Shortage of Navs

[Lima Juliet]

Navs? (or WSOs :yuk:) apparently we're short of them and the PVR time is now the same as pilots. Even SO2 Navs, that have traditionally propped up the SO1/SO2 aircrew staff jobs. Is there a new FRI in the offing? Or will NEM skill based pay be higher?

Uh, oh, there goes a flying pig...

So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening?

LJ

[circle kay]

Navs? (or WSOs :yuk:) apparently we're short of them and the PVR time is now the same as pilots. Even SO2 Navs, that have traditionally propped up the SO1/SO2 aircrew staff jobs. Is there a new FRI in the offing? Or will NEM skill based pay be higher?

Uh, oh, there goes a flying pig...

So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening?

LJ

LJ
We don't need Navs, we will need WSOs; where can we get them from? Well how about selecting from WSOps?

[camelspyyder]

What WSOps? Many were redunded, PVR's are up again, and recruiting/training is very slow.
I know there are lots of them with talent to be great WSOs, but would the existing fleets be able to get sufficient new blood in to replace them?

[circle kay]

CS
Are you so sure that all the current ISR platforms are going to make it post SDSR15 ?

[Bismark]

See my post on the P8 thread. The answer is that the RN will provide officer rear crew...this pipeline has remained open and the only rear crew training ties place at Culdrose.

[Bob Viking]

You could always start putting pilots in the back. As a concept it has proven pedigree.

BV:eek::E

[Pontius Navigator]

Bob, I said that years ago.

[Bob Viking]

I think anyone with half a brain (even me) can see it makes sense. Which is why it'll never happen!

BV:rolleyes:

[circle kay]

Bismark
I'm not so sure, 750 will have quite a job keeping the Merlin and Wildcat Observer pipeline topped up as well as the new RAF WSOp Sensor airborne training; even before the extra load of P8 Observers.
RAF WSOs if selected from the ranks of WSOps may well not need 750's services
p.s. Culdrose may well be the only place training officer rear crew. But it's certainly not the only place training rear crew.

[Take That]

BV

That reminds me of how the Italian Air Force established the crewing for their leased Tornado F3s in the mid 90s. The initial pilots were ex F104 drivers, some with masses of experience and ability, but irrespective of this, if they weren't academy graduates, they were selected for the back seat! Needless to say this didn't go down too well with Italian pride! It seems the majority of 'navs' tolerated their time on 56(R) Sqn, perfected their english language skills while on the course, and then bailed out as soon as they could for a job with Alitalia.

And LJ, if you're reading this, do you still have a copy of the bespoke FRCs from 'The Irrigator'? You'll know what I mean!

[Lima Juliet]

Circle Kay

Nope, it's Navs that I'm hearing that are in short supply - any old WSO just won't do. 'Run on of legacy fleets' is the excuse I'm hearing and seeing as E3D, RJ, Reaper, Shadow and GR4 all use Navs and are running on then the broader skill set of Navs is still needed over a retread WSOp.

As for pilots in the boot - once they stop sulking they usually make lousy systems operators as if they were any good at it they would probably be flying single seat!

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Take that - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Metal-Detecting-Monthly-Incorporating-The-Irrigator-MDMITI/58435641599

I know nothing...:eek:

[BBadanov]

As for pilots in the boot - once they stop sulking they usually make lousy systems operators

Agreed, that does not work...Yanks tried it years ago with their nav shortage as P(WSO)s sat in F-111s and F-4s.

RAAF could probably assist with WSO training, or as our navs are now called, ACOs (Air Combat Officers).
Similar to many years ago during Vietnam War, RAF trained pilots for us due to greater requirement.
We have ongoing ACO needs for F/A-18F, P-3/P-8, E-7.

[Take That]

LJ, now that's service!

[circle kay]

LJ
Of your list of 5 current types the first 2 (E3D and RJ) require Navs on the Flight Deck.
The GR4 will of course require Navs till it's OSD. But Even if Nav School started on Monday the graduates wouldn't get to the front line in time (on current time scales).
But the other 2 do not require Navs to man, but you could argue the Sqns require rear crew execs.

[Bob Viking]

I was going to continue but for OPSEC reasons I shall stop now. I've never operated with a Nav and have never done the job of a Nav so am probably not adequately qualified to comment anyway.

BV:confused:

[Lima Juliet]

Here is an interesting book that I thumbed through last time in the RAF Club (waiting for the pub to open...).

Observers and Navigators and Other Non-Pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF

Part I traces the rise of the first generation of non-pilot aircrew, the observers, aerial gunners/gunlayers and kite balloon observers who flew with the RFC, RNAS and latterly the RAF between 1914 and 1919.

Part II examines the way in which the peacetime RAF rapidly dispensed with its observer officers and spent the next fifteen years attempting to make do by misemploying airmen as air gunners on a part-time basis. This inadequate practice is contrasted with the very positive attitude towards non-pilots that prevailed within the Royal Navy. The story continues with the reinstatement of observers in 1934, albeit still as part-time corporals until 1939. Wartime experience soon revealed that the omnipotence of pilots was a myth and by the summer of 1940 all observers and gunners were at least sergeants and increasing numbers were being commissioned. Part II goes on to examine the proliferation of non-pilot aircrew categories until 1942 when the system was substantially reorganised, the observer being supplanted by the air bomber and a variety of specialised types of navigator. This section ends with a summary of wartime training.

Part III covers the rest of the century, including the last two years of WW II and the ill-conceived '1946 Aircrew Scheme'. Following the latter's demise in 1950, the RAF adopted an all-officer policy for its pilots and navigators, the fact that they were to have equal career prospects having been announced as early as 1948. Part III examines the way in which this policy of equality has actually been applied while continuing to trace the rises and falls in the fortunes of all non-pilot categories to date.

