Interesting thread on e-goat..
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes so much sense and is so true...
There is absolutely no
way anyone in the ivory towers is going to pay it any attention. After all why do away with such a fantastic old boys club!!!
There is absolutely no
way anyone in the ivory towers is going to pay it any attention. After all why do away with such a fantastic old boys club!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Typhoon Central
Age: 54
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never has a truer word been spoken. I saw some stats the other day that said we have the same out of Wing Commanders in 2006 as we did in 1990!! and I think we have as many air ranks as we do Sqn's if not more. Oh well no point moaning as it will always be that way.
Just read it.
A well written post with undisputable facts. It'll never catch on.
edited to remove some silly booze fuelled question.
A well written post with undisputable facts. It'll never catch on.
edited to remove some silly booze fuelled question.
Last edited by insty66; 19th Mar 2006 at 10:51.
A well written , intuitive, reasoned and balanced argument with many good points. This means it will be ignored.
It does seem that many of these posts are self serving. Unfortunately the culture that exists is one of self generation where these posts are deemed essential for service and career development. The reality is that in a short two year posting, the incumbent feels he has to do something to get noticed and get a good report. This is why so much keeps changing so often and why people lower down the scale feel they are getting unnecessarily b*ggered around.
It was bad for morale 5 years ago when I was in and was one of the reasons why I left. It seems worse now.
It does seem that many of these posts are self serving. Unfortunately the culture that exists is one of self generation where these posts are deemed essential for service and career development. The reality is that in a short two year posting, the incumbent feels he has to do something to get noticed and get a good report. This is why so much keeps changing so often and why people lower down the scale feel they are getting unnecessarily b*ggered around.
It was bad for morale 5 years ago when I was in and was one of the reasons why I left. It seems worse now.
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 19th Mar 2006 at 02:08.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
One point at which the rot may have started, but I don't have figures to back it, was the Hodgkinson Report around 1969.
This heralded the change to a single list. The rationale was that many supplementary list officers had potential that was not being recognised. By introducing the single list all officers were created equal.
The loss of the B-exam and then the C-exam meant that one could get promoted to first flt lt on time and sqn ldr purely on the basis of reports rather than an exam.
The other thing that changed was the hidden promotion list with the half-yearly promotions and the feast of the passover. Together with open promotions came the decision not to post newly promoted sqn ldrs mid-tour. They would continue overborne until tourex.
He also introduced the '300 overborne' sqn ldrs; sqn ldrs without true exec function. Virtually overnight a V-sqn went from wg cdr-sqn ldr and 53 fofl to wg cdr, 5 sqn ldr and 44 fofl (we lost a crew as well).
Spec aircrew were introduced too with additional sqn ldrs cluttering the crew rooms. We now had experienced senior aircrew sqn ldrs and inexperienced sqn ldr execs. A right recipe.
In 1990, with the then current round of redundancies being set out, two figures stuck in mind. There were 842 JO Engineers and 845 sqn ldr Engineers. This of course was rather adjacent to the number of aircraft in the RAF. Of course there are many flavours of engineers and many do purple jobs rather than light blue.
Also in 1989, Roger Honey, the then air sec, stated that there was a requirement for just 1 000 FJ aircrew (I think he excluded the multis but I could be wrong). This was the precursor to 'terminating' effectively ex-aircrew wg cdrs. All that actually happened was a tweaking of their pay and conditions but not there numbers.
This heralded the change to a single list. The rationale was that many supplementary list officers had potential that was not being recognised. By introducing the single list all officers were created equal.
The loss of the B-exam and then the C-exam meant that one could get promoted to first flt lt on time and sqn ldr purely on the basis of reports rather than an exam.
The other thing that changed was the hidden promotion list with the half-yearly promotions and the feast of the passover. Together with open promotions came the decision not to post newly promoted sqn ldrs mid-tour. They would continue overborne until tourex.
He also introduced the '300 overborne' sqn ldrs; sqn ldrs without true exec function. Virtually overnight a V-sqn went from wg cdr-sqn ldr and 53 fofl to wg cdr, 5 sqn ldr and 44 fofl (we lost a crew as well).
Spec aircrew were introduced too with additional sqn ldrs cluttering the crew rooms. We now had experienced senior aircrew sqn ldrs and inexperienced sqn ldr execs. A right recipe.
In 1990, with the then current round of redundancies being set out, two figures stuck in mind. There were 842 JO Engineers and 845 sqn ldr Engineers. This of course was rather adjacent to the number of aircraft in the RAF. Of course there are many flavours of engineers and many do purple jobs rather than light blue.
