capt rather than as a met officer?

Once the 'war for you is over' would you have been better off in civilian garb and perhaps interned or as a gp capt, and therefore a VSO, and subjected to special treatment?

Did those thoughts ever cross your mind?

Lest anyone thinks I am sniping at those deemed not to be 'real' officers, let me say a wg cdr dentist won my complete respect in his role as a deputy ground defence commander.

[thing]

I've come accross as many sh!te SNCOs/WOs in my quarter century of RAF life as I have officers - I guess that's life! ;)


Then a far larger percentage of the officers you met were ****e then...;)...

[NutLoose]

Avionker

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 358
Degrees of dubious worth, or appropriateness, are hardly a new thing. I remember sitting in a classroom at Cosford, on my Air Radar Technicians course, having the finer points of waveguide theory "explained" by an RAF Education officer. She was very proud of her Zoology degree.......


I remember standing on Salisbury Plain discussing the positioning of an OP and everyone agreeing that it should be positioned clear of the wood on the top of the hill where you could actually see something coming up the valley, but having it overruled by the Pilot in charge on the basis he had a degree in Geography!

[NutLoose]

I think that it all lies with career progression and it is normally easy for a Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr to do the job these days on a computer that used to involve a plethora of LACs/SACs/Cpls to do.

And there is part of the problem, rather than having higher paid Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr now doing the job previously being carried out by LACs/SACs/Cpls

Surely sense would dictate the work was still carried out by a reduced number of
LACs/SACs/Cpls with a equally reduced number of Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs overseeing that.

Paying a Sqn Ldr to do the job a SAC used to do is barking, no wonder the budgets so stuffed up.

[OutlawPete]

Were I to post suggesting a view that large numbers of the non commissioned elements of the military were useless idle layabouts who, based on the regular flow of stories about Captains Table or AGAI issues are often criminal in their behaviour and who had serious alcohol and discipline problems, and we could easily sack half without noticing, I suggest there would be outrage from the same people who slag off the Officers.

I think you just did post that very view Jimlad. You're own generalisation with regards to the non-commissioned ranks does little to support any point you attempted to make in that whole post. It does, however emphasise just how big a chip you're lugging around on that shoulder pal.

[langleybaston]

PN .......... interesting, and there were parallels in the HQ, some mysterious posts Int/ battle damage assessment for example.

All Met Officers in BFG held Dormant Commissions. The bog-standard forecaster at Guetersloh [me] had a Flt Lt one. We did NBC courses but never got near a weapon, wisely.

SMetOs and the senior forecasters at JHQ got S/Ldr [me, later].

I think the bottom line was that we would not/ could not run if the balloon went up, but would not be expected to command anything except our own little Met empire.

The whole thing had become ludicrous by 1990 of course .......... survivability to put on the combats was zilch and we knew it, JHQ would have disappeared well before we dispersed to the cave at Maastricht.

The Dormant Commission went with the job, no commission, no job. There was a piece of paper allocating my number, no Gazette entry, and one uniform held in stores gathering dust checked annually. I happily sat above all the wing commanders and below all the Gp Capts at Mess functions, called my boss SASO "sir" as frequently as was seemly, and concentrated on my six offices and about 100 workers.

One of my reforms was to facilitate the formation of a Mobile Met Unit Wing based in BFG. These men [later women] were removed from the dormant list, were commissioned RAFVR, trained to a degree, armed as appropriate, and deployed with the relevant RAF formation [TacComms? memory fails]. The Balkans saw them quite busy. Once deployed, they were "nothing to do with me Guv!".

Hope that background helps, it was a job, I did it and I enjoyed it.

[gr4techie]

Finally, the RAF has always been SNCO/WO/officer top-heavy in the past due to the all-officer/all-WO/all-NCO aircrew policy - it's got even worse in recent years with the transition to more officer aircrew that matches the policy of most NATO Air Forces.

I thought the only reason why aircrew were SNCO and above was incase of capture, the opposition would apparently act differently if they saw your rank.
Then pilots and navs were commissioned when we had the nuclear deterrent, as apparently wearing a different rank tab meant the nuclear payload would be safer.

Now that certain middle eastern countries have a complete disregard for the Geneva convention and their sharp knife doesn't care what rank you are. Also that we now longer carry nukes. The rank of aircrew is as irrelevant as ever. Nice to see it doesn't matter in the Army Air Corps.