What emerges, along with a much clearer impression of the crucial importance of non-pilots to the RAF, is a discriminatory attitude towards them. The author demonstrates that this attitude had its roots in the RFC where it became so institutionalised that its effects are still detectable today.

by Wing Commander C. G. Jefford

[Courtney Mil]

A worrying thought occurred to me (don't do it often so don't worry). If the rumours about buying P8 have any foundation in fact, the funding will have to come from somewhere in SDSR 2015. If Typhoon is now taking on a lot of AG roles and weapons, where might that leave Tornado?

I truly hope my fears are unfounded. Thing is, from an MoD/Government perspective, that would free up some Navs/WSOs for P8.

This sort of thing has been done before, as previous posters have shown. It's been done in the RAF. In these brutal times I just wonder.

Please come up with a thousand reasons why I'm wrong. It will make me feel better.

[Willard Whyte]

One wonders if any redunded navs will get a call? I know of an FE that returned to the fold a while after 1-9-12.

Count me out, by the way.

[Wensleydale]

Are the Navs still streamed into Gp1 and Gp2? (until they stopped training of course). If so, then would WSO FJ have the appropriate background for WSO P8? Just a thought (speaking as a Gp1 nav who specialised in AEW and Radar and never navigated anything since the end of Nav School).

[Wander00]

Why does the title of this thread remind me of the time I left Valley after my Gnat course to go to Canberras - in June 66!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Nimrod navigators may have been Gp 2 so as to grapple with legacy kit like the Kollsman sextant, Loran, and log on chart work, but were said to be really Gp 1.

I knew at least one Nimrod nav that went to GR 1 and another to SK. I have a vague idea of a FJ nav going Nimrod after losing his bang seat cat.

With a new maritime aircraft I suspect the ability to do a manual airplay and 3-star fix will be a distant memory for even the oldest still serving.

[Bismark]

I repeat, the most sensible thing is to expend the RN Obs pipeline on the King Air at Culdrose. As far as I am aware the Avenger flies with a radar emulator console so it should be configurable to any rear seat simulation. As the RAF have ceased the Nav Officer pipeline the RN should provide this maritime role, after all 6 or so P8s shouldn't need a huge cadre of Officer Navs. Also I don't think it would take long for a Merlin or Lynx Obs to convert to the FW MPA role.

[Courtney Mil]

Are you saying the RN has a surplus, Bismark? If so, you'd better hope the Chancellor doesn't read this. If not, who will fill their shoes? If the RN has a secret pipeline running with a capability greater than its requirement, watch out for SDSR2015.

No announcements have even been made yet. If decisions have been made, we don't know about them yet.

The biggest problem is that you and I see buying P-8 as re-establishing a long-standing capability. In Government funding terms it is now, effectively, introducing a new capability with all the other expensive stuff that involves. There will have to be trade-offs and the Navy, sadly, is likely to have to give up its share of "other stuff" in order to maintain/secure the funding for the carriers, aircrew for F-35, support issues, existing programmes, etc, etc.

I would love it to be joint, and I hope it may well be, but there is no slack left. I suspect, if it does become an RAF role again, the Air Force will have to give up something else.

Nothing is free these days.

[MSOCS]

As has been said or intimated, putting a Pilot in the boot would, at first glance anyway, seem to relieve the shortage of WSO/Navs. I think there'd be a rush for the door from a Pilot branch perspective if that were the case. Few signed up to that, flying tours are now like gold dust and it isn't where most Pilots would wish to find themselves (note I said "most" not all) It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul at the end of the day. The system incorrectly took the saving a few years back, probably on "risk" and will pay for it as it comes back to bite their proverbial behinds. Such is life; we all make mistakes and hardly ever learn from them.

CM, I was thinking the same thing as you. The money has to come from somewhere but at the same time CAS doesn't want to see any further reduction in his combat aircraft numbers which are already barely more than Sweden's!

The Chancellor has, yet again, unscrupulously set another bar for Defence to find money in-year and seems to forget that although we stopped spunking money at the Afghanistan problem, the ISIS one is still very much right at the front of the RAF's mission. All this against a backdrop of ageing platforms (GR4) that require a replacement within the next SDSR period.

[scorpion63]

GR4 WSOs
You could always start putting pilots in the back. As a concept it has proven pedigree.

BV

Worked OK on the Canberra PR9!

[Courtney Mil]

Scorpion,

I think the Luftwaffe proved that won't work not all that long ago. And, yes, the guys would leave.

[Just This Once...]

Worked OK on the Canberra PR9!

Indeed it did!

:ok:

[Bob Viking]

I didn't say anything about it being a full tour. You just schedule a pilot to be in the back for a trip. The next day he can be in the front. Much like how a QFI (or an OCU instructor if flying a twin sticker) can fly in either seat. Rather than limiting their flying they will actually get much more airborne time. They will just need to get over the fear of not having a stick and letting someone else fly them. I'm not saying I'd enjoy it but then I'm not a Tornado pilot.

Pilots won't PVR just because they have to do a few back seat trips. They would be understandably miffed to have to do it for a full tour though.

Of course there will be those that say it'll take far too long to train a pilot to do the job of a WSO. Let's bear in mind though that we are talking GR4. In 2015. Once the guy learns the switches surely he could cope. He may not immediately do the job in the same way as a WSO but he wouldn't be terrible. After all, who better to speak to a pilot than another pilot. They will know what each other are thinking since they have been trained in the same way.

It may not be perfect and I expect the Nav mafia to brand me an infidel in due course but I have been reliably informed it has worked in the not so distant past.

Can anyone who operates or has operated the GR4 back this up or should I just crawl back into my lair?

BV:E

[Courtney Mil]

Bob,

You don't usually do this, but today you have just come up with a complete bucket of poo. Sorry, buddy, but that is just so wrong in almost every respect.

I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, the squadrons don't have twice as many pilots as they need. You work the rest out regarding that one. Next, no pilot can just jump in the back seat, where many have never even been before, and automatically work all the kit - let alone become practiced and proficient to the degree where they could be declared operational.

