F3 Navs as E-3 Fighter Controllers?

[ANAPROP]

I understand that the E-3D Component is having difficulty filling its slots for Fighter Controllers. Seemingly the supply of capable controllers from the ground environment is in danger of drying up. It appears that soon, with the introduction of Typhoon and the run down of the F3 fleet, we will have a surplus of F3 Navs. These mates clearly understand air defence (at least from a certain angle!) and one supposes that they are reasonably switched on cookies. Would it not make a whole lot of sense to train those that wish to as Fighter Controllers specifically for the E-3D?

No doubt the Fighter Control Branch would have something to say about this but it does seem a logical solution, unless you believe otherwise…
:hmm:

[Woff1965]

I would be worried about the Nav's mental health. They are used to working in cramped and claustrophobic conditions. Is there not the danger that a significant proportion may start to experience agoraphobia from the relatively wide open spaces on the E3?

I think this should be studied before hand - alternatively how about some sort of interservice from tthe RAF to the RN's submarine fleet or even to the Army where they can try tank commanding?

I just wantto say thisTequilla stuff is great!!!!

[anytimebaby]

You are of course assuming that the F3 Navs in question would volunteer for such a post! I have a feeling that most will be gainfully employed for some time to come and the others would prefer the 'you want fries with that?' career move....of course that is just my opinion.

[Barn Doors]

Hey, but look at it another way......

They would get more hours flying since, unlike the F'4-1', more than 2 out of every 4 E-3s that try to get airborne remain serviceable!!

Radar.....what i'd give for one of those......!
:{

[Magic Mushroom]

Anaprop old chap,
As a fairly experienced E-3D mate I feel relatively well qualified to comment on the E-3D's current manning issues. Firstly, when you say 'Fighter Controllers', I assume that you mean 'Weapons Controllers' (WC's) (as FC breveted individuals also fill surveillance/ESM slots on the E-3D).
Secondly, please don't fall into the outdated concept that the E-3D is an AD platform. Although it was procured for such a role in the Cold War, operationally the E-3D now performs a far wider spectrum of C2 functions (ABCCC, CSAR, Strike coordination etc with forces from all three services). AD is just one very minor part of it's role today. In fact, I would suggest that GR4, SH, AH and Tac C-130 aircrew would have equally if not more relevant experience to current E-3D roles than F3 mates.
You are quite correct however in stating that there are problems in meeting the wpns manning of the E-3D. Traditionally, the majority of E-3D WC's have come from an FC background because there is a legal requirement for E-3D WC's to be qualified to offer full control services (Radar Control, RIS, RAS etc). Whilst there have been a few ex FJ nav's and a couple of AEO WC's, FC breveted individuals (ie commissioned OSB FC and SNCO FC's), still form the majority.
Unfortunately, largely due to the extreme ignorance and questionable political aims of the FC branch leadership, the interests of the Service have not always been best served. Whilst the current Gp Capt ASACS is considerably more forward thinking than his predecessors, there is still more iniertia in the FC branch than is found in the Isle of Wight.:( :( :(
I would be delighted to see a more cosmopolitan mix of backgrounds in the E-3D wpns cadre (and I say that as an FC myself). The mix of aircrew backgrounds (FC's, AEOp, AEO's, GR1, Bucc, F-4, C-130 and Nimrod navs) on the E-3D mission crew generally (when also taking into account surveillance) is probably our biggest strength. Indeed, given recent ops it would be good to get SH experience down the back.
It would make considerable sense in my opinion to employ a diverse spread of WSO/WSOp's as E-3D WC's alongside FC breveted individuals. However, these should come from a similar range of Air Power disciplines that the E-3D gets involved in (mud moving, SH, AT, SF rather than just AD mates).
However, in terms of purely FJ navs, I can't see many guys being available to be released from the GR4/F3 fleets much before 2008. Nevertheless, we do get a number of enquiries from FJ navs considering just such a move for a variety of reasons. For any that do go down E-3D mission crew route, I can assure people that it does offer an extremely interesting and varied employment option with plenty of opportunities for advancement and a long term future. Indeed, the ISTAR platforms (E-3D, Nimrod R1, ASTOR and MRA4) will probably be among the RAF's highest profile assets in coming years.
Regards,
M2:D :D :D

[Charlie Luncher]

M2

"Indeed, the ISTAR platforms (E-3D, Nimrod R1, ASTOR and MRA4) will probably be among the RAF's highest profile assets in coming years."

So would it not make sense to locate all the platforms together combining ops support, training, intel and maintenance services all on one base thus maximising the ISTAR dream and even saving money - or is that too logical/political for the grandes fromages.:O

ps Not the frozen north :*

[freddoir]

From a FCs perspective I would welcome any opportunity for FJ aircrew to come and see what their controllers do for a living. Whether they choose to make that a career is another thing. I'm not suggesting appreciation, perhaps understanding is the best we can hope for.

Can you see FJ aircrew giving up their hard-fought position in the food chain to retrograde into a wide body. Methinks not.

One solution (and yes I am dark blue) would be to increase the numbers of RN FCs going to the E3 world. Lets face it, from 2006, control possibilities will be few and far between with FA2 gathering dust and the GR7 allergy to salt water.

[left one o clock]

Charlie Luncher. Yes, it would make a lot of sense. However, there 'aint enough concrete. There are a few problems just squeezing ASTOR in.

