maxburner

The original was a good post, well written and well researched. It makes a valid point and it deserves an answer. Who is the Air Sec these days? One of you still-serving chaps (are there any?) should forward this thread to him.

Roland Pulfrew

Not an inaccuracy per se, but a half truth perhaps:
That does not mean that you do not need to be an experienced operator. Many "ground tours" are annotated non-flying duties but ARE flying related. You simply cannot put an ATC SNCO or an Eng WO, no matter how competant in their own secialisation, into a post that requries intimate operational, role or type experience.
I have no argument with some of the sentiments expressed in the original letter, but a lot of it is simply niave and perhaps points to a lack of awareness on the part of the original letter writer. Alternatively they would recognise his merits, allow him experience in a particular area and then PROMOTE HIM. If civilian companies want to keep their best then, just like the military, they need to pay them a better salary. In the civilian world this can be done through bonuses (something that does not exist in the military, so we reward by promotion) or they promote them to a senior manager/director/VP post. For many staying in one post for too long means they just move to different company, with better pay or promotion prospects, or with better benefits packages.
The letter writer also does not recognise the need for turnover of personnel. We are increasingly working our personnel harder, there are fewer 'respite' tours and the airlines are recruiting like mad. Without sufficient personnel in the training system, and without a healthy turnover, the force becomes stagnant. Promotion becomes dead mans shoes and the whole system becomes stale.
Finally many personnel get bored if they do one job for too long (I know I do) and if you want the best to lead the 'company' then ideally you want wide experience levels, that means short tours, do well, get recognised and move on up (and I do not include myself in the best other wise I would have been promoted long ago !

plans123

Some very valid points here, but it doesn't get away from the fact (especially to the man on the street) that we are top heavy in the cost of management. Surely if this was a civil company and you wanted to reduce costs or divert more money to the 'shop floor' you make the cost cuts higher up the chain rather than to the shop floor workers.............


Don Kevlar helmet...........

Capt W E Johns

Seems to me that the RAF is running up against an economy of scale issue: downsizing by x no. of groups/aircraft/squadrons does not necessarily equate to a proportional reduction in the size of the command required to ensure appropriate employment thereof.

The art of putting people bombs and bullets on target is being done by progressively fewer, progressively more precious assets. The same jobs we do now will be done in future, only with less airplanes. But if there are the same number of theatres, and the same number of different aircraft types, and the same requirements for policy and plans, what's really changed?

Roland Pulfrew

Plans
Very true, but what if your company requires, not just needs, but actually requires the skill sets of those people that you have promoted? What if you still operate globally (unlike the IDFAF - let's not reignite that flawed comparison)? What if you still do a multitude of different roles where you need experts in all roles? As W E Johns says we have now hit a pivotal point. We may be reducing the numbers of ac we operate, but are making them more capable. Just because we reduce the numbers does not mean that all the rest of the jobs disappear. You still need planning staffs, policy staffs, procurement staffs, airworthiness staffs, HQ staffs - notice the trend here? Just because there is only 10 of a type left rather than 20 or 30 or 100 doesn't mean that the support functions disappear. You may be able to reduce the ranks of those in the support area, you may have a Gp Capt IPTL or reduce it to a Wg Cdr, but you sure aren't going to reduce it WO or Flt Sgt!
We are reducing numbers of senior officers, a point ignored by the poster on 'Goat', its not just 1000 civilian posts that are going when PTC closes there are many military posts going as well. But the question still has to be asked what do you do with those officers whose post has been disestablished? Remember these personnel have a "contract" to 38/55. Of course we can make them redundant (v expensive) and there are large numbers leaving at 38 or 44 point and large numbers of Wg Cdrs took redundancy in the last rounds and left to join well paid civilian jobs. But until we reach a steady state of 1 command, 2 groups (or is that 3 with Training Group) and 9 or 11 operatonal stations, until we decide what planning and policy work we need to shed, until we decide what HQ functions can be civilianised (for which read screwed up) we cannot just ditch the senior staffs. If we did and then decided that we still need the same planning, joint, policy staffs we would have to promote people faster thus denuding the frontline of experience, thus increasing the training burden, thus requiring greater recruiting.
Nor can we just ditch frontline aircrew. We are haemorrhaging aircrew at a rate that we cannot replace them. Many are leaving to the airlines because of better pay or maybe the grass is greener or who knows so how do we replace them? We recruit them therefore OASC and IOT still need senior officers, we train them therefore we still need a training system with senior officers, we support them with admin, engineering, supply etc etc therefore we still need senior officers in all of these roles, we protect them so we need senior officers to manage and train the Regt, the police etc. They fly so we need ATC and FC officers and they need senior officers to manage those branches. We remain part of NATO and the EU military so we need senior officers to support and fight for our roles within these overseas (non flying but flying related) posts. We support wider defence diplomacy so we still need DAs in these non flying posts. Etc etc etc.
Senior officer numbers will come down, in time, it just cannot be done over night, and nor should it.
PS I think leaning is complete @rse and it is yet another stupid business idea but what of multi skilling our trades(wo)men? Multiskilling means fewer engineers (but with better employment prospects for when they have had enough of the military). Is multiskilling a bad idea? It seems to work for the airlines!

plans123

RP, a well put forward case, can you do the same for the junior ranks then? lol
Increased dets, guard etc etc etc with reduced manpower, we all do it, but some more than others .........

insty66

"I sent off a version of the following as a letter to the RAF News a while back, and have yet to receive a reply for some reason. It will be interesting to hear other people’s opinions on the contents."

Is the first sentence that was typed on e-goat. Can't see how any conclusions can be drawn from that.