QFIs, QWI pilots, IREs, etc, fly in the back seat. Experienced people with additional back seat training. So, you going to take a junior pilot, still working up or at very least getting good at what we need him to do and now tell him he's got to get proficient in tha back seat too? Remember that all the time he's in the back seat, he's not available to fly in his own seat, therefore his progression slows by 50%. They will not get more airborne time, it's just that half of it will be in the wrong place.

And as for this...

Once the guy learns the switches surely he could cope. He may not immediately do the job in the same way as a WSO but he wouldn't be terrible.

He wouldn't be terrible? This is the measure of the RAF's operational aircrew you are suggesting?

You see how rediculous your post is or would further explanation help?

[Bob Viking]

As I said I have never flown the Tornado and of course it is pure speculation on my point.

Partially it was intended to get a rise from some of the nav mafia. Failed. Partially it was to enquire if it was feasible. Probably failed. However, it is partially based on the fact that I know a guy who, as a pilot, has flown as a WSO in the back of a GR4. He was a creamie who was posted to the GR4. During his first 18 months he flew in the rear seat. It wasn't just a local jolly either.

Anyway, I respect your opinion so will just let it lie. I didn't even get so much as a nibble.

BV:(

[Wensleydale]

There was also an attempt to put a fighter controller in the back seat of the F3 which failed miserably.

[Could be the last?]

As an aside, snr navs were in various positions to make a case for keeping WSO Nav trg going, or at least extending the pipeline. They were also in a position to retain light blue dedicated rear-crew trg, did they............... No they were more interested in getting a foot in the door with Voyager, and bumping the NCA out of the crew equation. You reep what you sow!

[Courtney Mil]

Could that be the Last,

You are very badly informed. Cases were made on all sides. Do you really think that it would just be navs fighting for navs? Do you think there is a special line of command that just deals with navs?

Now, just out of interest, you tell us all who those navs were, what positions they were in and what they could have possibly done to change things. Then tell me what magic spells they cast to get themselves onto Voyager and which NCAs were bumped.

Or was your entire statement just conjecture? Your call.

[MAD Boom]

What exactly will a Nav or Observer bring to the party that a fully swept-up FMS coupled with glass cockpit systems couldn't manage itself?

I'm afraid I have to agree with Circle Kay that certain fleets will probably not survive an SDSR and could easily provide the MMA platform with highly skilled and proficient mission managers from their Non-Commissioned WSOp cadre.

Now if there's a dimmer switch that needs operating, that changes things completely.......:)

[Courtney Mil]

MAD Boom,

All fine, but this they'd isn't about rear crew for anything in particular. The RAF doesn't need Navs for two pilot airliners. The shortage is showing up in the fast jet force with no replacements likely.

So you've jumped from fast jet WSOs to NCA rear crew. A bit of a disconnect.

[MAD Boom]

So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening?

LJ

Sounded like the OP was asking how they were going to train Navs for P8 to me. My bad if I was wrong.

Nice that you agree we don't necessarily need them for P8 though.

[Could be the last?]

CM,

At the time decisions were being made, and you are obviously informed, Navs not WSOs were in the decision loop, or at least providing the info to the VSOs on what savings etc could be made!

Wrt the MSO v WSOp on Voyager, what trade was the branch sponsor at the time.......?

As with most things in Defence, but more so with the RAF there seems to very little strategy, or, more importantly, a plan!

[Courtney Mil]

Mad,

I see your point. I saw the P8 reference as something that was just going to exacerbate the shortage. But, given the fact, as you rightly say, modern multicrew ac don't need navs, I supposed that the discussion was more about legacy fj.

Courtney

[andyy]

MAD Boom, Observers in the RN do not just navigate, they are the airborne Principal Warfare Officer; the mission commander or mission systems/ weapon system manager- navigation is just a small part of their role, but I'm sure you knew that.

Don't Apache Aircrew swap roles between being the Pilot one mission and the Gunner the next?

Too simplistic a comparison? Hmmm, so is calling the Observer "a navigator". And no, I am not an Observer!

[Courtney Mil]

Could be the Last,

Lots of people from all kinds of backgrounds informed the debate. The, so called, decision loop took place way above that level. Decisions way above anyone that was looking for a place on Voyager. You may know something I don't about this. If you do, inform the debate with that. Like who did what you claim?

[MAD Boom]

MAD Boom, Observers in the RN do not just navigate, they are the airborne Principal Warfare Officer; the mission commander or mission systems/ weapon system manager- navigation is just a small part of their role, but I'm sure you knew that.

Totally understand. And all of those tasks could be performed by an experienced WSOp.

Forget the badge, you just need someone with the requisite experience of mission/sensor managing.

[Lima Juliet]

Just to clarify. I was talking about more than P8 and the POTENTIAL of a buy of this airframe will only make the situation worse.

For what its worth I've seen quite a few FJ Navs re-role into E3, R1, VC10, MQ-9, C130, Sentinel, Shadow and PR9 by just doing an OCU. The other way around for ME Navs, NCA and other rear crew normally involved at least a cross-over or a full-on Nav course to sit in the boot of a FJ OCU. I remember they trialled a Fighter Controller and a couple of AEOs on F3 in the 90s with a total failure of the course. So they obviously taught something at Finningley/Cranwell that the others just did not get.

Finally, throwing a pilot in the boot and expecting them to 'cope', BV, is not going to work. I've seen experienced QWIs/QFIs have a pretty torrid time in the boot on the simplest missions due to their lack of familiarity. I also know a few Navs that passed a 'dual check' in the front seat of a F3 but their close formation was dreadful - again due to a lack of familiarity with that particular exercise, but could fly an instrument approach to a good standard.

Horses for courses?

LJ

[Guernsey Girl II]

I'm sorry LJ I think I've missed something somewhere.