[round&round]

One of the great strengths of the E-3 fleet is the diversity of experience amongst it's mission crew. It works really well and gives us an important and vital edge. There is no doubt that an F3 Nav would have a huge input to make, but conversly would also have a lot to learn of other air power roles, but that would come very easily and naturally. It is true though that AD is about 5% of the jets present role, mainly cause no-one wants to fight gallantly!!

I'd be really wary as an F3 bod though. To be a weapons controller will mean entering the ground environment and doing some training and consolidating at a CRC. Once they have you they will not want to let go. Before you jump, get a posting notice cast in stone that says Waddington!! If they won't give it tell em to ram it.

The weapons controller manning is absolutely dire and getting worse and no-one is willing to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. Take for example the ERS controllers. They are required to leave their primary job at another unit to reinforce the fleet. They then retrain, requalify and deploy. The requirement to stay current and the continuous deployments all involves time away from their families and much travelling. They then get totally screwed over flying pay. Some only get it for the operational missions they fly and Innsworth are totally incapable of coming up with a coherent line. So, a guy does 3 months away from the family and gets just 12 days FP for the missions flown. However, even this is then screwed up by PMA and months of nasty letters follows each operational deployment as they try and grab everything back, cause they can't read an auth sheet!! Other ERS guys get FP all the time, but are scared witless they'll be asked for it back, as has happened with a proportion. "Good faith" is no longer a valid argument for "over-issues". Nobody knows where they stand and they are starting to vote with their feet. Morale amongst the WCs is for all intent and purposes non-existent. Its so bad they have even stopped moaning!! To cap it all, you then return to your normal job to be told by your boss he cannot report on you cause you've been away so long and by the way expect a "1" for loyalty!! Result, career screwed for absolutely no thanks and months of hassle, but hey that's nothing new.

We know we're third class citizens (Airmen aircrew justifyingly claim second spot), but if this isn't a massive problem in the making then my a**e doesn't point down. All other major AWACS operators "rate" their guys (you fly, you're aircrew). Ours prefers to totally demoralise theirs, make their core skills appear utterly worthless, deploy them continuously, and then express shock and disbelief that they have the audacity to question policy.

By the way, what the hell is a bonus?????:confused:

[Biggus]

Just two points to make:

round&round

"All other major AWACS operators "rate" their guys. Ours prefers to totally demoralise theirs......". Nice phrase, but I think you will find if you replace the words "AWACS operators" with "airforces" it is even more accurate!!


left one o'clock

You will have to excuse me, but I am the worst combination, old and ignorant. With reference to being old I remember when Waddington had enough room for 3 or 4 Sqns of Vulcans! With reference to being ignorant, why therefore is there not enough room for 6-7 AWACS (don't know the exact number - ignorant you see), a couple of R1s and 6-7 buisjet sized ASTOR??

[Magic Mushroom]

Freddoir,
Delighted to have an increase in the number of RN FC's with us. However, experience has shown that RN FC's struggle controlling in the busier and more complex airspace in which we operate. Harsh, but I'm afraid true. That said, tactically, they are pretty good. Additionally, you'd need to spend longer at Waddo to provide decent return of service. At 2 1/2 years, RN guys are ideal for upgrade to FA. Then they get posted!!

Charles,
As Left1OC points out, there isn't the room at Waddo to fit in the MRA4 fleet. I suspect that the revised 3 Gp structure will be the only 'synergy' that the Kipper fleet get with the rest of the ISTAR community. To be honest, I don't think this will be a snag as the MRA4 will be involved in a different form of C2ISR from the Waddo wing. Anyway, the E-3D, R1 and ASTOR will probably be out of service by the time the Mk4 sees the light of day!

R&R,
You are quite correct in pointing out that the current requirement to qualify as a WC in the bunker world puts most if not all GD/NCA guys from even considering the WC (as opposed to surveillance) route. However, given that CRC experience is probably becoming less and less relevant to modern E-3D ops, I personally believe that Waddington will be trg a proportion of it's own WC's within 5 years. Other than a few weeks of Phase 1 foundation at Boulmer, that should then remove the need for experienced aircrew to spend time underground on the East Coast.
Secondly, lets not get too bitter; much of the blame for the current farcical situation that exists with FC 'aircrew' terms of service and fg pay is down to our own branch. In particular, it was our branch that rejected the FC brevet being absorbed into the WSO specialisation.

Biggus,
The reasons that Waddo is hard pressed for space are varied. Firstly, each of the (7) E-3D's is considerably larger than a Vulcan. Indeed, the (eventually 6) ASTOR and (3) R1 are of similar sizes to the dear old V word. Moreover, the logistical footprint of these ac is considerably larger than the Vulcan. The typical E-3D crew is now 18 (over 3 times that of a Vulcan) while that of the R1 is 28! The highly specialised roles of the E-3D, Nimrod R1 and ASTOR require considerable ground support at Waddington. Most significantly, there is simply not the quarters available at Waddo!

Regards,
M2

[Charlie Luncher]

Is there not a nice piece of tarmac just up the road available, apart from Dynarod wizzing around for an hour a day and a dead dog, it would be very nice and central - also not jockland.

