Where do they get this c***
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..." 'we' are manned for war, therefore are viewed as expensive in pecetime ...."
Interesting comment by L1A2. "war" in our enlightened times actually means "concurrent operations", which can mean anything that requires the (armed) forces. Op Fresco is reason I put the word "armed" in brackets (parentheses for the officers among us).
Therefore, in order to to head off the argument regarding the unnecessary expense of paying for the armed forces to do nought, the government and our defence chiefs are continuously looking for work for us to do.
Interesting comment by L1A2. "war" in our enlightened times actually means "concurrent operations", which can mean anything that requires the (armed) forces. Op Fresco is reason I put the word "armed" in brackets (parentheses for the officers among us).
Therefore, in order to to head off the argument regarding the unnecessary expense of paying for the armed forces to do nought, the government and our defence chiefs are continuously looking for work for us to do.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing, I can remember when the GR7 bouys (!) first went to sea. The FA2 men were gobsmacked, not only to see how many maintainers were 'required' by the RAF, but also by the fact that the crab maintainers were on NVG when there was insufficient money for the RN pilots to be issued with NVG.
Now explain that!
Now explain that!
Bagman/F2N
Perhaps forward thinking procurement by the light blue? And something to do with the fact that field ops (where light tends to be in short supply) required NVGs? Something to do with the fact the FAA always sucked the hind t1t compared to the RNs priority of boats?
And whilst we are on the RN - people in glass houses.....
Saw a presentation on the RN (by the RN) recently which showed that the number of ships in the RN had reduced by over 50% since the 1980s but the number of personnel had only reduced to 65%!! The same cannot be said of the RAF. Overmanned - who??????
And the RAF target is 35000 by the start of the next decade (according to figures being discussed in the "centre"). So it will be lean by then, and leaner than the RN!! And still do a better job!!
Perhaps forward thinking procurement by the light blue? And something to do with the fact that field ops (where light tends to be in short supply) required NVGs? Something to do with the fact the FAA always sucked the hind t1t compared to the RNs priority of boats?
And whilst we are on the RN - people in glass houses.....
Saw a presentation on the RN (by the RN) recently which showed that the number of ships in the RN had reduced by over 50% since the 1980s but the number of personnel had only reduced to 65%!! The same cannot be said of the RAF. Overmanned - who??????
And the RAF target is 35000 by the start of the next decade (according to figures being discussed in the "centre"). So it will be lean by then, and leaner than the RN!! And still do a better job!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I noticed the headline that started this thread I was more surprised by the facts that the report claimed that the AAC managed to run 43 aircraft in province. I know I've never counted this many and I think the most they've managed to task in a day is about 8. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I in no way meant this to be an inter-service pi55ing competition (hang-on this IS pprune....) but I was just amazed at the totally arbitary (and I belive factually incorrect) stats behind these figures. So what how many 'officers' it takes. These officers also run most of the admin of Aldergrove that benefits the AAC (and the RN det when it was there). I was just really rather shocked that this report had particularly singled out some random 'officer to aircraft' ratio that means nothing.
Fuel2Noise mentioned the statistic "43,000 repeat 43,000 people to operate how many aircraft?? " How ever many it is, this figure includes all support, personnel, ATC, Regiment, Tac Comms, Tac Supply, training staff, catering, airfield maintenance, Infrastructure org, logistics engineering. etc etc. Thse benefit all three aviation services and are also the backbone to any armed service. One could say of the Army - "110,000 to operate 10% of the RAF's ac - that really is ridiculous" but the figures are just as misleading.
The only way that cuts of personnel can be implimented is by the civilianisation of many tasks - and the losers will be - all those in the military because the shi77y jobs will be spread over even fewer military personnel.
Fuel2Noise mentioned the statistic "43,000 repeat 43,000 people to operate how many aircraft?? " How ever many it is, this figure includes all support, personnel, ATC, Regiment, Tac Comms, Tac Supply, training staff, catering, airfield maintenance, Infrastructure org, logistics engineering. etc etc. Thse benefit all three aviation services and are also the backbone to any armed service. One could say of the Army - "110,000 to operate 10% of the RAF's ac - that really is ridiculous" but the figures are just as misleading.
