UAS 's to close (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: near the squirrel sanctuary
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EESDL,
Is the fact that there are no future leaders on the UAS you have just left due, in part, to the example that they have been set by their instructors? Or am I way off the mark?
kipper.
Is the fact that there are no future leaders on the UAS you have just left due, in part, to the example that they have been set by their instructors? Or am I way off the mark?
kipper.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Planet Earth (on a good day)
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, well, well...
Whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of it, we should all be clear on one thing: it's cobblers for the UASes. This is simply a reflection of the fact that for the UASes to survive in the long term, they must survive every review (which seem to happen on a virtually annual basis), whilst on the other hand they only need to be axed once. So whether it's this time, next time or the time after, they've had it. I would actually put my money on it being this time, as somehow it just feels that the mood of the government/service/country is ready for this once important part of our national fabric to be ended.
And so what about the rights and wrongs? Well, frankly, I think that the UASes now would be best put out of their misery. I (almost) completely agree with BEagle's post of about a week ago - the UAS system worked well when it was a recruiting ground and a forum to promote "air-mindedness" within the future generation of leaders of society. Turning it into a mini-EFT, and judging its success on that basis, robbed it of what it did well. And as many have observed previously, the UASes can never do EFT well, especially if that involved streaming, for a whole host of reasons well covered by previous postings.
In the grand scheme of things, UASes cost buttons, and if correctly assessed and not asked to do a job they were never designed for, their contribution to the Air Force and society would be 10 or 100 times their cost. But now the system is a shadow of its former self, and in many ways is actually disruptive to the aims of the Service. I now hear that UASes fail to recruit the high-calibre studes that they once did. I am not surprised. A great opportunity has been wasted, and one day this decision will be regarded as a paradigm of "penny wise, pound foolish". But it won't be the first, and certainly, certainly won't be the last.
I am afraid (as will be most readers of this post, I'm sure) that this specific situation - essentially irrational decisions regarding the allocation of government funds - is reflefctive of a far, far broader and long-standing problem. The history of the RAF alone (representing a tiny slice of total government expenditure) is littered with examples of exactly this - the TSR-2, Nimrod AEW programme, closure of Abingdon, Scampton, now Lyneham, ..., to name but a few.
Basically, the top and bottom of it is that the incentive structure in the public sector is perverse. If a private company consistently makes bad business decisions, it goes bankrupt. When governments do, nobody beyond those directly affected care. In industry, private companies are incentivised to get the best people for job in question, knowing that the higher quality of person doing a job, the more money that can be made or saved. This is why decent finance people get paid £100k+. In the MOD, business cases are done by low-grade analysts and accoutants (who would never get a job in the private sector) on £20k. So often their analysis is bollox. And, unlike in the private sector, there is no smart and highly experienced person to tell them that the anaylsis is bollox, or to give due regard to the value externalities, which in the case of the UASes is huge.
This extends to the current breed of senior officers, who have become pseudo-politicians. This is not surprising as, ultimately, they are judged by politicians. Their "election issue" is making savings - so lopping a few tens of millions off the budget this year by making some saving or other (e.g. culling the UASes) will get some brownie points. And by the time the folly of the decision is realised, the individual(s) concerned have been promoted, posted, and have moved on. And in this disposable age when not even government ministers resign any more, there is no atmosphere of accountability (the military was always rather poor at this anyway).
I am ranting now. But just look at things the government provides (NHS, railways (sort of - still heavily meddled with by regulation), Post Office, police) and compare it with the private sector (Virgin Atlantic, BUPA, DHL, Securicor). Trust the government with something, and look what happens.
I am afraid that I cannot foresee any positive solution to this as the problem is so systemic - it is an intrinsic problem with democracy. Politicians quite correctly pander to the plebs who vote for them.
As we mourn its passing, let's raise a glass to the UAS system we all knew and (mostly) loved. One thing Tony Blair can't take away is our fond memories of it.
Whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of it, we should all be clear on one thing: it's cobblers for the UASes. This is simply a reflection of the fact that for the UASes to survive in the long term, they must survive every review (which seem to happen on a virtually annual basis), whilst on the other hand they only need to be axed once. So whether it's this time, next time or the time after, they've had it. I would actually put my money on it being this time, as somehow it just feels that the mood of the government/service/country is ready for this once important part of our national fabric to be ended.
And so what about the rights and wrongs? Well, frankly, I think that the UASes now would be best put out of their misery. I (almost) completely agree with BEagle's post of about a week ago - the UAS system worked well when it was a recruiting ground and a forum to promote "air-mindedness" within the future generation of leaders of society. Turning it into a mini-EFT, and judging its success on that basis, robbed it of what it did well. And as many have observed previously, the UASes can never do EFT well, especially if that involved streaming, for a whole host of reasons well covered by previous postings.
In the grand scheme of things, UASes cost buttons, and if correctly assessed and not asked to do a job they were never designed for, their contribution to the Air Force and society would be 10 or 100 times their cost. But now the system is a shadow of its former self, and in many ways is actually disruptive to the aims of the Service. I now hear that UASes fail to recruit the high-calibre studes that they once did. I am not surprised. A great opportunity has been wasted, and one day this decision will be regarded as a paradigm of "penny wise, pound foolish". But it won't be the first, and certainly, certainly won't be the last.