Go on it makes sooo much sense:=

[round&round]

MM,

I really think you've fallen into the trap. We all know that certain sections are pushing for direct entrants at all levels in the mission crew. I think it will happen and in a few years we'll have a reputation worse than the US fleet, cause we can't paper over the cracks with lots of dollars. As to doing ab-initio training at waddo, come on. A couple of individuals are supporting this as a way of standing out. Its a classic case of self above Service. They'll leave on promotion and some other poor sucker will pick up a right mess. How can we train kids off the street or with 4 weeks in a bunker when we presently struggle to man the jet at all. More studes = more instructors and at the moment the pots empty.:(

[814man]

Charlie Luncher
Irrespective of all the good operational reasons you come up with, I think you'll find that the last point made by Magic Mushroom is even more applicable to the home of the Dambusters, where the forward looking services sold off the majority of the FQs to Annington in the last couple of years to sell on the civvy market. They even moved us service personnel from one street to the next so that they could renovate the houses to "make them up to an acceptable standard for resale”. I know because I was etc etc.
But that’s another topic which has already been done I think.

[Tom Bell-Weed]

ANAPROP

To return to the original suggestion of the thread, I don't think it's really a player. This isn't simply because FJ navs would turn their noses up at a change in role; this has already been disproven by the slow but steady stream who've already made the crossover.

The main snag is that there aren't very many F3 navs left. 4 Sqns and an OCU don't take much filling, but none of the 4 op sqns is anywhere close to full nav manning. Innsworth seem to be on the ball as to the final disposal of navs when the F3 folds. A lot of the younger guys are already earmarked for GR4, and many older, greyer types will be happy to stop flying and either PVR or fly desks until pension time. Therefore, don't expect a stampede competing for your jobs.

To pick up your point about the lack of suitable controllers from the ASACS world I would have to say I agree. The standard of control, other than very competent opening disclaimers on the radar services provided, is way below that required. How about some of you E3D gods returning to the ground and bestowing some of your hard-won wisdom on your brevet-less brethern. It might be a nice rest from all the dets you go on.

Anyone gonna bite????

[Magic Mushroom]

R&R,
I think that you're being a tad pessimistic old chap. The direct entry TD/FA/SC issue was buried a few years back and even the ASACS seem to have given up on it of late. I cannot see it happening as even the brass now realise that the shortages in mission crew lies in the grass roots WC area; it is just not even an issue right now. As for your comments about ab initios, who is it that is placing themselves before the Service? Speak to the Trg Flt guys. The latest bunch of ASACS WCs to go through were so inexperienced that the instructors were essentially doing Phase 2 trg anyway. So why not take them that little bit earlier before they've picked up some of the bad habits and mindset of the bunkers? And you have clearly not heard the latest funded plans for the Component's (and most significantly the Trg Flt's) establishment! There is a whole shed load of dosh that is headed towards ISTAR. For a relatively modest outlay on MSLITE and other CBT and emulators, ab initio WC trg is viable. And who said anything about 'kids off the street'? Clearly, ab initio WC trg would require a restructure of the syllabus, but it is doable and not necessarily something that should be so readily discounted. The powers that be have finally realised that (after struggling from one crisis to another in ODF, OAF and OEF) more funding and resources have got to be ploughed into E-3D manning and trg. Trust me, and watch this space!!:}

TBW
No.......!:p

Regards
M2

[Fire 'n' Forget]

MM
""bad habits and mindset of the bunkers"

Stop blowing your own trumpet will you!! Did you not start your career in a bunker....and now if you were choclate you would eat yourself....give us a break.

If the current 'inexperienced' controllers are that bad why dont you do something about it and volunteer to teach them properly??

No I didn't think so :*

and I would love to see you 'Gods' even try to teach studes after PH 1...........there not as how they used to be!!

[Avoiding Action]

I think you got a bite there M2;)

[SirToppamHat]

TBW

The standard of control, other than very competent opening disclaimers on the radar services provided, is way below that required.

Whilst not wishing to bite on the main thrust of your post, the comment above is worth a response. The standard of control is, I believe, a direct reflection of the fact that a good proportion of the work carried out by the CRCs is undertaken by students undergoing Phase 2 WC Trg, or by newly qualified WCs working to a TPS that is considerably lower than was formerly the case. It has been said many times before that the best way to improve the performance of GCI WCs is to debrief (constructively) with them. Unfortunately, it's often difficult to get hold of a specific WC (see manpower shortages previously on thread), and the crews are often unavailable due to hot debriefs etc. Messages about specific sorties can always be passed via the FA, who SHOULD debrief the WC concerned on points good or bad.

As for the opening disclaimers on radar services, I for one would be delighted if an agreement made on the ground could be considered binding so that there would be no need to repeat all the "ADIS 5000 ... responsibility for terrain clearance ..." stuff at the start of each sortie. However, this is simply not going to happen. The recent case highlighted elsewhere on PPRUNE:

ATC Officer Court Martial (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61388)

ATC Officer Court Martial 2 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81326)

has forced additional sortie admin on us all.
:( :(

On the subject of the shortage of FCs generally, the Surveillance stream is, I believe, about 100% manned. It is the Weapons side that is desperately short. I wonder whether some of the retention bonuses available to the 'real aircrew' might help to ease this situation? I think it could attract officers from other branches/specialisations ... if it still sounds unattractive, the closure of a certain Scottish CRC will soon mean that the FC specialisation will at least guarantee JO WCs postings in England!