The only way that cuts of personnel can be implimented is by the civilianisation of many tasks - and the losers will be - all those in the military because the shi77y jobs will be spread over even fewer military personnel.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43,000 repeat 43,000 people to operate how many aircraft??
Let us examine the teeth to tail ratio shall we? Comparisons with the commercial sector would be illuminating and frankly, long overdue.
Let us examine the teeth to tail ratio shall we? Comparisons with the commercial sector would be illuminating and frankly, long overdue.
Meanwhile, the RAF (figures from the current RAF website) has 464 aircraft (plus another 291 in training or misc roles excluding EFTS and BBMF) with 52804 personnel. So exclude the training burden and we have 114:1 (70:1 including training ac) doing all of the above and more (including animal slaughter and firefighting when necessary!). That said, BA would expect approx 285 of those ac to be available and flying on any one day whereas, given the state of our knackered old ac and poor supply situation, we would be hard pushed to get 285 of our ac airborne in a day.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our seamen fellows are indeed shouting from the crows nest about the 'senior' service a lot these days.
Out of the 3 services it should be the navy that gets 'Leaner', was it not mentioned in the AFPRB that the airforce on average works more hours per man per week than the navy, and also loses more annual leave.
In the current situations Afghan/Iraq the RAF/Army are indeed working hard and the public/MoD/(politicians
) are aware. However the Navy are the junior players at the party, and as such when the money comes around 
Apart from the Sub's with TLAM's, who needs so much of a navy? Where as the Army/RAF have adapted to the recent world changes the navy is still struggling for a role post cold war.
Out of the 3 services it should be the navy that gets 'Leaner', was it not mentioned in the AFPRB that the airforce on average works more hours per man per week than the navy, and also loses more annual leave.
In the current situations Afghan/Iraq the RAF/Army are indeed working hard and the public/MoD/(politicians
) are aware. However the Navy are the junior players at the party, and as such when the money comes around Apart from the Sub's with TLAM's, who needs so much of a navy? Where as the Army/RAF have adapted to the recent world changes the navy is still struggling for a role post cold war.
Fire and forget.
OK I've bit. You are spouting utter Cr@p. If you are indeed serving at the moment, then I suggest you talk to some of your more astute brethren, including those who have been to Sea.
Quote: from the AFPRB
• As with previous surveys, the results showed those with the highest average duty
hours were RN personnel at sea and Army personnel in Northern Ireland.
You assertation that because the RAF gets less leave taken, this means you are working harder. B**l*cks. One of the reasons some, not all, get less leave is that some of your managers are not controlling manpower correctly. As I have said in previous posts, the light blue need to press PMA for Personnel Functional Standards. These place emphasis on budget holders to comply with conditions of service, including leave.
You assertation that the RN has no value is equally without foundation and totally out of place in the joint environment in which we work. I do not want to get into a deabte about who does what or more but it is worth highlighting a few facts to put right your ignorance.
The RN has been active in many areas. As we are concentrating on the middle east lets start: The Royal Marines have deployed both in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the first assault of GW2, the Royal Marines were part of the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula. The first non-SF UK serviceman to touch foot on Iraqi soil was Lt Jason Blackwell RN..mentioned in despatches here:
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/op_honours_31oct.htm
The assault was supported by Mk7 ASACs from 849 Sqn operating from HMS Ark Royal. There were also RAF personnel within 849Sqn. The ship and squadrons spent over 100 days continuously at sea.
You will also remember that two crews lost their lives coming back and going to, an operational sortie suporting forces on the Al Faw. Your comments do their memory a dis-service.
On a wider note, I appreciate that this is PPrune but, the days of bickering amongst the services about who does what are long gone. All three services are under great financial pressure from HM treasury. There have been many in the Light Blue who have tasted life at sea and put in a great deal of effort to ensure that our integrated approach works to mutual benefit.
We will not improve our lot in any service with pettty gibes.
OK I've bit. You are spouting utter Cr@p. If you are indeed serving at the moment, then I suggest you talk to some of your more astute brethren, including those who have been to Sea.