So apart from Flight Deck Navs on 2 current ISR platforms and GR4 Navs (OSD 2019), where are all these posts that require filling? Because I'm under the impression that all other rear crew seats are currently any flavour WSO/WSOp.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mentioned before, the man from Barnwood (1989) asked the question at the MOD Navigation Training sub-committee, "what is the long term future of the navigator branch,?"

It was becoming obvious 25 years ago that fewer would be needed. The nub therefore was 'when'. What is now apparent, and was really apparent when training stopped, is that they stopped too soon.

With a GR4 OSD. of 2025 a new nav could have expected a full flying career to the 38/16 option point. Older navs could serve to 55 so job done and training could stop.

Of course that ignored the fact that navs could PVR too.

[Mal Drop]

Once the sextant and LORAN C were taken out and I no longer had to collect a chicken from in-flight catering to sacrifice before three star astro shots, I developed the role into 'crew entertainments officer' and organised the knobbly knees contests on the flight deck and games of quoits in the freight bay for the first-class passengers.

[Lima Juliet]

I read it today in an IBN:

"Extensions in the use of certain air platforms have disrupted forward planning for the WSO cadre; this requires stabilising."

"OF2 WSO manning levels are taut."

"The increased manpower footprint required to support certain air platforms has brought WSO manning levels under close scrutiny. In order to ensure continued operational output and to stabilise forward planning for the WSO cadre, an increase in minimum waiting time from 6 to 12 months is required. This change was discussed and agreed by all parties at the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel held at Air Command on 15 Apr 15"

So I guess that the situation described by GGII of "all these posts that need filling" has been warranted the IBN and this action from Manning? :hmm:

The phrase 'porked it' comes to mind and thus the recent Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review and the shedding of traditional aircrew jobs to non-aircrew serves to give a somewhat bleak outlook. Furthermore, I notice that the most recent MAA External Audit Panel (MEAP) has reported on the difficulty in getting Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs) into the required MAA posts that has made for significant comment in the MEAP2014 report.

So, yes, I think that WSO training was turned off too early. I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2. So the use of other WSO/WSOp to do the traditional staff tours that Navs had done previously has probably worsened the situation as some rear-crew are less 'aircraft flyers' and more 'kit operators' in certain key posts that require experience with specific flying, safety and regulation backgrounds that some WSO/WSOps just don't have.

IMHO of course...:ok:

LJ

[Courtney Mil]

the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel

God help those currently serving. Anyone able to tell me what that load of random, made-up words actually means?

Maybe budget cuts are no longer the major threat to the UK's armed forces.

[MAD Boom]

[QUOTE=Leon Jabachjabicz;9006234

I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2.

LJ[/QUOTE]

And where might I add does the average OF-2 learn how to do 'quality' staff work?

9 months at Sleaford Tech and JOD certainly don't do much in the way of staff training.

Any MAcr could fulfil an OF-2 post in his sleep.

[Bob Viking]

LJ.

You will see that I very deliberately said GR4. I had never suggested it would work in the F3. The point is moot though since I have already conceded.

However, since all I ever hear from GR4 mates is that they hardly have any serviceable airframes when at home base I had based my suggestion on this bleak picture. Maybe that was embellishment on their behalf.

Still firmly in my box though.

BV

[Guernsey Girl II]

LJ

Thanks, your last paragraph helps me understand your thinking on the subject.

I will not comment further as my 'Baldrick' like lack of experience or proper training make make me incapable of an analytical reply.

p.s. In Private Plane (s4e4) isn't Baldrick the Nav?

[Tourist]

MAD Boom

Are you having a bit of a class war moment?


I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.

Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.

It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.


If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.

Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.

[Wensleydale]

I suffered much "Why does it have to be an officer - NCA could do your job" in the back of the E-3. My answer was - and remains - "if you believe that you can do the job and want to do the job then apply for a commission". It is surprizing how many wanted the job but were not prepared to accept the added responsibility that went with it!

[MG]

Tourist - it's the standard NCO vs officer diatribe that one gets in the RAF. 'Navigators always get lost, are only there to carry the bags' vs 'Salt of the earth, only people on the ac who work hard'. It gets really testing (especially as I once spent 2 years as the only navigator on a sqn of pilots and crewmen), but you get used to it. One of the reasons why the crew room became a place to avoid.

You're very correct!

[BEagle]

...manpower footprint...

What a wonderful example of staff-speak wanquewords!

When a certain air force was about to introduce tankers into service, they initially decided that an 'operator' would suffice. So they did a trial; one chap did OK, the others didn't. Then the aircraft was fitted with a mission system - it was clear that the person operating it needed an air navigation background. So they changed their minds and used ex-Tornado and (a few) ex-F4 WSOs, who had sufficient capacity to offload some of the tasks more normally the responsibility of the pilots, such as formation management. That worked very well and the 3-person environment has enabled them to gain high respect for their work from NATO allies.

Their colleagues in another country with the same aircraft decided to use ex-C130 navs; again, that went OK but their pilots do more of the formation control etc. They also have the respect of NATO allies.

So when another air force was about to introduce a 3-person tanker, they were advised that at least 3 other nations had tried to use ALMs etc. for the task and that hadn't been successful. But no, they decided that they had to know better.....

The reason? To save on salary costs....:rolleyes: I gather that the decision is now being reviewed.

Wensleydale wrote: "if you believe that you can do the job and want to do the job then apply for a commission".

As one of our QFI captains once said to an air engineer (holder of a PPL) who kept badgering him to allow him to try landing a VC10. "Certainly, no problem. But first you have to apply for a commission, then you have to pass Cranwell, BFTS and AFTS, then if you are selected for the VC10, pass the OCU groundschool and simulator sessions. Then I'll let you try a landing!"

Why do 'manning' not listen to the opinions of those with experience in the roles in question? Too often they just seemed to want to justify the ar$e decision of some thrusting SO/VSO who wouldn't listen to reason....:ugh:

[MAD Boom]

Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.

Tourist

I can see your viewpoint and respect your opinion, but we 'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I wasn't referring to the 'average' NCA, but the MAcr cadre who I have the privilege to work with every day. I wouldn't describe any one of them as average.

