Quality Of Military Officers Today

[cobaltfrog]

Are we the Forces producing Officers who are upto the tempo of modern day operations or are they lacking moral fibre, courage and a will to stay in when it all gets too much.

Discuss.

[BEagle]

Perhaps it's just that the formerly willing lions are getting rightly pi$$ed off being led by donkeys.....

[Impiger]

Harsh BEagle harsh!

As someone who has had the honour to lead some of today's young officers I have to conclude that they are every bit as good as as my generation at the same stage of training/life. Yes we had different standards, approaches to life and expectations of the future. On the whole I have found the so called younger generation of aviators to be far more professional than my own age group. They know their aircraft better, the rules - sadly - inside out and have a far better awareness of civil aviation regulations and the way they affect military flying.

OK they don't have the patriotic sense of defending the nation against Ivan - not really their fault as Ivan gave up in 1989! And no they don't have quite the same sense of fun and mayhem that perhaps we did (more a reflection on society at large than our young officers) But on the whole I have nothing but respect for the aviation yoof of today.

Oh and as an ex Lion who is probably now more of a Donkey I can only say - twas ever thus!

[tablet_eraser]

I think it's a fact that some people manage to slip through the net at Cranwell; people who, by any definition, are extremely poor officers, lacking in manners, commonsense and decency.

However, I'm sure the same was the case 10, 20, 30 years ago, by the definitions applied then. On the whole we're dedicated, professional, determined, and intelligent. Society changes, as does the pool of people who are available and suitable to hold the Queen's Commission.

[Pontius Navigator]

I agree that the modern officer is the equal of his predecessors. One could expand the question to ask if the previous generation brought up on cold war strategy and fortress Britain are suitable for the new expeditionary role?

Discuss.

[Two's in]

IMHO, it was easier to understand where the moral high ground lay a few years ago. Leadership of servicemen to achieve the political objectives of the Government of the day was seldom as subject to the scrutiny that it is today.

These days, one slip in front of CNN, one publicly exposed set of moronic photos from "the lads", one quote in front of an "embedded " reporter and you are on the fast track to a Board of Inquiry at best, and usually of Courts Martial. Don't get me wrong - wilful acts should meet the full weight of the justice system, but these days military conduct it is far more visible to those that would exploit it, and hence it needs careful leadership at all levels.

It made it hard enough for those that were fully convinced of the righteousness and moral fortitude of the elected Government in years gone by, but these days (whatever the Brass might convince themselves of over a sherbert with Tony and the Doc) that conviction is easily diluted at the grass roots level.

You don't have to be a rabid, foaming-mouthed anti- republican to question some of the logic or wisdom in "achieving the political objectives of the Government of the day" and the men and women of the Armed Services see the same news, read the same newspapers and hear the same reports that the rest of us do.

Despite the obvious seditious nature of this environment, today's Officers are providing leadership and a moral compass to allow our Services to effectively deliver the military component of this hugely complex situation. They do it day in and day out, as part of the job. Sure some $crew up, sure some leave early, sure some have the leadership qualities of a small walnut, but by and large, they deliver.

They are more than up to the job just as much today as they were in previous conflicts.

A far more relevant question would begin "...are we as a democracy voting for politicians who..."

[KENNYR]

Its a sign of the times. In ye olden days of yore when men were men and so were the women it took a deft touch on the controls and the mark 1 eyeball to do most of the tasks required. Nowadays the modern FJ or Heli Pilot needs to be a systems engineer with a degree in IT.

The quality of officers is a direct reflection on the quality of training and the quality of upbringing and education. God forbid that the new generation of young thugs ever have to be recruited as officers!

[BEagle]

Impiger, old bean, whilst you might consider yourself to be as well hung as a donkey, actually I was referring to the likes of Bliar and Hoon etc!