Quote: from the AFPRB
• As with previous surveys, the results showed those with the highest average duty
hours were RN personnel at sea and Army personnel in Northern Ireland.
You assertation that because the RAF gets less leave taken, this means you are working harder. B**l*cks. One of the reasons some, not all, get less leave is that some of your managers are not controlling manpower correctly. As I have said in previous posts, the light blue need to press PMA for Personnel Functional Standards. These place emphasis on budget holders to comply with conditions of service, including leave.
You assertation that the RN has no value is equally without foundation and totally out of place in the joint environment in which we work. I do not want to get into a deabte about who does what or more but it is worth highlighting a few facts to put right your ignorance.
The RN has been active in many areas. As we are concentrating on the middle east lets start: The Royal Marines have deployed both in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the first assault of GW2, the Royal Marines were part of the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula. The first non-SF UK serviceman to touch foot on Iraqi soil was Lt Jason Blackwell RN..mentioned in despatches here:
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/op_honours_31oct.htm
The assault was supported by Mk7 ASACs from 849 Sqn operating from HMS Ark Royal. There were also RAF personnel within 849Sqn. The ship and squadrons spent over 100 days continuously at sea.
You will also remember that two crews lost their lives coming back and going to, an operational sortie suporting forces on the Al Faw. Your comments do their memory a dis-service.
On a wider note, I appreciate that this is PPrune but, the days of bickering amongst the services about who does what are long gone. All three services are under great financial pressure from HM treasury. There have been many in the Light Blue who have tasted life at sea and put in a great deal of effort to ensure that our integrated approach works to mutual benefit.
We will not improve our lot in any service with pettty gibes.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Creche
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the Sub's with TLAM's, who needs so much of a navy? Where as the Army/RAF have adapted to the recent world changes the navy is still struggling for a role post cold war.
Put your
away and get on with your job you loser.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can only hope the crabs contribution to future expeditionary warfare is as great as that they offered the Nation in the Falklands conflict.
Maple 01,
I take you tongue in cheek comment in the spirit it was meant. I also take it from your handle that you are an F3 mate.
Point of order. The loss of the carriers was as a result of the RAF assertation, that TASMO would provide air cover anywhere in the world. As you probably know there was some jiggery pokery with Australia that went on at the time.
You are right to allude that 1982 is old history.. Also the RAF do not have the assets to provide Air cover world wide using HNS.
Some of your colleagues in other platforms (GR7A, Chinnook, Apache) have done sterling work over the last few years in demonstrating the strike ability of maritime (notice I did not say naval!) air power.
Looking to the future the CVF will benefit all three services. We must all pull together and get away from this ridiculous pi$$ing contest. Yes we are pi44ed off about the loss of FA2, and the late arrival of T45 in insufficient numbers and the late arrival of Typhoon, that is not carrier capable, and all the other hot topics of the moment.
Fact is, after some moving of the goalposts by No11, we are all skint. Defence dosen't win votes..the Chavs don't care about the military and unless we all speak with one unified voice, our respective services are knack$$ed
Am I bothered, ask me if I'm bothered,
Computer says no.
I take you tongue in cheek comment in the spirit it was meant. I also take it from your handle that you are an F3 mate.
Point of order. The loss of the carriers was as a result of the RAF assertation, that TASMO would provide air cover anywhere in the world. As you probably know there was some jiggery pokery with Australia that went on at the time.
You are right to allude that 1982 is old history.. Also the RAF do not have the assets to provide Air cover world wide using HNS.
Some of your colleagues in other platforms (GR7A, Chinnook, Apache) have done sterling work over the last few years in demonstrating the strike ability of maritime (notice I did not say naval!) air power.
Looking to the future the CVF will benefit all three services. We must all pull together and get away from this ridiculous pi$$ing contest. Yes we are pi44ed off about the loss of FA2, and the late arrival of T45 in insufficient numbers and the late arrival of Typhoon, that is not carrier capable, and all the other hot topics of the moment.