:D

[Magic Mushroom]

F&F,
Oh for crying out loud...!!!:rolleyes:

At what point have I described myself as a 'god' or ever suggested that I am better than anyone in the CRC's?!!!:rolleyes:

Us chappies on the E-3D's are no better than anyone in the bunkers; we just happened to have won the lottery that is an FC posting to flying duties. I know from all too recent experience that there are some top quality guys on the ground, many are way better than some of us with brevets! Unfortunately, it remains FC branch policy that there is to be no selection to stream the guys most suited for aircrew duties (notice that this doesn't necessarily mean the guys who are best on the ground!) to AWACS.

However, what an AWACS tour does inevitably give an individual is a far broader exposure to not just Air Power (ABCCC, TST, ESM/SIGINT/JSTARS coord, CSAR etc), but to joint ops (SF, FSCL coord, SH, UAV's, Redcrown ops etc). Inevitably, the CRC's have been left behind in the past 10 years due to their static nature. This is increasingly evident in the problems experienced by SOME of the studes going through E-3D conversion. It is very clear that the revised WC Trg system and continuing outdated ASACS CRT priorities do nobody any favours. Possibly most frsutrating is that all of the E-3D guys that have returned to the ground have been hugely disappointed that their experience has not been utilised to improve the situation. Indeed, in some cases it has been actively discouraged.

I'm not quite sure what you mean with teaching studes after Ph1 as 'they're not how they used to be'. However, the FC branch still recruits some very sharp individuals. Given a relatively minor increase in Trg funding and resources Waddington could train guys to BQ standard on the jet. This would avoid them learning principles that are not relevant to the AWACS role, and hopefully increase WC output. It would also arguably improve recruiting if kids could see a more direct route to the E-3D. It would not however, stop guys crossing over after tours on the ground. Getting guys on the jet younger would also increase the possiblities of them getting back to the CRC's to pass on their experience.

What I'm trying to say is that no system is perfect. There are faults in the E-3D system and there are most definately faults in the ASACS system. Remember, those of us on the E-3D have seen both sides of the fence. I have a lot of experience in the AWACS world and a little in the ASACS. I have no axe to grind. I'm merely trying to highlight what I feel would be the best way forward for the UK services.

Incidentally, I didn't start my career in a bunker!!!!

Now chill out...life's too short!!!!:cool: :cool: :cool:

Kindest Regards,
M2:D

PS...AA, you ain't kidding!!! All the best, and get yourself down here ASAP!

[Mystic Greg]

As usual, Magic Mushroom has said just about everything I would have said. I would be delighted to see some F3 Navs (or any other experienced aircrew for that matter) re-employed as E-3D WCs. Furthermore, I believe such experienced operators could do Phase 2 controller trg on the E-3D (although I would not want to go so far as R&R fears and attempt Phase 2 for 'kids off the street'). We certainly need to do something radical as we appear to have bled the ASACS dry of their experienced controllers. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that we would get many F3 (or other) Navs and then not for some years - but even half a dozen would be immensely helpful. And what about giving some experienced ATCOs a try? (Standing by for many brickbats and much vitriol).

[ADIS5000]

M2.

Personally I've encountered very few navs, FJ or otherwise that wish to transfer onto your beloved radiating airliner! Therefore, surely the way ahead must be to train all WCs with a view to employment OTJ directly from trg. For those that are unable to consume 25 pies in an 8 hr period and/or spend all their rates/flying pay in the allotted timescale, then a few tours in the ground environment would help hone their food eating capacity / money spending capabilities before returning for a second go at E-3 trg? E-3 FAs/TDs could do tours in the ground environment to provide the experience and guidance for those not deemed worthy of a first tour on flying pay. I feel that a change in the mindset of the ASACS trg world could be called for.

We all know that currently you have probs getting people through the system and onto the sqn. Therefore, why don't the STF come to the bunkers and monitor WCs on console? Then you would be able to directly (and hopefully objectively) select the people you want (irrespective of seniority) straight from the shop floor and surely reduce the wasted trg hrs on blokes who you subsequently chop.



AA - Hello mate, can't believe you don't have an opinion on all this!! PS. Don't forget, I'll take that pile of rust off your hands whenever you wish!

Cheers ADIS.
:cool: :cool:

[Magic Mushroom]

ADIS,
We do get a trickle of navs through the mission crew; an ex GR1 backseater is on the current OCU (albeit as surveillance).

Totally agree with your comments about selection however. The Trg Flt would LOVE to be allowed to conduct selection for FC's coming onto the jet. Unfortunately the FC and TG12 hierarchy are TOTALLY against it. Meanwhile, it is extremely frustrating when you see some individuals posted to the E-3D who are clearly not suitable (due to age, motivation or personality), while other top quality JO's and SNCO's are stuck on the ground. Such a policy is not good for the FC branch or, most importantly, the Service.
Regards
M2

[Fire 'n' Forget]

:O Ok M2, I did bite........... the 'mindset' of the bunker had obviously put me into 'Grump' :mad: mode that day, quite an easy thing to achieve these days, especially with manning issues.