[Tourist]

MAD

I have also worked with MAcr.

They were frankly excellent.

Excellent at their role.

Their role was specialised. That is the point.

None of them pretended otherwise.

A lot of RN observers are ex aircrewmen. A lot of them are mates of mine. Many have said something along the lines of "I kept sitting alongside this Officer who seemed to have an easier job than me so I thought I'd give it a go"

Most of those good enough to be given the chance pass BOC. Very few of them have quite the same opinion of how easy the Officers job is afterwards.

A good NAV WSO Observer may make it look easy, but that doesn't mean it is.

[circle kay]

This thread has gone down a predicable path that I bet any O or SNCO from a Battle of Britian or a Bomber Offensive Sqn would recognise. However, back to now, we are becoming (in terms of aircrew at least) a 'pilot centric airforce' where the requirements for the Nav specelisation will become very soon, very niche.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the WSO tasks that remain (even if/when P8 arrives) should become SNCO posts. The right people will be selected from the ranks of WSOps to become Os.

Now the only other issue is the claim that a non Nav WSO is not as broad an O as a Nav, that surely, just as with Navs is purely on the individuals experience and ability, any other attitude is now as relervent as Sight Reduction Tables.

[Bismark]

Well said Tourist. The RAF gave up Nav/WSO training because there was no justification for keeping it going given the OSDs of Nav/WSO capable aircraft. There is no way (in my opinion) that a restart of the RAF Nav cadre could be justified if (and only if) the MPA role is reinstated. As an ex "Manner" such a small cadre would not be sustainable in career terms. So, if officer back seaters are required they will have to be supplied by the RN FAA, who can offer a full career structure to the Observer cadre.

For CM re compensating reductions (or not). This is the role of SDSR. If MoD want to reintroduce the capability it will either be at the expense of something else or they will have to convince the Treasury to agree to an uplift in manpower. I am sure a similar arguement has/is been going on re manning the 2nd QE class after the PM announced, and continues to announce, we would run both. I suspect an RN uplift in manpower is in the offing in SDSR, possibly at the expense of the other 2 Services.

[circle kay]

Bismarck / Tourist

The RAF has stopped Nav training, it hasn't stopped commissioning WSOs

[Tourist]

Circle

Really?

Now that 55 is gone, where are they training them?

[PARALLEL TRACK]

I will try not to give too much away. I have served as NCA and as an officer flying a number of aircraft. There is a load of s#### being spouted by people who have no idea. It is all about the professional and personal qualities irrespective of rank. If you have those qualities and are given the appropriate level of training, then there is a good chance you will get the highly skilled operator you require.

So can WSOps or pilots occupy the 'boot' of the mighty Fin?

Of course they can as long as one heeds the advice in my first paragraph.

Good luck to all and yes I am glad the 'war is over' for me!

// track

[circle kay]

Tourist,

I'm very surprised someone as apparently well informed as you didn't know WSOs were still being commissioned and I'm sure that you know all rear crew training is now the responsibility of 45(R) Sqn. With, in the future, big help from 750 NAS for WSOp sensor.

But that's not the point your trying to make is it, your point is the RAF has no way of training WSOs from civvy Street. My point is it doesn't have to.

[Biggus]

This thread originally started out discussing the shortage of Navs, apparently mainly on the Tornado fleet.

What's the solution? Simple, work the few you have left harder, make them do back to back detachments, stop them PVRing (already being done), don't allow them any time off for personal or professional development, AT, etc....

Finally, when the Tornado fleet does start to fold and you don't need them any more, make them redundant under the rules introduced by the NEM as thanks for their efforts.

Isn't that what the RAF (sorry, didn't mean to be biased), no MOD, normally do in this sort of situation?











As an aside, I don't care if it's WSOps who can wlak on water becoming WSOs, or recruiting WSOs off the high street for the RN to train, you aren't going to put anyone without prior experience into the back seat of a GR4 to go on operations very quickly. Best hope the SDSR solves the problem for you - it normally does......

[Courtney Mil]

Did I detect a little bile in your post, Biggus?

[Biggus]

CM,

Nope - just realism, pragmatism, and having watched something similar happen with another trade a few years ago....





Anyway, at least it might stop the O's and NCO's from telling each other how good they are for a while. But don't bet on it!!

[Pontius Navigator]

I was pilloried some years ago when I mentioned airman tendencies in officer candidates. I think this thread epitomizes that. While some NCA have all the attributes for commissioned service (I know one AEOp who made Air Cdre) there are many that do not but may think they do. Remember many were rejected at OASC and offered NCA.

Staff work was mentioned, your lowliest JO is exposed to different and varied staff work by means of jobs pushed their way. Responsibilities are different and officers often have to act on their own when NCA, in the broader sphere do not.

I served with many superb NCA some of whom could have been commissioned and some, despite their own assessment never, Wenselydale may know of whom I am thinking.

Mention of officer and NCA in WW2 is a red herring as societal norms played a large part in initial appointments with commissioning quickly following upon performance.

[The Old Fat One]

^^

I knew quite a few NCA that would have been unsuitable for a commission.
I knew way more officers that would have been unsuitable for NCA.

Responsibilities are different and officers often have to act on their own when NCA, in the broader sphere do not.

You're a bit out of touch there PN - that changed a great deal 10-15 years ago.

[Toadstool]

You're a bit out of touch there PN - that changed a great deal 10-15 years ago.

I would second that. The RAF is vastly different compared to how it was, mostly due to increased workload and fewer personnel. Being involved in almost constant Ops helps to broaden the mind and also helps to raise experience levels compared to service in previous decades.

One only has to look at the number of FS who regularly stand in for Sqn Ldrs at short notice without batting an eyelid.

One also has to look at the number of NCA who, although sailing through OASC, are unsuccessful or unsuitable for pilot. Most have been or were offered Commissions in another branch. Almost all refuse and opt for NCA.