[SALAD DODGER]

Try finding a young helo or multi pilot who has not flown Operationally yet. A large proportion of the Fast Jet fleet have also cut their teeth, and man for man are as good as any airforce in the world. The last 5 years have been busy ones, and the young Officers have shown that they are more than up to the task.

There are several guys who have payed the ultimate price, and their dedication, courage and professionalism is without question.

Cobaltfrog, I am sure your question is loaded and I guess you have had a bad experience, but if you spent one day on my Squadron and saw what is expected and achieved by the junior Officers, I think you would be impressed and proud.

[cobaltfrog]

Salad Dodger

Thanks for that. Indeed I am more than sure that there are those who have cut their teeth on the frontline. The question posed was simply to poll those on the frontline as to whether the training environment has got it right as to what it produces.

Sending YO's straight from flying training to an operational environment is not easy when you need to get them trained up in a Squadron role, anything we can do to prepare them for that gets my vote.

I am sure you will understand where I am coming from.

regards
CF

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Some of my students went on to do as many Ops (real ones too, not yer NI "someone fired an RPG at a Wessex a couple of years ago" war stories) in their first 5 years as I managed in 26. From the accounts I hear from contemporaries who've stayed in, they're coping really rather well, especially as they don't have the opportunities for enjoyment that we were afforded. As for "OQ's" - there's a couple of fellas mentioned over on the 72 thread (SW and AJS) who show that the system has always had a degree of flexibility in assessing such quals...

[iccarus]

I don't know how far back you are talking about when you talk about the quality of military officers in the past.
I can however speak on behalf of some of the military officers of today!
On the whole, the chaps and chappesses with whom i work are a fine bunch who achieve excellent results with what can only be described as second rate equipment, second rate support but for the most part, first rate training.
Note i mentioned "for the most part". My experiences of officer training left me more than dissapointed. Leadership exercises which in many cases were easier to complete as a teenager in scouts/ATC were exasperating. So too were the some of the muppets who just couldn't crack them! Even more exasperating though was the fact that the"system" could do next to bugger all to get rid of these muppets. How many other readers share the experience of seeing the MASH flight tards spending upwards of a year re training(some on full officers' pay) just to complete what was for most reasonable people an attendance course.
I chat to colleagues in the bar now, many of whom have been instructors at said establishment. Indeed, they themselves felt annoyed by a system which felt unable to burn the dead wood.
These same people also admit that there are differing end course standards depending on what branch you were likely to join. Result--aircrew needed to achieve a higher standard than their compadres who were destined to spend a life stacking shelves!
I can only hope that the new course will go some way to correcting the failures of the past and mould men and women who can truly lead in any scenario. Wouldn't it be great if some very basic fire and mvre exercises were included rather than what i imagine will be some sort of office/paperwork exercise.
An officer training course will never completely create the perfect leader, that will come throught the years of professional training. However, surely even the most basic system would require a common skill base with the ability to get rid of those who will never make the required standard.
Rant over
icc

[airborne_artist]

CF

Do we take it that you are less than satisfied with the OLQs of the output of your current training establishment?

I learned more about leadership in my first 8 months with your/my last unit than I did at BRNC 27 years ago.

[Onan the Clumsy]

You all might be missing the point about Modern Officers. Perhaps what you should be asking is could they stand up and honestly say...


I am the very model of a modern Air Force Officer,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Air Force Officer.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;

I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Air Force Officer.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",

When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery--
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy,
You'll say a better Air Force Officer has never sat a gee.

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Air Force Officer.

[FB11]

A thread full of violent agreement on all sides and a copius dose of exclamation marks. The text shouting is making my ears hurt.

It is question worth looking at again though.

Iccarus

As you were brave enough to speak from the heart, let's sift through your response:

the chaps and chappesses with whom i work are a fine bunch who achieve excellent results with what can only be described as second rate equipment, second rate support but for the most part, first rate training.