[Lima Juliet]

Nutty

Surely sense would dictate the work was still carried out by a reduced number of LACs/SACs/Cpls with a equally reduced number of Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs overseeing that.

The problem is that the Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs are needed to make the decisions and the LACs/SACs/Cpls aren't able or don't have the experience to make the decisions. Thus, it is vital to leave the Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs in the post after its function has been computerised (hence JPA thinned out SHQs significantly).

GR4Techie - its a common myth that the Army Air Corps is awash with Cpl pilots - most* are Sgts/SSgts/WOs/Lts/Capts which all get about the same sort of pay (as I stated before ~£35k to ~£45k plus 'flying pay').

thing - nice play on words! :ouch:

LJ

* from the post below, change "most" to "all"!!!!

[Lima Juliet]

PS I just looked at the Army Careers website. Here is the real info:

Rank: Corporal

If you pass the necessary selection tests, you can go forward for pilot training. After completing the course successfully, you're awarded your pilot's wings and are given the acting rank of Sergeant. You also receive extra pay.


So the only Cpl pilots are the ones that are under training - as soon as they qualify they promote to A/Sgt. So no real saving between an A/Sgt and an OF1 2Lt/Pilot Officer equivalent.

[Pontius Navigator]

GR4, you are correct about POWs.

Officer POW were not obliged to work whereas ORs were. SNCOs, while obliged to work, were supposed to be used in a supervisory role.

There was another interesting quirk in the GC. The senior officer was de facto the senior responsible for all other officers. In the case of ORs the cap leader (not sure of the correct term) was supposed to be elected by the prisoners and not based on rank.

If anyone knows more delighted to see a bit of thread drift.

In the case of nukes, the 'officer class' was perceived to be more responsible. Of course many SNCO did a course and joined the 'officer class'.

[Jimlad1]

"I think you just did post that very view Jimlad. You're own generalisation with regards to the non-commissioned ranks does little to support any point you attempted to make in that whole post. It does, however emphasise just how big a chip you're lugging around on that shoulder pal."

Pete - I don't hold those views in the slightest - but you've just proven my point beautifully by biting on my deliberately OTT comments. The fact is people seem fit to throw around utterly ridiculous views about the officer corps, but then get very defensive should anyone dare offer similarly ridiculous views on the ranks.

I find it sad that we seem to think it acceptable to so overtly question the numbers of Officers and their competence, while not being prepared to do the same for the ranks. Frankly I'd ask why do we need so many NCOs? Surely we could cut their numbers a bit too? Or is it only officers who must be culled with extreme prejudice?

[Avionker]

It seems to me that if the number of OR's is reducing, then officers responsibility must likewise be reducing. If we have fewer "indians" whilst retaining the same number of "chiefs", then said "chiefs" have less responsibility in terms of a supervisory role. So, let's reduce their privileges accordingly.

Also all those jobs that used to be done by the OR's still need doing. Junior officers should probably be doing gate guard, don't you think?

[airborne_artist]

Avionker - reducing the ORs does not imply the same reduction in officers, in particular the senior ones. You need just as many RAF officers working in NATO whether we have 500 strike aircraft or 100, for example, and there are plenty of other areas where the same rule applies.

[Just This Once...]

Indeed and one must not forget all the roles in the RAF that are solely done by officers. Officers are not merely managers of the workforce; in many cases they are the workforce.

[Wrathmonk]

Have a look at this link - click here (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/publications/people/military/annual_personnel_report/__20130401_1_april_2013/page6.html?PublishTime=08:30:00)

Percentage wise the RAF are not really different in terms of (officer) rank structure when compared to the other Services (except for OF2 [Flt Lt] which, as this is the 'core' aircrew rank, is perhaps understandable) .

When comparing other ranks the percentage difference in terms of the number of OR4 (Corporal) and OR 6 (Sergeant) between the Army and the RAF is, on the other hand, quite marked. In pure number terms the RAF have more Sergeants and Corporals than they do LCpl, JT, SAC(T), SAC and AC and almost as many Corporals as there are officers.

But then again, on 99% of occasions, statistics that do not support your argument are either made up or bull$hit.;)

[MAINJAFAD]

Also all those jobs that used to be done by the OR's still need doing. Junior officers should probably be doing gate guard, don't you think?