Of those who later re-apply for a Commission, I am yet to meet one who is unsuccessful.

I did hear a story of one particular ex-NCA Officer Candidate who was backsquadded due to having too many SNCO qualities. Said person's ex colleagues remarked that it was a shame that the individual chose ITC to display previously unseen qualities!

[Courtney Mil]

This thread has slightly lost its way. The RAF is running short of Navs for the Tornado fleet. The sausage factory was closed too early and that was very short-sighted, especially with the threat of extending yet another airframe. There are a lot of guys there with masses of experience, many of whom are content to serve out their days in the cockpit. Beyond that, Manning has a problem.

The other side of the coin is the multi-engine/helo world where WSOps, in their various guises are still being trained. That will, with any luck, soon include P-8. In that area, the RAF is not short of WSOps, has a supply line and, recruiting permitting, would be able cover the required 'footprint'.

So, to go back to the OP, yep, short of navs. Navs only required now for Tornado. Tornado's days may well be in the balance. The Chancellor may have noticed that his shiny Typhoon jets are getting pretty good at air-to-ground. That's a worrying thought.

P-8 potential buy (God, I hope so), WSOps required, 45 Sqn doing the training and a good number of guys in "seed corn" posts in the States, where the UK's LRMPA expertise currently rests.

So, is there a problem? Yes, for the Tornado. For helo and multi WSOps, No.

[Toadstool]

Apologies CM

I contributed to this thread losing its way.

I agree entirely with your accurate post.

[Courtney Mil]

Toadstool, sorry, my point was not aimed at you. But I'm glad you posted because it highlights the two, distinct discussions here.

Your post was a good response to the NCA/Officer Aircrew debate. My post is about rear crew manning in RAF fleets in the coming years. Both worthwhile discussion and, hey, thread drift in PPRuNe leads to some of the best discussions.

:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

TOFO, Despite my age I am not that far out of touch having only retired 5 years ago.

TS, I can't disagree, certainly FS and MACR can certainly do the roles, but not all.

My last FS was very professional but lacking in other ways. His predecessor should have been an officer but was happy where he was and didn't want a warrant.

Now a previous FS, also TG9, was brilliant as a Sim Controller but I don't think he would have been happy with a commission.

I guess the bottom line is do those NCA, suitable for a commission, actually want a commission? Even if commissioned, or not, could they be retrained in a wholly different role?

[downsizer]

PN

My last FS was very professional but lacking in other ways.

In what ways? Genuine question....

[camelspyyder]

Again, the RAF is not flush with WSOPs. Too many were redunded, recruiting is slow, and the sensor pipeline is only now sputtering into life for the first time since I and others closed it down in 2010. Even if another ISR fleet is chopped through SDSR, it will still be a stretch to man 5? 8? 12? P-8 (according to various rumours here)
That aircraft needs 4 WSOp (and a WSO bien sur) per crew. Sentinel Shadow or Reaper need 1 each. Maybe if all 3 fleets go, we could man the P-8.

[circle kay]

PN

Your 2 examples of NCA suitability for commissioning are both TG9 FS Sim Controlers, on E3D I assume, not sure I follow your argument.

[Courtney Mil]

Camel,

The purchase of P-8 will take time. Plenty of time to ramp up to meet the demand. The RAF training pipeline has a reputation for being hard to manage. I'm know, I used to be SO1 Trg at HQ 1Gp. That reputation came from the difficult days of the PILOT pipeline that fell victim to an unprecedented series of cuts and other external factors - I'm not trying to defend it, I didn't run it.

The WSOp training "pipeline" is nowhere near as complicated and nowhere near as long. Therefore it can react far more quickly to demand. Remember, the P-8 purchase is still a rumour. Would you imagine that the MoD et al aren't, right now, trying to work out what they are going to do and what they might lose in SDSR should this be a viable project?

Just because you and others closed it down at a time when there was a lower demand, doesn't mean it can't be ramped up now. Actually, it already is, as you stated. Maybe you didn't shut it down properly.

Again, I suggest you read my posts #8 and #17. Look at the bit about RAF folk doing this job in the US of A.

[camelspyyder]

I too hope training can be ramped up quickly, but I dont think the projected 4 Sensor operators through training this FY are going to make much difference. Also the 2 crews worth in the US would make a great start to the fleet - IF they all come back. Instructors in the US are being poached by contractors for megabucks wages - 2,3,4 times military salaries. I wouldn't look such a gift horse in the mouth, and I know at least 1 seed-corn flyer who went to the States with the express long-term intent on moving on into industry over there.

[grousehunter]

Except it WAS shut down, and all equipment scrapped. Gone. No more.

The training being done now is being outsourced.

You want to renew the mpa fleet? Then it is going to cost. The RAF has lost its WSOp training capability. There will be no "ramping up". The current output will barely support the current under manned fleets. Be under no illusion, the 55 Sqn output standard of old is going to be a challenge to renew, without significant investment. However, there are good guys on 45 trying their best with what they have.

Having said that, if p8 is an option then the full support package will of course be taken into account. I hope!

[1.3VStall]

Courtney Mil,

Ref your post #70, you are absolutely right.

Everyone at the coalface advised some years ago against shutting down the nav training line based on the then projected squadron numbers/aircraft OSDs, as historically things tend to "run on".

Funny old thing, we now have an "extra" GR4 squadron running on and, surprise, surprise, the RAF is now short of FJ navs, never mind trying to crew a possible(?) P8 fleet.

The Marham GR4 squadrons are so depleted of navs compared to pilots, that the most common cause of sim slots being cancelled is - no nav available.

It will only get worse - I am so glad I am now an observer from the outside!

[Courtney Mil]

1.3, thank you for that. In a way, me too.

Camel and Grouse,

As I have said elsewhere, if P-8 happens, there will be a considerable lead time and, of course, the extant US training system will be being examined. The RAF will not just be getting a number of airframes, there will be a massive package, including spares, support, etc., as you correctly stated, Grouse. we're not talking this FY.