Slightly sweeping statement about equipment (lots of good gear in the armed forces I'm in, or is the grass greener?) and possibly a bit of a Kop out? Do you think a good leader would alienate him/herself from his supporting personnel by calling them second rate? Do you think a good leader would blame his/her equipment at all?

My experiences of officer training left me more than dissapointed. Leadership exercises which in many cases were easier to complete as a teenager in scouts/ATC were exasperating. So too were the some of the muppets who just couldn't crack them!

Ouch! (Note use of exclam, this time a groan rather than a shout.) Do you think a good leader would call his peers or subordinates muppets? Do you think it's possible that as a leader, the phrase would be seen as a little arrogant? Do you think that being arrogant endears you to people or distances you from them? Would you follow an arrogant man/woman because you believed in them or because you wanted to watch them fail?

I chat to colleagues in the bar now, many of whom have been instructors at said establishment. Indeed, they themselves felt annoyed by a system which felt unable to burn the dead wood.

Dead wood. Maybe they're not dead, just slow in growing. Not everyone can grow as fast a you seem to be.

Result--aircrew needed to achieve a higher standard than their compadres who were destined to spend a life stacking shelves!

Of course there are different standards, we do different jobs. Where aircrew, for example, may need to have a certain positive leadership style, the 'blanket stacker' may have to do considerably better at spelling under pressure than you have done in your original post. Have a look again at the bit about alienating your support elements.

An officer training course will never completely create the perfect leader, that will come throught the years of professional training.

So can the 'blanket stacker' you were ready to burn for not being as lightning fast as you at bridging the 10' gap with two 6' planks get a chance to develop as well, or shall we just kill them off and assume that nobody develops beyond the first week at Cranwell/Dartmouth/Sandhurst?

However, surely even the most basic system would require a common skill base with the ability to get rid of those who will never make the required standard.

Do you think you may be reinforcing the belief of the 99.8% of the RAF who don't fly have in pilot steroetypes?

What kind of leader do you need to keep an admin section motivated to prepare pay claims in the middle of a desert in 50 degrees centigrade? What kind of leader do you need to motivate an armourer who has only slept for 1 hour per night for the last 5 nights because of the heat and air raid sirens going off?

Based on what you've written, I think I'd choose the blanket stacker over you. You concentrate on flying an aeroplane, probably a single seat one, and hope that you haven't irritated the admin guy so much you don't get paid and the armourer doesn't leave the pylon pin in.

Take as copy of you original reply and read it again in 10 years and see what you think of it in terms of potential leadership qualities.

[Biggus]

FB11

While not defending all the comments made by iccarus, or the style in which they were made, I have to say that I have heard many tales recently of some (and I emphasize the word 'some') 'dead wood' getting through RAF IOT very easily. Indeed such tales have even been told to me by ex IOT instructors.

I am sure it was very frustrating for the likes of iccarus to take part in a course with some less than able students, only to see them pass easily rather than fall by the wayside. As an example, and to show that iccarus is not alone in his views, on a recent thread '6fttanker' (I believe) mentioned candidates (presumeably female) bursting into tears on their final leads but still going on to pass the course.

I for one fail to see how any course with a pass rate of between 96% and 99.8%, depending on who you believe, can be credible. Are we truely to believe that are selection procedures are so good that we get it right 99% of the time. Recruiters for industry will tell you that even after using a battery of apptitude and psychometric tests, interviews, etc achieving 60% success is doing really well!!

You may not agree with the style in which iccarus made his points, but that does not necessarily mean that some of them are not valid!

[FB11]

Biggus,

If Iccarus is brave enough to stick his nose in, he's brave enough to take the response. Nothing in my reply challenged the validity of the few facts in his response, my response challenged him in light of the origin of this thread.

Recruiters for industry will tell you that even after using a battery of apptitude and psychometric tests, interviews, etc achieving 60% success is doing really well!!

There are some interesting points in your stats. Do you think that more than 40% of your fellow officers are below par? That's what you suggest with your statistic. Four out of every ten officers you work with are below par. Is that true?

