Where do they get this c***
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do they get this c***
Just read an online article about the PAC report into Battlefield helicopters at http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...p?story=621365
which states : "It takes 77 RAF officers to run 17 helicopters in Northern Ireland - while the Army has 38 officers to run 43. "
Does anyone know from where this complete tosh is brought into being???
I can only think that there was a very misguided sponser of the Adidas Athletics Club on the board. The most worrying line is... the MoD should now examine whether the "leaner Army command structure" should "set the pattern for harmonisation".
God help us all!!!
which states : "It takes 77 RAF officers to run 17 helicopters in Northern Ireland - while the Army has 38 officers to run 43. "
Does anyone know from where this complete tosh is brought into being???
I can only think that there was a very misguided sponser of the Adidas Athletics Club on the board. The most worrying line is... the MoD should now examine whether the "leaner Army command structure" should "set the pattern for harmonisation".
God help us all!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err, they have a point maybe?
This may well degenerate into a crab/pongo slanging match but the fact is the Army side of the equation has been operating more with less. I dont think it needed anyone from Teeny Weeny to massage the figures.
The harsh reality is the AAC have (not because they've wanted to!) been just as op effective as their RAF counterparts with fewer people. Ok, you can argue that the RAF have the responsibility of the Station as a whole but sqn wise, the manning is more streamlined on the green side. The RAF have an exclusive Officer frat piloting the aircraft as opposed to the AAC NCOs making up the numbers. That may well slant the argument. There is a balance to both sides.
As an aside, do the RAF chaps think that in a conventional SHF Sqn, are they over or under manned?
The same question to the pongo chaps with regard to their set up.
It may well push the argument for the RAF to revert to some front seat NCO positions. ME, SHF etc....Mmmm.
This may well degenerate into a crab/pongo slanging match but the fact is the Army side of the equation has been operating more with less. I dont think it needed anyone from Teeny Weeny to massage the figures.
The harsh reality is the AAC have (not because they've wanted to!) been just as op effective as their RAF counterparts with fewer people. Ok, you can argue that the RAF have the responsibility of the Station as a whole but sqn wise, the manning is more streamlined on the green side. The RAF have an exclusive Officer frat piloting the aircraft as opposed to the AAC NCOs making up the numbers. That may well slant the argument. There is a balance to both sides.
As an aside, do the RAF chaps think that in a conventional SHF Sqn, are they over or under manned?
The same question to the pongo chaps with regard to their set up.
It may well push the argument for the RAF to revert to some front seat NCO positions. ME, SHF etc....Mmmm.
It is for sure the Army does not pride itself upon independent thought nor seem to enjoy it as do the funny blue suits.....nor with the sheer good humour of the briny bunch. Must be they are so short handed they do not have time to stop and smell the roses like the other two services.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is for sure the Army does not pride itself upon independent thought
From my side of the trench, I see our groundies being the undermanned section. How is it in the other suits?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13_dummy,
Taken from 801 Sea Harrier Webpage
"The Squadron is manned by 13 Officers, 34 Senior Rates and 78 Junior Rates. The majority of personnel are directly involved with flying or aircraft maintenance: however, the Squadron is a self-contained unit with its own administrators, cooks and stewards."
Seems quite lean also, I wonder what an equivilent (GR7/9) Squadron has in the way of manning.
as for RN helo squadrons I cant find very much The lynx squadrons are broken down into flights for example (815)
" A Lynx flight is made up of 2 officer aircrew, one Aircraft Controller, and a team of 7 maintainers led by a Chief Petty Officer Artificer. This flight is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the aircraft both ashore and afloat. "
assuming 12 a/c fully committed to sea = 24 Officers and 84 men but that wont include cooks, stewards, and the like. Feel free to correct this.
Taken from 801 Sea Harrier Webpage
"The Squadron is manned by 13 Officers, 34 Senior Rates and 78 Junior Rates. The majority of personnel are directly involved with flying or aircraft maintenance: however, the Squadron is a self-contained unit with its own administrators, cooks and stewards."
Seems quite lean also, I wonder what an equivilent (GR7/9) Squadron has in the way of manning.
as for RN helo squadrons I cant find very much The lynx squadrons are broken down into flights for example (815)
" A Lynx flight is made up of 2 officer aircrew, one Aircraft Controller, and a team of 7 maintainers led by a Chief Petty Officer Artificer. This flight is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the aircraft both ashore and afloat. "
assuming 12 a/c fully committed to sea = 24 Officers and 84 men but that wont include cooks, stewards, and the like. Feel free to correct this.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone pretending to justify RAF manning v that in a similar sized AAC or FAA squadron is simply 'head in sand'. HM forces are not a job creation scheme. If the job can be done with fewer then it should be done so; the more personnel you have the greater 'footprint' in the ground (or ship) and the greater the support and financial burden. Keep it lean I say. I know for a fact that jointery has shone a harsh and uncomfortable light on RAF manning when compared with RN/Army in similar roles - enough said.