The post was put up here on PPrune for discussion and I asked a question (withdrawn before you posted) regarding the "apparent imbalance". Nonetheless various other posters have in some way answered it. Folk like Roly have sat down and typed up informative replies that go towards explaining why the "apparent imbalance" exists.

What blindness on my part are you referring to? I certainly don't recall admitting to anything here or on the goat! especially on these threads. Additionally I haven't resorted to calling you names like you did to Mr Jenvey.

Explanation and education is better than out of hand condemnation.

Roland Pulfrew

Plans

Yes. Exactly the same applies. The problem is we are being driven down a politically directed route - an Air Force of 41K. But 41K isn't enough to do what we are doing NOW. Until we start to shed commitments and/or stop misemploying personnel (ie doing guard duty) we need more than 41K, we probably need around 48K! But that is contrary to THE PLAN. IMHO we should get to the planned force structure, review all posts and then make those that we do not need redundant - NOT the other way round! But then that costs money, money that Trust me Tone and Gordon 'I'm British nae Scottish' Broon want to throw into the black hole that is the NHS.

TheBeeKeeper

I just can't resist adding my 2p worth!

a. Where do you think JO's gain experience to become grown ups?
b. WO and FS are expensive! (Have you seen how much they earn?!?)

I do agree with much of the letter, although folk often forget the number of SNCOs and Officers at Wyton/STC etc that support the stations/IPTs. I believe a study has been carried out regarding making 600 Eng Officers redundant in favour of contractors and civvies! (The findings have yet to be published!) So the question begs to be asked, would you rather have D grade civil servants filling those posts or JO's?

TBK

southside

Unlike another West Country airbase where the CDR and Wings are one and the same bloke. Why have a CDR and a CDR (Air)...sack one and get the other to cover his job....save yrself £60g in a stroke.

5 Forward 6 Back

I always thought one of the problems we had was that people couldn't be rewarded for success in a job without leaving it.
If someone is posted into a specific post for 3 years, our career structure generally means they'll be going somewhere else at the end of 3 years. So, they either move to another equivalent job or stir things enough to get noticed, get promoted, and move up to the next rung.
Perhaps if we had a system where someone successful in an SO2 post could be prompoted to Wg Cdr but remain in the same job, we'd have better luck? Man in the job gets his reward, his extra pay, and his promotion, but we get continuity in the post, someone even more experienced (6 years in one job!), and those working under him don't have to run through change as often.
There shouldn't be issues regarding chain of command; if said SO2 becomes a Wg Cdr, he'll still be deputy to an SO1 post. Even if both are the same rank, the SO1 still calls the shots.
Or is that complete madness? There are training squadrons around run by Sqn Ldrs who have Sqn Ldr aircrew on strength; is there any reason why an excellent Sqn Ldr pilot couldn't be promoted to Wg Cdr without needing to leave his Sqn Ldr Flt Cdr job?

The Swinging Monkey

Slightly off the point, but.....
I remember someone telling me not so long, that there were about 3.5 engineering officers in the RAF for ever aircraft engine we had!!
Kind regards
TSM

Pontius Navigator

5 Forward 6 Back,

Non-exec wg cdrs? I thought that was the purpose of PA although they would not be wg cdrs. When spec aircrew came out SA Wg Cdr was a possibility but I only knew of one.

On the command side, Hodgkinson proposed the overborne sqn ldr. What you are proposing is effectively an overborne wg cdr.

One naval unit I used to visit was headed by a 2.5 - Sir. The rest of the staff consisted of 2.5s with one Lt. They were all Tom, Dick and Harry or Claude or whatever Naval officers are called.

Overborne wg cdrs? No, we are too lean for that. No spare slots and no more wg cdrs than we need

ralphmalph

This is obviously a very emotive subject!

You guys in the RAF always talk about having too many senior officers!, however because of that fact you as a service are very well spoken for in the corridors of whitehall etc.

It has been mentioned here that perhaps some personnel should be fulfilling their primary jobs rather than man a gate........fair one....but perhaps there is scope for some rationalisation in the RAF?. Not meant to be a wind upbut, why do you guys still have Wg Cdrs in charge of Sqns and officers paid to do absolutley nothing but fly??. Surely there is a happy medium to be found?

Cheers

Ralph

Climebear

This is an old one- the same can be said as to why the British Army has majors commanding companies when it used to have capts - indeed the US Army still has capts commanding companies (oh and by the way I do know the answer - the change heppend when sub-units started to work independantly in colonial policing roles). Lt cols still command bns that now number 660 (albeit higher when operating as a battle group - but know where near the 1000+ that used to comprise a bn when we were giving the french a good hiding in Spain and then at Waterloo. Moreover, an inf lt col commands nearly twice as many men as a cav lt col.

The moral of the story is that things change. A modern inf bn has significantly more capability than a 19th C bn did. A modern FF/DD is manned by fewer people but has a greater capability than its predecessor and it is still commanded by a cdr. Likewise a modern sqn can produce significantly capability that its WW1 or WW2 predecessors. Don't get hung up over what you call a unit or how many people it has in it (a very crude measurement) but by what that organisation can bring to the party.

buoy15

Pontius
Most PWO's I met were called Jewemy, Wodney or Wodger, and they all spoke like Jonathan Woss
Most aspired to higher command - must have mastered the 3 'r' s at some time!
"Wodger, wait, out"

soddim

I remember many years ago during an exchange tour a newspaper headline:
'The British forces comprise mainly admirals and bands'.

Well, the bands seem to have largely disappeared but the admirals remain unscathed.

Pontius Navigator

Buoy 15, I was mixing with AWOs. Maybe they had done the course.

Mind you, met one 4 ringer with a name associated with male hens and that cross betwixt a ewe and a ram, wam.

Danny_Boy

and Admiral Jonathan Band