With a calm head on now, instead of 'positive selection' would it not be adventagous to introduce some sort of apptitude testing for the jet over and above that already done at ADFC. Not necessarlly all about control, but something that requires potential students to self-study all about the other facets of C4I that the jet is capable of and then moving on to practical tasks. This would achieve two things

1: Introduce a motivational factor,( not saying that current studes are not motivated) that would encourage those that have both the desire and willingness to ultimately gain employment on the jet. An example was the old airmans prom exam, you had to do the work and then the exam and pass before you were eligable for promotion, there were loads of airman that were ready for promotion and excellent at their jobs but were just not motivated enough to do the Prom exams meaning that only genuine candidates went forward.

2: Money, weed the weak candidates out earlier and cheaper, rather than wasting six months of training and money, more suited on a more capable individual.

Rant Over...... :cool:

[round&round]

What a hugely excellent debate and do I detect a thin concensus starting to show itself?? Wonders will never cease!!

One of the reasons that WC manning on the jet is so critical is that it is almost exclusively manned by FCs. All the other mission crew positions have Navs, AEs and AEops. This means that an experienced, stable, cadre form the backbone on which an experienced team can be built. What's needed for the weapons guys is a few, well proven, operators to enter the Professional Aircrew Stream.

On a purely unselfish note I'd sacrifice my blinding progression through the hugely rewarding career stream our branch offers to be the first guinea pig!! That's of course if I wasn't trampled to death in the rush!!!

If they won't countenance our incorporation into the WSO programme why don't we all just branch change??? Imagine, we'd get a whole year at home whilst we did the course, Innsworth wouldn't be able to demand wads of cash back and we'd qualify for the FRI scheme!!

:O :) :D ;)

[Magic Mushroom]

F&F,
Interesting concept regarding a 'self motivational' pre-employment exam, and maybe worth further consideration. Unfortunately, much of our task is very subjective and difficult to assess, so I'm not convinced that such a method would bring the desired results. An ability to handle multiple comms inputs simultaneously is arguably the most quantifiable skill needed for the jet. The best place to assess this would be the AEOp comms procedures trainer at Cranwell. However, such skills can generally be acquired during the OCU, so the lack of such a skill should not necessarily stop a guy from being posted to the E-3D.

The TG2 candidates for Airborne Tech duties undergo selection interviews at Waddington. This involves the chance to fly on an E-3D mission to view and speak with AT's at first hand, followed by an interview board with the Boss of the 23 Sqn Trg Flt, the 8 Sqn WO AT leader, and at least one specialist from the AT stream that the candidate is most interested in. This has been successful for a considerable period with few AT trg failures. Importantly, this ensures that the candidate is right for the job, and that the job is right for the candidate. Allegedly, some candidates change their mind when confronted with 0300 starts and 6 months per year in the desert. Personally, I feel that this would be an excellent model for FC/TG12 selection.

R&R,
Couldn't agree with you more mate about the WSO option! As far as I'm concerned, if we're going to be employed as aircrew, lets be trained properly, and have a branch structure that relects it. To all intents and purposes, we are now virtually a seperate 'branch within a branch' anyway (different postings and PMA desk involvment for FC 'aircrew'). Why not make it official. I think that it would be the only way to resolve the farcical situation that has existed for so long.

Regards,
M2

[YellowBelly]

MM

You have discussed holding 'selection days' for WCs to ensure that you attract those sufficiently motivated for aircrew duties, incorporating E-3D FCs into the PAS for a separate career structure, getting younger people onto the jet, improving the currently limited experience offered by the ASACS world and conducting more basic WC training at STF yet, having accepted that many ex-FJ Navs would not wish to transfer to the E-3D, you still seem to be locked onto recruiting your candidates from the FC sub-specialisation of the Ops Spt Branch. Would not the above considerations be addressed by making E-3D mission crew (weapons and surveillance) an NCA streaming option? The young NCA would do their common aircrew course at Cranwell, then initial WC training at Boulmer before proceeding to STF. Those comissioned posts within the mission crew (and are so many really required?) could be addressed in the same manner as the Nimrod force. Finally, and looking ahead to a radically improved mission system, could you not move ahead to the E-2C/Auzzie concept and move away fom separate weapons and surveillance types - surely new technology would remove the requirement for guys specialising in tracking, links etc?

Just trying to think outside of the box....

[SpotterFC]

Quote from MM:

"Possibly most frsutrating (sic) is that all of the E-3D guys that have returned to the ground have been hugely disappointed that their experience has not been utilised to improve the situation. Indeed, in some cases it has been actively discouraged."

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree (possibly violently
;) ) with you here. 3 of the 5 guys teaching Ph 4 at Neat are (or were until you nicked them back) ex E3-D mates. They have personally written the training packages, drawing heavily (if not downright plagiarising) your own training packages for many of them. They may have had to leave things out because the Syllabus or IS leave them out. Thus I take issue with the use of the word "all", and being actively discouraged? I hardly think so. If that were the case they'd have been stuck on Q and left to rot in the crewroom. Their worth and experience ( :confused: := ) was recognised and utilised accordingly.