I believe that QR's state that any officer rank from Flight Lieutenant and below can do guarding duties (Neatishead had a holding officer do guard commander for a few months solid while I was there in the mid 2000s).

[taxydual]

OR's and OF's. Does it matter?

Bear in mind the RAF is a bunch of 'Garage Mechanics' anyway.*



*(CIGS to PM in 'Yes, Prime Minister') BBC2.

[Avionker]

When comparing other ranks the percentage difference in terms of the number of OR4 (Corporal) and OR 6 (Sergeant) between the Army and the RAF is, on the other hand, quite marked. In pure number terms the RAF have more Sergeants and Corporals than they do LCpl, JT, SAC(T), SAC and AC and almost as many Corporals as there are officers.

But then again, on 99% of occasions, statistics that do not support your argument are either made up or bull$hit.

Nicely ignoring the fact that the army has 17.7% of it's OR's at OR-3, Lance Corporal. Combine OR-3 and OR-4, then tell me what the difference is. As for OR-6 and above, how many of those are Airmen Aircrew?

Indeed and one must not forget all the roles in the RAF that are solely done by officers.


The only ones I can think of are Pilot, Navigator, Doctor, Dentist, Padre and Lawyer. What else am I missing?

[Pontius Navigator]

Nicely ignoring the fact that the army has 17.7% of it's OR's at OR-3, Lance Corporal. Combine OR-3 and OR-4, then tell me what the difference is.

Perhaps you are talking chalk and cheese.

I think you should compare LAC+SAC with Private and Lance Corporal.

When Miss PN1 was in the Aux Regt as an SAC she was in charge of a section which would have fallen to a Lance Cpl in the Army.

True the RAF Regt now has Lance Cpls an well which does muddy the water slightly.

[gr4techie]

A guy I once worked with had to do a dissertation for a course or qualification. He compared the structure of the RAF to the structure of Tesco. Interestingly the Tesco chain of command only had 4 levels, unlike the RAF.
I once remembered there was a documentary that compared the RAF to the USMC and found the same thing, how the RAF is massively top heavy in comparison and the USMC can achieve the same if not more with less high ranking officers.

[Rosevidney1]

Just to return to the subject of educational accomplishments, at one time I had a driver who could boast a BA and a BSC. He had no intention of taking a commission. The CO tried his level best but the reply was always the same "I'm here for 3 years as a much needed hair shirt, sir".

[iRaven]

The only ones I can think of are Pilot, Navigator, Doctor, Dentist, Padre and Lawyer. What else am I missing?

PEdO? :}











Alright, just joshing!

[NutLoose]

I think you should compare LAC+SAC with Private and Lance Corporal.

SAC (Tech) possible, a JT was about on par with an Army Lance Corporal in theory by QR's, though to different kettle of fish in real life.

[SASless]

I once remembered there was a documentary that compared the RAF to the USMC and found the same thing, how the RAF is massively top heavy in comparison and the USMC can achieve the same if not more with less high ranking officers.



Start drug testing your Ranking Officers....:E


I am not sure comparing the USMC and the RAF would be a very good pair of services to compare....very much Apples and Oranges I should think.

Now if you used the USAF and the RAF.....you would be on to something but I doubt you would find much difference as the USAF are really Top Heavy and have more than a few Rank officers.

[Broadsword***]

I am not sure comparing the USMC and the RAF would be a very good pair of services to compare....very much Apples and Oranges I should think.

True. The USMC tends to be quite Spartan in most things. Compare the USMC base, Camp Leatherneck, with our own Camp Bastion next door. It is the only example I can think of in recent history where our expeditionary base facilities have outshone those of the US.

[SASless]

And your point is?

[Broadsword***]

I'm agreeing with you.

[reynoldsno1]

The RNZAF has more MPA than the RAF ...

[OutlawPete]

Jimlad, I take your point and if I've misinterpreted your original post, sincere apologies. Although, I do think it is fair to question the top heavy nature of the rank structure.

You mentioned competency and I dont see how that has been criticised here. Having been in the private sector for a few years now I can say that in comparison, in terms of managerial and leadership skills, even the weakest of Officer/SNCO in the RAF is doing a damn good job. More so these days as there can be little room for slack.