Fact is, after some moving of the goalposts by No11, we are all skint. Defence dosen't win votes..the Chavs don't care about the military and unless we all speak with one unified voice, our respective services are knack$$ed
Am I bothered, ask me if I'm bothered,
Computer says no.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we are pi44ed off about the loss of FA2
Ground "Vixen2 request you reiterate your warning out, there appears to be some confusion"
Vixen2 "negative, warning out is correct"
Ground " roger, but can you explain which profile you are planning to fly. Are you the aircraft intending to head North"
Vixen2 (agitated) " I am not about to explain my sortie profile on here"
Ground " roger well at least then can you give me the pilots name and we'll work it out"
Vixen 2 "Negative"
Ground " roger, backtrack and taxi to dispersal.... taxi clearance cancelled"
Laugh, I nearly cheered.
Widger,
The loss of the carriers was a cost saving measure resulting from the withdrawal from East of Suez, itself done to try and solve a massive financial problem, as was the axing of the TSR-2, P1154 and HS681, then the F-111K.
The alleged “moving” of Australia was an RAF attempt to protect the F-111K force when a compromise attempt to retain a UK presence in Australia and on island bases was half heartedly attempted around the time of the devaluation of the pound, which was the final nail in the financial coffin.
Agree on CVF, if it happens it will be a genuine joint asset providing deep strike capability and a future AD capability if that ever proves to be needed in some far off future scenario.
The loss of the carriers was a cost saving measure resulting from the withdrawal from East of Suez, itself done to try and solve a massive financial problem, as was the axing of the TSR-2, P1154 and HS681, then the F-111K.
The alleged “moving” of Australia was an RAF attempt to protect the F-111K force when a compromise attempt to retain a UK presence in Australia and on island bases was half heartedly attempted around the time of the devaluation of the pound, which was the final nail in the financial coffin.
Agree on CVF, if it happens it will be a genuine joint asset providing deep strike capability and a future AD capability if that ever proves to be needed in some far off future scenario.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got this back from the Mod…
The RN and RAF Manning strengths as at 14 Mar 05 For JFH
are:
(Actual Figures)
Squadron/Juniors/Seniors/Officers
1 Sqn/127/37/17 (1)
3 Sqn/123 (17)/37 (14)/22 (4)
4 Sqn/129 (18)/37 (11)/18 (4)
801 Sqn/75/36/12
899 Sqn/41/43/11
the numbers in brackets are the RN personell currently on these Squadrons.
As I previously said, The RN squdrons also include their Ancillary staff. also I think you'll find 801's aircraft strenth is slightly higher than 6 or 7 (someone told me 9 but the MoD didn't give me that info) even so I think the FAA numbers compare favourably to the RAF ones (For 801 anyway- I think 899 disbands in a few days time)
The RN and RAF Manning strengths as at 14 Mar 05 For JFH
are:
(Actual Figures)
Squadron/Juniors/Seniors/Officers
1 Sqn/127/37/17 (1)
3 Sqn/123 (17)/37 (14)/22 (4)
4 Sqn/129 (18)/37 (11)/18 (4)
801 Sqn/75/36/12
899 Sqn/41/43/11
the numbers in brackets are the RN personell currently on these Squadrons.
You cannot compare a SHAR squadron to an equivalent RAF outfit, in the RAF 801NAS would be called a flight, 6 or 7 jets versus what, 13 or 14, used to be 16.
althenick,
An RAF GR7 outfit is still much larger than a SHAR outfit in terms of the number of jets.
When the transition to an all Harrier JFH is complete isn't the idea to have 2 light blue "heavy" squadrons principally manned by the RAF with a smaller dark blue contingent with RAF squadron numbers and badges, and 2 dark blue "heavy" squadrons principally manned by the RN with a smaller light blue contingent with RN squadron numbers and badges?
JOINT Force Harrier?
An RAF GR7 outfit is still much larger than a SHAR outfit in terms of the number of jets.
When the transition to an all Harrier JFH is complete isn't the idea to have 2 light blue "heavy" squadrons principally manned by the RAF with a smaller dark blue contingent with RAF squadron numbers and badges, and 2 dark blue "heavy" squadrons principally manned by the RN with a smaller light blue contingent with RN squadron numbers and badges?
JOINT Force Harrier?