I am afraid (as will be most readers of this post, I'm sure) that this specific situation - essentially irrational decisions regarding the allocation of government funds - is reflefctive of a far, far broader and long-standing problem. The history of the RAF alone (representing a tiny slice of total government expenditure) is littered with examples of exactly this - the TSR-2, Nimrod AEW programme, closure of Abingdon, Scampton, now Lyneham, ..., to name but a few.
Basically, the top and bottom of it is that the incentive structure in the public sector is perverse. If a private company consistently makes bad business decisions, it goes bankrupt. When governments do, nobody beyond those directly affected care. In industry, private companies are incentivised to get the best people for job in question, knowing that the higher quality of person doing a job, the more money that can be made or saved. This is why decent finance people get paid £100k+. In the MOD, business cases are done by low-grade analysts and accoutants (who would never get a job in the private sector) on £20k. So often their analysis is bollox. And, unlike in the private sector, there is no smart and highly experienced person to tell them that the anaylsis is bollox, or to give due regard to the value externalities, which in the case of the UASes is huge.
This extends to the current breed of senior officers, who have become pseudo-politicians. This is not surprising as, ultimately, they are judged by politicians. Their "election issue" is making savings - so lopping a few tens of millions off the budget this year by making some saving or other (e.g. culling the UASes) will get some brownie points. And by the time the folly of the decision is realised, the individual(s) concerned have been promoted, posted, and have moved on. And in this disposable age when not even government ministers resign any more, there is no atmosphere of accountability (the military was always rather poor at this anyway).
I am ranting now. But just look at things the government provides (NHS, railways (sort of - still heavily meddled with by regulation), Post Office, police) and compare it with the private sector (Virgin Atlantic, BUPA, DHL, Securicor). Trust the government with something, and look what happens.
I am afraid that I cannot foresee any positive solution to this as the problem is so systemic - it is an intrinsic problem with democracy. Politicians quite correctly pander to the plebs who vote for them.
As we mourn its passing, let's raise a glass to the UAS system we all knew and (mostly) loved. One thing Tony Blair can't take away is our fond memories of it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mentaliser,
'I am ranting now. But just look at things the government provides (NHS, railways (sort of - still heavily meddled with by regulation), Post Office, police) and compare it with the private sector (Virgin Atlantic, BUPA, DHL, Securicor). Trust the government with something, and look what happens.'
I think you'll find the Post Office is a private compamy accountable to share holders...
Not seen any Virgin UAS - oh that's right, they get their pilots once they have been trained by public funded UASs. NHS does a pretty good job which is why the private health care suppliers tap into it when required!
'I am ranting now. But just look at things the government provides (NHS, railways (sort of - still heavily meddled with by regulation), Post Office, police) and compare it with the private sector (Virgin Atlantic, BUPA, DHL, Securicor). Trust the government with something, and look what happens.'
I think you'll find the Post Office is a private compamy accountable to share holders...
Not seen any Virgin UAS - oh that's right, they get their pilots once they have been trained by public funded UASs. NHS does a pretty good job which is why the private health care suppliers tap into it when required!
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find the Post Office is a private compamy accountable to share holders...
NHS does a pretty good job
Back to the thread, I feel the UAS system had a role to fulfil when, as someone alluded to, it's intake consisted of the future leaders of society and industry (as well as those of us who were destined to be Her Majesty's Finest). They have, however, become more and more irrelevant in exact concert with university education itself, as this government presses ahead with its "all must have prizes" policy of sending any kid who can grunt half a sentence in pidgin "txt-yoof-speak" english to university. The decline in the UAS system is, IMHO, due to the decline in the standard of student who finds their way to university nowadays, itself a result of a dumbed-down education system.
16B
Kippermate
Couldn't agree more!
Soon realised tht UAS was not the sort of place where I wanted to spend my last years in the RAF. I thought it was, that's partly why I was delighted to be posted there. As Bob would say....
"Times they are a changing"
PS Hope you had a sore head Saturday morning, would have loved to have stayed but bad timing, another time maybe?
Spelling mistakes are because I'm using a cypriot keyboard!!
Can't find Kokenelli west of Akrotiri
Couldn't agree more!
Soon realised tht UAS was not the sort of place where I wanted to spend my last years in the RAF. I thought it was, that's partly why I was delighted to be posted there. As Bob would say....
"Times they are a changing"
PS Hope you had a sore head Saturday morning, would have loved to have stayed but bad timing, another time maybe?
Spelling mistakes are because I'm using a cypriot keyboard!!
Can't find Kokenelli west of Akrotiri
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 B
'I have many friends and relatives who work for the NHS. I know differently'
In that case it must be true!! I also know a number of friends and relatives that work in the NHS and they all say that the funding and service provided under this administration are far superior to that under the last.
And on the Post Office you are wrong - suggest you do some rersearch.