I would say that the 1.5 - 4% who fail the course (you quoted 96-98.5% making the grade) is nearer the mark, about 1 in 25 officers I know are the 'bursting into tears' types.

Why do you think that is? What happens when we release them from a training establishment where the instructors are not HR specialists, where the syllabus is dragging itself out of the Cold War, where the sudden exposure to the military is a shock to someone never having experienced it before etc etc?

Well, what happens is that we give them more experience. Relevant experience. Pertinent to the job they are destined for in their immediate career future. I don't need a junior supply officer to be able to execute a major warfighting campaign, I need him/her to learn the trade, get some early people management skills and personally professionally develop.

That is exactly the same for a junior pilot. Or a junior Rockape. Or a junior WEO. I might want the Rock to be more of the 'hands on' people manager, but I'm not expecting it to be perfect.

The point is that the military takes the potential and develops over many years. It takes longer for some than others, far longer than some arbitrary statement that a few months at Cranwell will 100% guarantee the leadeship qualities of a junior officer.

Flying training, one of the most scripted and well organised training schemes, still has a high proportion of subjective assessment resulting in a high failure rate in training. Surely if the 'chop 'em at Cranwell concept' worked, once a pilot comes out of JEFTS or from the UAS, the failure rate should be nil. But it is accepted that it can take up to 4 years to weed out weak characters.

The reason it doesn't is that humans aren't like traditional light switches. We are not on/off people. More like a dimmer switch. No more metaphors, I promise.

For some, it doesn't work. They hit a plateau and go no further. the guy I went through FT with came from a UAS and did exceptionally well on EFT and was sent fast jet. Did OK on BFT, struggled on AFT and got chopped on the old Tac Weapons.

Assessing someone early on, even at the end of Cranwell, only gives an indication of a capability.

Once more, do you think that more than 4 in 10 of your fellow officers are sub standard, or do you think that the military recognised their potential and developed it to fit the job they execute? Maybe industry has is wrong.

[Biggus]

FB11

Ah, where do I start? I must attempt to be as simplistic as possible, as you seem to delight in reading things into my comments that I did not put there.

First of all, what is IOT about. Well I am sure it has many aims. One of the main things it tries to achieve, or should in my opinion, is an assessment of character (indeed on day one of my IOT my Sqn Cdr told me this was the case, that we would not be able to wear a 'mask' to hide our true selves for the duration of the course, and we would be loaded up physically and mentally in order for our 'true' selves to be more easily seen by the staff) . It is surely long enough to be able to do this adequately. I do not believe, nor did I state, that it should aim to teach a junior supply officer to execute a major warfighting campaign. It should however, determine whether a candidate has the necessary character to go on and be a successful supply officer, or whatever trade they are aiming for. A persons character can be moulded and improved on, but there needs to be sufficient to work with from the very beginning.

A pass rate of 90%+ on IOT implies to me that we are either such good judges of character that we get it right 90%+ of the time at pre IOT selection, or that the system is so good that it can turn anyone into a capable RAF officer. I do not happen to believe that either of these is the case. I am not stating, nor have I ever done so, that RAF IOT is not still turning out some exceptional young men and women. IT IS! I do believe that IOT is no longer weeding out some of the people that it should be, and used to. I do not think I am alone in believing this either!