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.
I shouldn't but i'm going to
BITE
Everyone of our 3 services are highly respected and professional outfits. We have different jobs to do and very different systems of work. Each system of work has developed over time to best suit the needs of each particular service.
Those of you who only look at bare numbers show IMO an incredibly simplistic approach to modern military a/c operations, which if applied across board would mean that there is no scope whatsoever for future "surge operations."
The sooner all military personnel stop thinking about "business" and start getting down to how we all might do our business better. Then perhaps we can get rid of the bloody consultants and concentrate on developing military type solutions to our own peculiar military needs.
I enjoy banter as much as the next man/woman/person of unspecified gender but this "mine is smaller than yours" willy waving is beyond belief.
harrumph
Everyone of our 3 services are highly respected and professional outfits. We have different jobs to do and very different systems of work. Each system of work has developed over time to best suit the needs of each particular service.
Those of you who only look at bare numbers show IMO an incredibly simplistic approach to modern military a/c operations, which if applied across board would mean that there is no scope whatsoever for future "surge operations."
The sooner all military personnel stop thinking about "business" and start getting down to how we all might do our business better. Then perhaps we can get rid of the bloody consultants and concentrate on developing military type solutions to our own peculiar military needs.
I enjoy banter as much as the next man/woman/person of unspecified gender but this "mine is smaller than yours" willy waving is beyond belief.
harrumph
If the RAF is overmanned please explain to me, and my wife, why I have been working so hard since 9/11. And we are not even in a full blown shooting war right now.
I thought the miltary in general was supposed to be able to continue to function once it had taken losses in combat, the system needs to function when various elements are removed. Therefore by definition it needs some built in 'fat'. Otherwise the loss of one particular man/woman/section brings everything to a halt and we can only conduct peacetime ops!
I thought the miltary in general was supposed to be able to continue to function once it had taken losses in combat, the system needs to function when various elements are removed. Therefore by definition it needs some built in 'fat'. Otherwise the loss of one particular man/woman/section brings everything to a halt and we can only conduct peacetime ops!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, fuel2noise does have a point, but the subject can be tackled in different ways.
I have been involved directly in an establishment review - the justification for each post must be proved BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER and savagely fought or you will lose it. The word REASONABLE does not figure in the vocabulary of the subject. It is a major exercise in looking at the minimum numbers you need for the stated task. This is conducted at unit level.
However - and I directly challenge all of you still in uniform [and comment back to this topic] - find a copy of the MOD and Command telephone directories [try your Unit or Base Commander's PA] and you will be staggered at the sheer size of the organisation. I'll bet you could tear out big chunks at random and dis-establish the posts therein and few would notice the difference. The mind boggles at the function of some of the people and offices!
And bear in mind that it is much easier to dis-establish a uniform than a civil servant....
I have been involved directly in an establishment review - the justification for each post must be proved BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER and savagely fought or you will lose it. The word REASONABLE does not figure in the vocabulary of the subject. It is a major exercise in looking at the minimum numbers you need for the stated task. This is conducted at unit level.
However - and I directly challenge all of you still in uniform [and comment back to this topic] - find a copy of the MOD and Command telephone directories [try your Unit or Base Commander's PA] and you will be staggered at the sheer size of the organisation. I'll bet you could tear out big chunks at random and dis-establish the posts therein and few would notice the difference. The mind boggles at the function of some of the people and offices!
And bear in mind that it is much easier to dis-establish a uniform than a civil servant....
jindabyne - delighted to be added to any list of those prepared to challenge the indefensible! Fact is UK forces need to change to survive in a cash starved future. I do not question the need for (say) current aircrew numbers but just look at the huge infrastructure to get relatively few aircraft in the air. But. I am told that there are just about enough commissioned air engineers to have one per airframe in the UK armed forces (possibly 1 per engine fitted to said aircraft - I trust a ppruner will provide the accurate figure); this is mad. Much forces waste is self inflicted; e.g. endless paper pushers to 'administer' travel forms and payments, etc. The cost of ensuring service personnel do not make a dodgey travel claim (for example) is gigantic and would not be supported in business life where people are trusted/given a hire car/allowance/etc without difficulty. This is one trivial example of a culture that can not be afforded unless we want to see our shrinking forces becoming a 'self-licking icecream'.