And do remember, this is not MPA. It is LRMP and some other stuff.

[The Old Fat One]

CM,

Glancing at your posts I sense (I might be wrong) that you are not too aware of the differences in training needs of different types on WSOp. Without diverting too much from your original theme can I suggest that you are a little wide of the mark if you think "MPA type" WSOp training can be "quickly" ramped up to what it was 10-20 years ago. It actually takes a hell of a long time and great deal of flying and ground based training to turn a WSOp (R) or WSOp (S) from ab initio to Combat Ready. We are talking years, not months...and still more years until they are "lead" operator status.

Of course the promise of technology can "de-skill" any aircrew role (including navigator/WSO) opening the door to lower ranks in different seats. But you have to be careful here. If technology means a JT can operate acoustics, it also means a Sgt can operate the backseat of a two seat FJ. That's a road we have not gone down (yet!) and I for one would hate to see it happen - aircrew of all categories are selected and trained on many abilities, not all which can be subsumed by technological advance.

My point is simply this...any growing hole in rearcrew numbers, whatever the rank and specialisation, will be a big, and expensive, challenge to overcome. There will be no easy solutions, so mind out when mover and shakers start looking for cheap ones.

[Pontius Navigator]

Downsizer, this is not the place to expand on that FS.

CK, TG 9 but only one E3. The point, not all SNCO are equal and of these 3 two would have been at the top of the NCA tree of the 3 probably the only one who would have wanted a commission was the one unsuitable.

The pool of those both suitable and desirous of a commission will not be as large as some may think. Lest you think I have a thing against NCA, in my last ops tour we had a newly commissioned FE who was outstanding and who deservedly reached sqn ldr in just 2 tours with easy potential for wg cdr.

[Pontius Navigator]

, it also means a Sgt can operate the backseat of a two seat FJ. That's a road we have not gone down (yet!)

On a point of accuracy, it is actually a road we turned back from at the end of the 50s. We had 'cheap' sgt radar operators in the night fighters.

CM, you mentioned the numbers of crew needed per P8 (fingers crossed), as you are well aware, you need more than that. Initially 1:1 but soon you need a spare crew, say 6:5, 8:6 etc. Then, as your initially minimally qualified staff, ex-Nimrod, move on to be replaced by P8 qualified staff, you may need 12:8 with 10 crews on an aircraft sqn.

Yes, your time scales are long. A training rate of 2 or 3 crews pet year would not justify an OCU.

[circle kay]

PN

Thanks follow you now.

[Courtney Mil]

Absolutely correct, Pontious. Those are the sort I numbers I would imagine would be required. But also see my next paragraph...

TOFO, if you glance a little harder you will also see that nowhere did I say this could be done overnight. In fact I did state that there will (if it happens) be a long lead in just to acquire the airframes and all the other gubbins. The UK may not have 8 (number plucked from the air) shiny, fully manned ac by the end of the year, but it could establish an IOC in a reasonable timescale to build on over the years. As I mentioned before, you don't build an entire capability overnight.

I am well aware of the differences in training needs, but thank you for your input. :ok:

[Willard Whyte]

the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel

God help those currently serving. Anyone able to tell me what that load of random, made-up words actually means?

W1A does the MoD.

[Pontius Navigator]

WW, if W1A is a BBC drama, does anyone watch it?

[Party Animal]

Navs only required now for Tornado.

CM - E3 still has an old style nav on the flt deck. OSD 2035. RJ also has an old style nav up front. OSD ???

[Pontius Navigator]

PA, maybe they have enough Group 2 Navs, or think they do.

[Biggus]

I don't know about RJ, but as far as I'm aware the flight deck crew of the E-3D includes an Air Engineer. Have we got enough of them left to last until 2035?

[Courtney Mil]

PA, yes, of course. Thank you for that.

[Lima Juliet]

Navs? (or WSOs :yuk:) apparently we're short of them and the PVR time is now the same as pilots. Even SO2 Navs, that have traditionally propped up the SO1/SO2 aircrew staff jobs. Is there a new FRI in the offing? Or will NEM skill based pay be higher?

Uh, oh, there goes a flying pig...

So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening?

LJ

So resurrection time and, whilst they are more of a cross between Nav and AEO, the RAF are recruiting WSO(ISR) for P8, Reaper/Protector, RJ, E3D (until E7) and Sentinel. Further there are Flt Cdr opportunities on the Shadow. The end of the GR4 next year will see some of the WSO(FJ) go to these ISTAR platforms and others get Pilot cross-overs.

The training pipeline is via Military Avaition Ground School, Elementary Nav Training at RAF Cranwell on the Prefect, with a synthetic training module followed by the RN Observer Course on 750NAS at RNAS Cranwell. There would also seem to be a new course starting under MFTS for WSO. So it would seem that the role is far from dead as we thought 3 years ago and the ‘end of direct-entry WSO training’ Dining Out Night at Cranwell 7 years ago.

There are plans for direct-entry training for at least the next 20 years which will be supplemented by Commissioned NCA WSOps. There is even talk about Tempest/FCAS being 2 seat that could see the return of the WSO(FJ) at some point.
http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AN/AN16-8/5-3.jpg[\img]

Three years down the line and I have even kind of warmed to the WSO/WSOp flying badge:

[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2i8xb90.jpg

The wheel has turned once again and if you want to get a fascinating book for Christmas then buy ‘Jeff’ Jefford’s excellent “Observers and Navigators: And Other Non-pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF”. It even covers a fascinating insight to the early days of the Pilot and the rivalry with the Observer.

[Wensleydale]

It even covers a fascinating insight to the early days of the Pilot and the rivalry with the Observer.

A good few years ago, some of the nations providing aircrew for the NATO E-3A Component at Geilenkirchen also did not possess any trained navigators - so they sent pilots instead who were trained to use the kit in the Nav's position.