As to the fact that 4 out of 10 of my fellow officers are below par. I never said that. You made that leap from some of my comments. First of all the pass rate at IOT has not always been 90%+. This will no doubt open me up to accusations of having an "eh lad, it was far tougher in my day (spoken in a northern accent)" type mentality, which I don't actually believe is the case. However, you may disagree. Nevertheless, many of the officers I work with passed a more rigourous regime on IOT. As to some of the more recent graduates, some of the ones that are below par fall by the wayside in trade training, especially flying training. But even here there seem to be growing pressures to pass the candidate on to the next stage, to give him the chance to come good, even when the instructors themselves think otherwise (people have always passed courses going forward labelled as 'training risks', but it seems to be taken to extremes these days). However, there is no doubt in my mind that some of the young officers I work with are below par, in either character, professional ability, or both. What is worse is that it is often blindingly obvious, not only to myself, but the junior ranks working with them. And no, unlike dimmer switches, in the vast majority of cases the passage of time shows that they do not brighten up slowly, rather they tend to be moved on to less demanding positions. As to what percentage are below par, percentage of what, officers in total, officers under 25 (a figure you quote, your figures not mine, of 1 in 25 officers may equate to 1 in say 6 when looking at only officers under 25)? I do not know how long the pass rate at IOT has been so high, the figure of 25 year olds is only picked on the assumption that it has been going on at least 5 years, maybe it should actually be officers under 30 rather than 25.

I do know that with resources decreasing, and no reduction in commitments, working with people you are having to effectively 'carry' is an increased burdon we could do without. The RAF is also getting too small for us to have the luxury of finding places to hide people who aren't up to the job! We are an Operational Expenditionary force, at least the RAF I am in is, not some cuddly left wing run local council. I need people around me I can depend on, as I hope they feel they can depend on me!

Still, these are simply my opinions (although I believe there is evidence that other people share some, if not all, of my views), and you are equally entitled to yours. Yes, people do develop throughout their carreers, as their knowledge, experience, and dare I say wisedom, develop. But there has to be sufficient in them to start with!!

[FB11]

Biggus,

Thanks ever so for keeping your reply simplistic, it's much clearer now. As for delight? I took none in reading or replying, my reply was based on having a professional interest in an emotive issue, not at having a cheap pop at a fellow contributor.

If you don't want a link made to information such as '60% success is doing well' then don't include it. Your inference was that industry was right.

Some of the comments were referring to the original (self stated) rant by Iccarus. For example:

I do not believe, nor did I state, that it should aim to teach a junior supply officer to execute a major warfighting campaign.

I didn't say that you did. I was throwing that out in reference to the original Iccarus post of:

Result--aircrew needed to achieve a higher standard than their compadres who were destined to spend a life stacking shelves!

Anyway, moving on from misinterpretation of text.

in the vast majority of cases the passage of time shows that they do not brighten up slowly, rather they tend to be moved on to less demanding positions.

Why is that a problem, isn't that the point? We can't all do the thrusting jobs, that's why we have a structure that's shaped like a pyramid and not like a box. If people hit a glass ceiling, they either leave (by choice or otherwise) or stay at that level.

Isn't that exactly what PA spine aviators are? People who want to stay flying and not take on the challenge of command, watching others trying to become part of the solution and not the problem? Highly professional aircrew who choose to be myopic (with no negative connotation attached) and just do the fun stuff. The system has no problem with that because we need them. We recognise that someone can go no further in career terms but be useful to the system as capable operators at the lower levels of management and leadership.

Yes, we carry some people. Yes, there are increasingly fewer spaces to pop this minority in to and yes, we need as managers to have the balls to get rid of them even though the admin world doesn't help us. But carrying people has always been an issue.

As for the idea that modern day training is less rigorous than in the past, I think you are absolutely right. Just like the training we undertook didn't involve the arduous living and working conditions of the three services at the turn of the 20th century. Times change, expectations change, the young officer joing today is a different beast to us, as we were to the guys from the 60's and so on. There is nothing more insulting to an educated but fresh recruit than being told they have to do something 'because it's the way we did it.'

To quote Two's in earlier in the thread:

Despite the obvious seditious nature of this environment, today's Officers are providing leadership and a moral compass to allow our Services to effectively deliver the military component of this hugely complex situation. They do it day in and day out, as part of the job. Sure some $crew up, sure some leave early, sure some have the leadership qualities of a small walnut, but by and large, they deliver.

I agree with him.

[foldingwings]

Pi$$ing Contest Warning!