[Magic Mushroom]

YB
E-3D mission crew is an established posting for NCA! For a considerable time ab initio AEOps have been posted to the E-3D in the Surv Op and Comms Op specialisations, and many of the former have subsequently qualified as Link Managers. In my opinion, NCA are some of the sharpest guys that are on the E-3D; they consistently do well in trg and I'd like to see more of them! However, NCA have so far not been allowed the option to qualify as WC's. I do not have a problem with this. In my original post, I highlighted the usefulness of 'AT, SH and AH aircrew' as E-3D WC's due to our increasingly diverse mission. I most certainly include NCA in this statement. I see no reason why an Air Eng or ALM with Tac/SF C-130 experience could not be trained as a WC and offer much to the AWACS fleet. Likewise, I would expect that many ab initio AEOp's would pass the WC course.

However, there at present 2 obstacles to NCA WC's. Firstly, few would probably wish to do time in a CRC. This could be simply remedied by following your suggestion and conducting 'Phase 1' WC trg at Boulmer, followed by 'Phase 2' at Waddington on an extended OCU. This would need a revision of the 23 Sqn WC syllabus and probably minor outlay in additional CBT. However, I've already stated that ab initio WC trg is in my opinion a viable option at Waddo. Secondly, there are currently insufficient NCA around to start posting them as WC's according to PMA. I believe that this is shortsighted. The more diverse roles available to WSOp's (particularly away from Kinloss!), the more attractive it would be for recruits. Long term therefore, you'd actually assist NCA recruitment surely! For the record, I also have few problems with the concept of NCA E-3D SC's and FA's (although I suspect that I'm in a minority on this last point). In short, I'm a big fan of NCA on the E-3D!

SFC
Clearly, the employment of former E-3D WC's at Neat has improved. You appear to be on the spot, where I am not, and I accept that you have the most current info. However, initial reports suggested that this was far from the case.

Nevertheless, with the best will in the world, any E-3D guy will be unable to fully employ his skills at a CRC. This is not me suggesting that we are better, it is simply an acknowledgement that the roles of the CRC and E-3D are increasingly diverging. A CRC cannot fulfil ABCCC or CSAR AMC tasks. Nor does a CRC work with SIGINT, JSTARS, UAV's, IDM, JTIDS etc. Therefore, a large portion of an E-3 operators experience remains unused at a CRC. What I'm trying to suggest is that the haemorrhaging of experienced E-3D aircrew back to CRC's is not necessarily the best way to employ such personnel, or to tackle the manning problems.
Regards
M2

[YellowBelly]

MM

Many thanks - was aware of current streaming arrangements for NCA as SO/COs (my initial input was probably badly worded) but clearly we're talking the same language ref additionally streaming young NCA for E-3D WC duties. I would summarize the advantages thus:

1. NCAs have passed aircrew aptitude tests, medicals etc
2. NCAs would have already received basic aircrew training
3. NCAs form part of recognised aircrew career structure
4. New NCAs would have youth on their side
5. More likely to retain NCA skills within the E-3D community
6. Would remove disparities in entitlements for flying pay within the mission crew and for subsequent staff jobs
7. Would remove a major source of endless discussions at higher levels about 'what is best for the FC Branch' (as opposed to 'what is best for the RAF')

Well, thats off my chest - I'd better go and have a lie down...

[Magic Mushroom]

YB,
Interesting you should mention your last point! Things have improved with the latest Gp Capt ASACS, but as an FC, I do get heartily fed up of hearing the hierarchy of my branch discussing 'what is best for the FC branch', rather than 'what is best for the Service'! As you intimate, the 2 are not necessarily the same. Ooops! Better go for a loyalty pill!
Regards
M2:D

[round&round]

Yellowbelly,

according to PMA, NCA recruitment was the worst of all trades in the RAF during the last recruiting year. You only hit 60% of the number required. From this figure a significant proportion will not make it to a squadron. Result is a massive struggle just to keep the MR fleet operational. I imagine the response if we asked to send NCA into new areas would generally revolves around which planet we are on!!

Off course, if MR4 goes to the wall and some of you chaps end up with not alot to do, you'd get every support from Waddo to give weapons controlling a go. However, if the FC heirarchy would expend resources in this way is anybodies guess. If they did not perceive the ground branch to benefit it may get blackballed.

It would be great if someone pressed to test though and I'd wish them all the luck in the world, especially as "home defence" is drying up the traditional supply chain.

[YellowBelly]

R&R

Thanks - sounds like sad news from the recruiting front although I'd heard from a wg cdr at PMA that they were being "flooded" with interested youngsters since advertising 'Weapons Systems Operator' vice obscure terminology such as 'Air Electronics' (always conjured up an image of someone carrying a soldering iron to me - no offence to our AEO/AEOp colleagues!). How 'NCA' will grab the youth of today, goodness only knows.

Regardless, any potential shortfalls today should not stop us making long-term 'aspirational' goals. However, as you say, I'm sure the 'FC sub-specialisation of the Ops Spt Branch' would fight tooth and nail not to lose their life-line, or indeed any significant portion of it. Moreover, the most difficult challenge as always would be financial - FCs/SNCO controllers/TG12 et al have far lower 'per capita' costs when compared to aircrew branches and trades - hence, sadly the cheap option would seem very attractive to the Treasury. My only hope is that the crew composition and associated manning policy would be radically reviewed as an integral part of any potential mid-life upgrade - perhaps we would then see the E-3D being as operated as an aircraft instead of an airborne bunker!