'I have many friends and relatives who work for the NHS. I know differently'
In that case it must be true!! I also know a number of friends and relatives that work in the NHS and they all say that the funding and service provided under this administration are far superior to that under the last.
And on the Post Office you are wrong - suggest you do some rersearch.
EESDL/Kippermate - 'they' tried to get me to go back to the UAS world a few years ago. But having kept in touch with the way things had gone to hell in a handcart, I resisted that as strongly as I could and didn't go in the end. The UAS system has indeed been ruined; just remember what it was like a mere 10 years ago (possibly not even that far back) when it was a far, far better place to be for QFIs and students alike.
It cannot hope to attract high calibre students when anyone working hard enough to gain a good degree would prejudice their chances of FJ streaming by the associated lack of flying continuity.
RAF Abingdon in the early '90s with folk like StopStart to teach was highly rewarding. I didn't think that I'd enjoy it as much as I did - but it turned out to be a very useful tour which was also a lot of fun. AARRGGH - I used the 'f' word! I know how the beancounters hate that.....
Summer camps at St Mawgan...leading 'convoys' during Civil Defence week...Junta tailchasing...Thursdays in Town... Such harmless fun! And it all cost the square root of bugger all in real money.
It cannot hope to attract high calibre students when anyone working hard enough to gain a good degree would prejudice their chances of FJ streaming by the associated lack of flying continuity.
RAF Abingdon in the early '90s with folk like StopStart to teach was highly rewarding. I didn't think that I'd enjoy it as much as I did - but it turned out to be a very useful tour which was also a lot of fun. AARRGGH - I used the 'f' word! I know how the beancounters hate that.....
Summer camps at St Mawgan...leading 'convoys' during Civil Defence week...Junta tailchasing...Thursdays in Town... Such harmless fun! And it all cost the square root of bugger all in real money.
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Mar 2005 at 08:03.
Completely irrelevant to this thread but had to respond as uknasa appears to be back in spouting rubbish mode, again 
Regarding the Royal Mail/Post Office, from the DTI website:
More research required?!? By who?
Regarding the NHS: if the NHS is so well funded my father (UK taxpayer all of his life) would not be going private for a forthcoming op. And TBliar would not have announced this weekend that he plans greater use of Private Healthcare (if re-elected) to try and reduce waiting lists!
Regarding the Royal Mail/Post Office, from the DTI website:
UK Government is the sole shareholder in Royal Mail Holdings plc. One ordinary share is held by the HM Treasury solicitor (as a nominee of HM Treasury) and 49,999 ordinary shares plus one special share are held by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Treasury hold a share because company law requires a plc company to have a minimum of two shareholders.
Regarding the NHS: if the NHS is so well funded my father (UK taxpayer all of his life) would not be going private for a forthcoming op. And TBliar would not have announced this weekend that he plans greater use of Private Healthcare (if re-elected) to try and reduce waiting lists!
Just to re-iterate - ain't yet met any future leaders of industry whilst instructing at UAS BUT have met a couple of annoyingly natural pilots who, despite sporadic attendance, produce great elementary flying performances whenever they can get in.......
.....they like their drink aswell so all is well with the world again.
They've both admitted, however, that they would have joined anyway and it was not the UAS system that sparked/kindled/maintained their interest in flying but it was their fascination with flying......
If you are lucky enough to get an interview...remember, despite what you want to say...you want to be an Officer first, then a pilot!!!!!!!!!!!
Bon Voyage.
.....they like their drink aswell so all is well with the world again.
They've both admitted, however, that they would have joined anyway and it was not the UAS system that sparked/kindled/maintained their interest in flying but it was their fascination with flying......
If you are lucky enough to get an interview...remember, despite what you want to say...you want to be an Officer first, then a pilot!!!!!!!!!!!
Bon Voyage.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think continued to support to AEFs is a much better idea... kick that spark and interest in flying off when they're at the right age..! Is it true AEFs are going to get more hours and provide uni studes with a bit of ad-hoc hands on in place of the current 'odd' syllabus..?
SSAP
SSAP
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Spacer and 5 Fwd
Leaked from a paper shortly to be presented to CAS:
"In order to attract and retain the most energetic of the 18-23 age group it is suggested that all UAS units are merged and the new unit located at the airfield with ICAO code LEIB. Initial reaction from QFIs has been positive"
Leaked from a paper shortly to be presented to CAS:
"In order to attract and retain the most energetic of the 18-23 age group it is suggested that all UAS units are merged and the new unit located at the airfield with ICAO code LEIB. Initial reaction from QFIs has been positive"
Gentleman Aviator
We can start a NIUAS
There used to be a perfectly good one called QUAS....
...but of course it was also the most expensive cos of all the trips to the mainland - so it was the first to go.
A really good thank you for studes who were at threat on the ground (other than like all studes from excessive drinking, sh@gging etc).
rant over...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Near a castle!
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, I remember QUAS, as I would have attended Queen's had the UAS still been going. My CCF (back in the day) had to fly everyone to the mainland and then bus everyone to Woodvale to do AEF..... can't have been cheap!