May not be comfortable but what choice is there?
May not be comfortable but what choice is there?
Last edited by fuel2noise; 19th Mar 2005 at 09:34.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody know how many anti-submarine ships/helos the Navy has and what their purpose is? Where is the sub-surface threat these days other than perhaps in Bander Abbas? At least the RAF is controlling its Nimrod numbers and retasking them into an ISTAR role!
Off we go then! Let's have a p1ssing contest into wind and see how wet our trousers get!
Off we go then! Let's have a p1ssing contest into wind and see how wet our trousers get!
althenick,
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.
Double the aircraft complement yet NOT double the manpower.
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.
Double the aircraft complement yet NOT double the manpower.
Agree foldingwings.
No need for a pissing contest as all 3 armed forces need to examine their belly buttons on the manpower issue. Navy ASW (and other roles we could think up in other services) may well need the spot light treatment. It is not just a light blue issue. Pity some ppruners seem a tad defensive and unable to think the previously unthinkable. Got to face the fact that defence is not going to be given shed loads of new cash to preserve the status quo. Let's cull the bean-counters/blunties/excessive engineering bureaucracy and their obsessive self-serving paperwork and focus on the job of delivering effective military capability.
No need for a pissing contest as all 3 armed forces need to examine their belly buttons on the manpower issue. Navy ASW (and other roles we could think up in other services) may well need the spot light treatment. It is not just a light blue issue. Pity some ppruners seem a tad defensive and unable to think the previously unthinkable. Got to face the fact that defence is not going to be given shed loads of new cash to preserve the status quo. Let's cull the bean-counters/blunties/excessive engineering bureaucracy and their obsessive self-serving paperwork and focus on the job of delivering effective military capability.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: People's Rep of N Yorks
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are a few factors that appear to be missing in the numbers game that some of our members are playingjavascript:smilie('
')
Bah.
1. An AAC or FAA sqn, while small in numbers and self-contained, rely heavily on 2/3rd line servicing and on the entire infrastructure of the Unit where/upon which they serve, could they really run on their own for any length of time without referal to an outside agency? At least the numbers for the RAF mean everyone.
2. The RAF operate a mixed fleet mainly comprising of old/v old and highly complex aircraft. Both of these factors mean that the servicing is far more intensive in manpower and hours; which of the other 2 Services could, on their techie stength even think about operating a VC10 or tonka Sqn?
Grow up guys,javascript:smilie('
')
EvilThis is the same old argument that has the bean counters rubbing their hands in glee and forcing cuts or amalgamations 'cos "look, even the other Services think the RAF is wastful"!
Imho, if there is any cutting to be done while maintaining a useful capacity it is at Cmd and MOD level not the front linejavascript:smilie('')
Evil
')Bah.
1. An AAC or FAA sqn, while small in numbers and self-contained, rely heavily on 2/3rd line servicing and on the entire infrastructure of the Unit where/upon which they serve, could they really run on their own for any length of time without referal to an outside agency? At least the numbers for the RAF mean everyone.
2. The RAF operate a mixed fleet mainly comprising of old/v old and highly complex aircraft. Both of these factors mean that the servicing is far more intensive in manpower and hours; which of the other 2 Services could, on their techie stength even think about operating a VC10 or tonka Sqn?
Grow up guys,javascript:smilie('
')EvilThis is the same old argument that has the bean counters rubbing their hands in glee and forcing cuts or amalgamations 'cos "look, even the other Services think the RAF is wastful"!
Imho, if there is any cutting to be done while maintaining a useful capacity it is at Cmd and MOD level not the front linejavascript:smilie('
')Evil
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference between 'us' the military and civil enterprise is that the civvies have to make a profit. We merely have to die gloriously in equipment supplied by the lowest bidder, 'we' are manned for war, therefore are viewed as expensive in pecetime .... when we eventually reach peacetime we could revisit this, however with the multitude of deployments current and forthcoming when will that be?
L1, unhappy, near a grass airfield, shortly to be somewhere else without the 'right' kit 'cos 'we' don't need it said a face somewhere really dangerous like behind a desk in a suit.
L1, unhappy, near a grass airfield, shortly to be somewhere else without the 'right' kit 'cos 'we' don't need it said a face somewhere really dangerous like behind a desk in a suit.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
The UK flying military haven't been taking large numbers of casualties for some years. If it ever does (God forbid let's hope it never does but who knows what scheme today's politicians have in their sights next?), it as a whole will need all the aviation manpower it can get. So why whinge from within? Do you want even more overstretch? 