[Magic Mushroom]

Steady on YB!!
The manning of the jet may have its roots back in yesteryear, but it's certainly not operated like a Cold war bunker!!! BH, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have seen to that!
However, you're right. It would be good to get a review of the future for AWACS manning, trg and doctrine. There may even be a good argument for more dark blue and even (dare I say it)brown jobs on the ac. unfortunately, when even the RAF's own web site lists the E-3D as a defensive ac, it's kind of frustrating! Regards
M2:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

YellowBelly

I could be wrong (after all I often am - ask my wife!) but I think the "flood" of youngsters applying to be Weapon System Operators may dry up when they realise they don't actually operate any WEAPONS! I think "System Operator" is probably a far more accurate description, but a lot less sexy and eye catching!

Oh, of course, I was forgetting. THE WHOLE AIRCRAFT IS A "WEAPON SYSTEM" - silly me!

[Marconi Boy]

There are plently of us wanting and waiting to join the E3 force at Waddo. For one reason or another the newer qualified controllers at either Neat or Buchan are the ones that are being lucky enough to get a shot to qualify and earn their brevet.

Advert for post: Please help, I am a qualified (I think) WC (not surv) in need of employment soonest at a local E3D station.

:) :) :D :) :)

If you can help Phone DIAL A WC on 0898.........

[WD 1]

I have read with interest the posts regarding FC trg, manning etc and feel compelled to contribute.

The OSB FC heirarchy have undoubtedly shot themselves in the foot through their repeated disregard for their workforce, and lack of awareness of the requirements of the E-3D force. They have been told on numerous occasions of the problems with manning and training of WCs in particular but have heeded nothing. It seems successive branch sponsors have chosen to stick their heads in the sand and hope that the problem goes away. The E-3D has rightfully earned great praise and is definitely the preferred AWACS platform, even by US aircrew and they have been doing AWACS things for a lot longer than we have. Surely then the resources necessary for the job should be provided. A cynic might think that the FC branch opposes any attempts to absorb any of its personnel into the 'professional aircrew' world as this would mean a lot of senior officer posts might disappear, and we wouldn't want that would we?

I noticed a query about the number of commissioned WC on the E-3D. I can tell you as someone who has spent a long time as a flying WC - it is not necessary! There is no serious argument for it other than some nonsense about executive decisions. Absolute rubbish! As an FA I don't make any executive decisions without referring to the TD, and to date no E-3 has operated autonomously without the guidance and direction of a higher authority on the ground. The ac captain is responsible for the ac and not any mission crew member. Whilst it may be cheaper to employ SNCO FC or NCA, as they are not only paid less but also get less flying pay, the overriding factor for the FC branch is 'jobs for the boys', and they have a nice foothold which they don't want to lose to the 'aircrew world'.

Ab-initio trg at Waddo is in principle an excellent idea. There is no reason why anyone who can complete Ph 1+2 at SFC Boulmer could not be posted direct to Waddo, including remusterees or direct entrants. If this is the way ahead, then a new aircrew specialisation is needed with the associated terms of service. Money may well be about to be thrown at 23 Sqn STF but what is also needed is a change of mindset within the FC world.

A couple of points on the employment of ex E-3D peeps.
1. Until recently the majority of those FC (WC) to depart the E-3D were on promotion to S/L.
2. I have it on good authority, despite Spotter FC, that those ex E-3D people that teach your Ph 4 do indeed feel undervalued, given their experience levels. I don't doubt they are doing an excellent job but what other choices have you to offer them for their career development? It is rumoured that they will need to be at a CRC for 5 years before they will be considered experienced!

I am sure I have raised a few contentious issues, which was purely intentional, to encourage discussion/debate.

Here's hoping,

Cheers.

[round&round]

WD1,

you make some good points and you obviously feel very emotive about certain issues. Many of us feel that we have to some degree been let down by the FC heirarchy. Unfortunately, their only priority seems to be rotation, rotation, rotation. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I think the fact that this jet goes to war is totally ignored. I believe, that the one and only driving force should be that which makes the E-3 a better fighting machine. Everything else should be secondary, however much it might hurt.

I remember during Kosovo when our branch sponsor only came out to see what his FCs were doing cause the AOC ordered him to!! This shows the mindset that we are up against. Whilst our branch sees the aircraft purely as a recruiting and retention vehicle we are doomed to being a bit of a laughing stock with third class status. Why should the rest of the RAF take us seriously when our own branch refuses to promote our abilities and experience??I hope positive change comes soon otherwise I fear we will lose people in droves. I am though very, very pessimistic that anything positive will happen and I think the door of opportunity is all but closed.

Regards

R&R

[Marconi Boy]

I think that once we get into rotation, rotation, rotation and people become qualified on the jet, things will become far easier and also more stable for the trade. For a start rotation and currency will work, if I am correct, the period is 45 days to remain current. I am sure that the CRC's will enable/should enable all current operators to fly within this specified period to remain current. This would also enable/benefit when training requirements are given by the soon to be deployable front line Squadron's.

People have and still will be employed far too long on the crews until the numbers increase to include rotation. Rotation will work once substantial numbers are achieved; this will mean an establishment far beyond the current levels. A better working relationship also needs to be established between the E3D crews and the ground environment operators. There is far too much separation between the two because of the tasks each other does or thinks they do (day to day).

For now the people who are qualified need at present our utmost attention to complete the tasks in hand safely, good luck guys, you are the pinnacle of the trade and deserve more than is currently being displayed, see you soon, once again good luck.