[airborne_artist]

A guy I once worked with had to do a dissertation for a course or qualification. He compared the structure of the RAF to the structure of Tesco. Interestingly the Tesco chain of command only had 4 levels, unlike the RAF.

I work for Tesco. From the shop floor customer assistant on £14,000 to the CEO there are eight or nine levels.

[thing]

Having been in the private sector for a few years now I can say that in comparison, in terms of managerial and leadership skills, even the weakest of Officer/SNCO in the RAF is doing a damn good job. More so these days as there can be little room for slack.

I'll second that. Been out nearly 18 years now and the hardest thing I found adjusting to was not wanting to strangle management, who did and continue to make the most basic errors in man and company management.

On the whole British private sector management is appalling (don't even get me started on public sector...). I have no idea whatsoever how we manage to compete on the world stage.

The only answer was to go off and work for myself. I've been quite relaxed since and no longer want to shake people warmly by the throat.

[teeteringhead]

Something I posted a little while ago on another thread fits in well here to inform the "number of rank levels" debate: Facts:

1. I joined an RAF of about 150 000 personnel - with a 4-Star CAS. I now serve with a 35 000-ish RAF - with a 4-Star CAS.

2. 35 000 in uniform about equates to the Met Police - who have 11 ranks in total from Constable to Comissioner (and that's 2 more than most forces).

3. From AC to ACM, the RAF has about 19 or 20 ranks.

Discuss.

[Pontius Navigator]

Does Tesco have 2000 people working in one place?

Does Tesco have to have shelf-stackers and checkout assistants in the same grades as Carrefour (I know :))?

[langleybaston]

I know a TESCO manager .............. one tier down from the General manager of a 7/24 branch. He manages the entire night work, which is essential if the shop is to function properly during the day.

I understand him to say that there are three grades below him, including two under-managers, about 100 workers a night. He says "I am paid to manage 100%. The ones below are 75/25 manage/ labour. One down foreman is 25/75, and the bottom 100 shelf stacking".

This means that there are at least five grades in the shop, overseen one imagines by a district manager, perhaps an area manager above that, before we get to the corridors of power.

Not quite so lean and mean as claimed?

[Avionker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avionker

Nicely ignoring the fact that the army has 17.7% of it's OR's at OR-3, Lance Corporal. Combine OR-3 and OR-4, then tell me what the difference is.


Perhaps you are talking chalk and cheese.

I think you should compare LAC+SAC with Private and Lance Corporal.

When Miss PN1 was in the Aux Regt as an SAC she was in charge of a section which would have fallen to a Lance Cpl in the Army.

True the RAF Regt now has Lance Cpls an well which does muddy the water slightly.


PN

My point was that to compare the RAF to the army is in effect comparing chalk and cheese. The army has Lance Corporals, as does the RAF Regiment now, which allows them to promote people so that they have the authority to lead sections. The RAF in general does not have that rank so in order for a person to be endowed with the authority to lead, or supervise, promotion to Cpl is the only option.

I suspect that if the RAF adopted the rank of Lance Corporal generally then the RAF and army would eventually end up would a more comparable percentage of personnel at OR-4 rank.

[Willard Whyte]

Not quite so lean and mean as claimed? One wonders if it approaches the 21 ranks in the raf, 11* for Os, 10 for other ranks?

*including MRAF, that is.


I am not sure comparing the USMC and the RAF would be a very good pair of services to compare....very much Apples and Oranges I should think.

A very valid point, after all the USMC is a bit bigger than the raf, rn and army combined.

[Heathrow Harry]

compare the RAF structure to the Israelis - but then of course they don't NEED officers to attend NATO meetings etc etc - they get on with the job

[Pontius Navigator]

Avoniker, true, however the rank of SAC is said to be able to work unsupervised and that of Cpl as the first step in management.

Does the army have similar definitions?

[Wrathmonk]

compare the RAF structure to the Israelis - but then of course they don't NEED officers to attend NATO meetings etc etc - they get on with the job

Yep, follow the Israeli structure......

Withdraw from NATO......

Look after ourselves.....

And re-introduce conscription....:ok:

[teeteringhead]

Yep, follow the Israeli structure......

.... and not just the structure .......:E


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02579/SOLDIERS_2579949b.jpg

[NutLoose]

Ohh Gawd, now you've done it, it'll only take two brain cells to spark together and Beagle will be on here reminiscing over Miss York in proper webbing....


:E