[heights good]

So, yes, I think that WSO training was turned off too early. I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2. So the use of other WSO/WSOp to do the traditional staff tours that Navs had done previously has probably worsened the situation as some rear-crew are less 'aircraft flyers' and more 'kit operators' in certain key posts that require experience with specific flying, safety and regulation backgrounds that some WSO/WSOps just don't have.

IMHO of course...:ok:

LJ

I think this is really disingenuous and untrue of the vast majority of MAcr I have come across. My single greatest influence as a younger aircrew mate was a MALM for a long time before commissioning. It was not the 4 week course at Cranwell that made him the fantastic staff officer, it was his previous 20 yrs service.

I am not sure which fleet you have been exposed to MAcr, but I hold most of them in higher regard in terms of staff work, work ethic and standards than most of the JOs coming through today. Whilst there are outliers from every bell curve, I just can't agree with your analysis of MAcr.

Having attending Cranwell, both for AATS and IOT, I can attest to IOT not teaching anything new other than sword drill. RAF Officers are not some kind of mythical being that possess magical powers, There are a lot more officers than NCA.

IOT has an average 95% pass rate and AATS a ~66% pass rate..... I know which course challenged me more.

Just my opinion

HG

[heights good]

MAD Boom

Are you having a bit of a class war moment?


I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.

Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.

It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.


If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.

Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.

Officers and NCA go through exactly the same recruitment process :ugh:

Regarding cost of training, that is kind of smoke and mirrors. IOT teaches the same course as NCA but crammed into 9/6 months vs 12 weeks. NCA attend exactly the same leadership exercises and are taught most of the same lessons in the same building and classrooms. SMEAC is SMEAC!

Costs are largely irrelevant as Phase 2/3 training is where the real costs come in. Cost does not translate to quality of the individual... Perhaps officer's need more training as they are slower on the uptake....

As an aside, there have been several WSO promotion boards where NCA SJARs have been slipped into the OJARs with NCA scoring very highly. Incidentally, I dont know of a single NCA in nearly 20 yrs that has applied for commissioning that has not been successful, albeit not always their first choice.

Can NCA run the military, no. Is this an ability issue or the way the RAF is set up? Does that mean as CAS has never been a Nav that only a pilot is capable of running the RAF? And let's be honest, the military is not exactly the most efficient beast, regardless who is at the top.

I think your ideas are a tad outdated (are you still serving?) and not because I am a "socialist worker" in any way.

HG

[heights good]

Tourist

I can see your viewpoint and respect your opinion, but we 'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I wasn't referring to the 'average' NCA, but the MAcr cadre who I have the privilege to work with every day. I wouldn't describe any one of them as average.

Agree 100%!

[Pontius Navigator]

I know a MACR who was chopped by a commissioned MACR. He got a commission at the second attempt.

Remember the majority of AEOs were ex-AEOp or Signaller. I also met an ALM Sqn Ldr who was outstanding, an ALM wg cdr who was an outstanding pillock, and knew an AEOp NCO that made Air Cdre.

Many WSOp could have been WSO had the requirements been different when they were recruited.

[The Old Fat One]

I was in the running for a prize when I went through IOT at Sleaford Tech. Right up to the moment I told the Sqn Cdr to his face that anybody too ****e to get through IOT should not be allowed anywhere near NCA training. I've done both...I know which was harder, which had the higher standards and which had the biggest percentage of knobheads. And frankly, it was not even close.

No doubt it has all changed now, so you can safely ignore the ramblings of an old Flight Sergeant/Squadron Leader.

[Lima Juliet]

HG

I agree you can pretty much teach anyone to do anything, but it’s how long it takes to get there that is normally the problem. Only people with a natural talent, an aptitude, will learn the fastest. The rest of us non-mortals have to slog it out to try and get there in the end!

In my considered opinion your comparison of direct entry IOT and AATS is wrong. The NCACITC, and the BRT before that, are the comparators. IOT is 24 weeks with BRT now 10 weeks and NCACITC now 12 weeks (I believe?). So there is only a 2 week difference - apart from the pass rate where NCACITC is much lower (I refer you back to my first point).

However, I believe the difference between a senior OF-2 and an OF-3 compared to an OR-9 and their effectiveness in a Staff Officer role comes down to early academic education. Normally, the OFs come with a degree (Batchelors or Masters) from a good University compared to the OR; although many of the ORs will have likely gone on to achieve vocational degrees in later life. However, the fact that they did not go direct from school to a University probably means that they did not have a natural flair for academic work. There is nothing wrong with that, they probably just learn differently and are more practical than academic (back to my first point again). However, good staff work needs that academic analysis and written communication skill. Having worked in and around NCA for some time, it is my opinion they are not, by and large, the academic types, they are the practitioners that get things done to a high standard. Of course there are exceptions, but my opinion is based on my general experience gained over nearly 3 decades of the cadre. As I said, nothing wrong with that, but the majority I have worked with have performed better in flying, flight safety and ops type roles rather than Gp, Cmd and MOD desk-bound roles. Those NCA that do have that natural ability normally Commission leaving only a very small amount that get to OR-9 that have the ‘Right Stuff’ to be a great staff officer.

Just my opinion, too.

LJ

[teeteringhead]

LJ However, I believe the difference between a senior OF-2 and an OF-3 compared to an OR-9 and their effectiveness in a Staff Officer role comes down to early academic education. I think you may be right, but it is also true of many OF-2s (and some OF-3s), particularly those commissioned from the ranks, who may have been older when going through IOT (no other reason!), and so less malleable to the ways of the Staff Officer.

I recall one time when OOA, a (fairly senior) Flt Ltt who worked with me (not for me - he was the SME in a particular field) came up to me with a file and said:

"The Wg Cdr has asked me to staff this, what should I do?"

"Can't help you I'm afraid mate, it looks like all specialist stuff to me...."

"No - I meant what does:"staff this" mean????"