[SpotterFC]

"Rotation, rotation, rotation" - hah I wondered how long that would take. It's amazing how a throw away remark - made in jest in a pub in Lincoln by someone on a visit on the ABCCC cse from Boulmer - can take on the mantle of policy!

WD1, the guys who came back would obviously prefer it if their experience was used for something else. I'll mention it to Wpns Lead for when they get back. We're always short on Q. Aah no, wait a moment I just re-read your post and I think I've just figured out who we're talking about! It all becomes clear, 'Nuff said!

I do however echo the sentiments of Marconi Boy in wishing you all the best of luck.

[T.O.O.]

Isn't this Forum supposed to be about/for Military Aircrew, not for a FC chat room. The points made reference the E-3D were interesting but now we seem to be drifting towards a whinge room instead. :( :( :(

Ta

[Fire 'n' Forget]

T.O.O

As you seem to be new to pprune I think you will find that the 'military aircrew' forum is used by all, and by a lot of non military personnel. The thing is as a fair majority of the posters on this forum are E-3D mission crew FC's, therfore I would think that they are more than 'allowed' to use a PUBLIC chatroom.

Therfore the lesson is, if it is boring you, dont read it

We could all go around putting comments like yours on every post that we do not find interesting anymore, but whats the point?

and finally checked your profile, no mention of types or ratings have you finished Falcon 4 on your PC yet :) or are you doing homework

[SpotterFC]

Bravo F&F.

T.O.O, that's just the way things work on message boards. Anaprop posted a contentious issue for us all to debate, and that's what we're doing - albeit that the topic drifts slightly now and then as we explore all aspects of the issue. If you think the occasional tetchiness that creeps in is acrimonious then you haven't been in many crewrooms. We whinge, we bitch, we downright scream at each other, then we go to the bar and buy each other drinks. Get over it.

[anytimebaby]

F'n'F

Now if you knew what T.O.O. stands for in modern fighter speak you'd know he hasn't just finished Falcon 8 (probably hasn't even got a PC - can't type). As for ratings, we don't all need to have 'ratings' to kick ass.

As for his point, I think it's valid, this forum is entitled 'F3 Navs as Fighter Controllers', NOT 'GCI boys whingeing about job ops'.

By the way, our AWACS and AAR assets are what most impresses the americans (not that we need to impress them) about our military, so they shouldn't become 3rd rate....2nd rate will do.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Anytimebaby,

Stop bieng so presumptious thinking that I dont know what T.O.O means, If you had bothered to read earlier post on this forum then you probably would be aware that I 'know' about modern fighter ops.

Getting to the point, since when did the term T.O.O only refer to 'modern' fighter speak.... did they not do T.O.O in WW1 or II of course they did you MUPPET :rolleyes:

Now some advice, your user name, location and time of posting obviously identify yourself as a socially depressed DVD expert, try getting a girlfriend :p

[The Dribbler]

As Spotter FC quite rightly states, " the topic drifts slightly now and then as we explore all aspects of the issue"........well please feel free to explore this!

TOO makes a valid point re Military Aircrew which F'n'F misses. Subsequently, anytime gets shot down for voicing an opinion, so I guess it must now be my turn to stand up and be counted (or should that be berated). Notwithstanding the contribution made by the FC Branch (E-3D or otherwise) aircrew YOU ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE (unless something has changed). May I suggest a more appropriate 'public' forum for your blood-letting (informed discussion) is perhaps the checkout queue at Tesco's.

F'n'F - Please don't get all emotional about this being my first post etc etc......you'll be wasting your time. Perhaps there are many like me whom, as the silent minority, do not percieve you to be the aviation legends the majority of you appear to think you are.

HH could be interesting ...........perhaps Spotter FC will be buying the drinks.

[The Gorilla]

I might as well stand up and put my tuppence worth in as well!

Firstly the E3 is all about teamwork, from the front to the back. As an ex bunker boy myself I can see all the points raised and some are most valid. My comments now relate only to commissioned wearers of the FC brevet. IMHO Navs make excellent E3 FC's. They are experienced aircrew who, like the Aeops, bring a whole host of qualities to the jet. Qualities you can't get sitting underground in a dimly lit room!! The only criticisms and mutterings seem to come from FC's who are E xcellently G ood Officers or EGO's.

There are many different EGO’s on board the E3, some think they are bigger EGO’s than others and therefore most important. They are the ones who strut and cluck the loudest. Bottom line, it doesn’t matter who does what as long as every one is capable and professional at their jobs.

The E3 isn’t a bunker, never was a bunker and never will be.
In my experience, those who come to the E3’s with a bunker mentality are the ones who struggle the most.

:p :p :p

[SpotterFC]

Gorilla/Dribbler

Good points all.

"Bottom line, it doesn’t matter who does what as long as every one is capable and professional at their jobs"

Wholeheartedly agree, and something that we seem incapable of appreciating as a branch.

Dribbler - you obviously don't know me - I never buy (1/4 Scottish see!). However, a whole host of non-aircrew post here, which allows for a far richer debate on several subjects (unless it's Alpha Control posting his usual bollox ramblings - been rather quiet recently though. Too many people in your six?). This particular topic was always going to be somewhat polarized.

BTW HH was great.