Also in 1989, Roger Honey, the then air sec, stated that there was a requirement for just 1 000 FJ aircrew (I think he excluded the multis but I could be wrong). This was the precursor to 'terminating' effectively ex-aircrew wg cdrs. All that actually happened was a tweaking of their pay and conditions but not there numbers.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 19th Mar 2006 at 10:39.
I'll bite
"This is just another tedious, badly-written squaddie moan of the usual 'officers useless, squaddies fantastic' ilk that fills E-Goat, so it's no wonder he hasn't had a reply. "
There have been replies, try using the scroll wheel.
A quick look at the replies here should give you a good idea on the quality of his post.
Hope you run your hotel better than you post on pprune
There have been replies, try using the scroll wheel.
A quick look at the replies here should give you a good idea on the quality of his post.
Hope you run your hotel better than you post on pprune
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think it is a post that can be argued against, with the introduction of lean and all the other cost saving measures surely we cant afford to have an old boys network anymore. We have been cut to the bone where we cant even afford some of the basic spares for our aircraft, however can afford to keep many high ranking officers in posts that dont even need to exist. We have somewhere lost our way, and need to realise that our aim as an organisation is largely to put aircraft in the air, something that seems to be lost on many people within our organisation. If we are to be recognised as an effective airforce then we need to adjust our focus from being an organisation that is there to help many officers reach their career goals at the expense of achieving our primary role.
rant over
D-F
rant over
D-F
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cosford
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have somewhere lost our way, and need to realise that our aim as an organisation is largely to put aircraft in the air,
Thread Starter
Zoom, your comment smacks to me of someone who was more bothered with the 'Officer Lifestyle' than the interest of the service. People with attitudes like that, I can (and often do) do without.
You should open your eyes sometime and have a look around, but I get the feeling you are somewhat of an ostrich.
You should open your eyes sometime and have a look around, but I get the feeling you are somewhat of an ostrich.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good call- A certain west Country Navy Airbase use to sport a good 15 Squadrons (big ones at that) back in the 80’s now we have 5/6 smaller units. Most now have SO1 bosses as opposed to Lt Cdrs. We still have, Captain (ok so it use to be a 1 star), Cdr, Cdr LS and Cdr Eng O and of course Wings and all the trimmings O and they invented force commanders at So1 level J
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The changing rank structure of the FAA was to bring it into line with the other services and allow parity between CO's on the boat (dark blue and light blue as it was in the not too distant past). Having SO1 rotary force commanders also allows a HEC to be allocated to the boat should the need arise in order to add some balance to the force structure with the FW element. On the whole not a bad thing, IMHO.
Oggin
Oggin
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming from an RAF of many years ago (dare I say around BEag's time) it seems to me that the root cause of all the problems in the current mob is the lack of a creditable national 'enemy'.
I know you 'youngsters' scoff at the witterings of us older types but there was a certain, what. . . clarity of purpose in those times.
Seems to me that it all started to go downhill with the first mutterings of that evil phrase 'Peace Dividend'.
I know you 'youngsters' scoff at the witterings of us older types but there was a certain, what. . . clarity of purpose in those times.
Seems to me that it all started to go downhill with the first mutterings of that evil phrase 'Peace Dividend'.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've copped some flack on both sites and fair enough, and so I think I shall make a tactical withdrawal from this one. But innsty66, you are certainly 'way too blind' (by your own admission) as you clearly didn't read the first sentence in Tino's post; even Michelle Jenvey did that. And no, plans123, I'm not an ostrich, but my post was directed more at the tenor of Tino's post and less at the content, since Tino has used language redolent of that tired old 'us against them' struggle. (I'm neither 'us' nor 'them', by the way.) This sort of stuff permeates E-Goat, which has quickly become a very tiresome website, and it is not particularly easy to take any of its material seriously. I went there today only at your suggestion.
But plaudits that Tipo has received about his writing style are not warranted and therein lies his problem. The impression that his letter gives me is of another whinge in a long list of whinges by a disgruntled NCO; I might be right or I might be wrong, but that is the way the letter strikes me. If he doesn't want it to give that impression and wants it to be taken seriously, he should make it briefer, correct his facts, get rid of the cattiness - and then get one of those many under-employed (staff) officers to rewrite it properly for him.
But plaudits that Tipo has received about his writing style are not warranted and therein lies his problem. The impression that his letter gives me is of another whinge in a long list of whinges by a disgruntled NCO; I might be right or I might be wrong, but that is the way the letter strikes me. If he doesn't want it to give that impression and wants it to be taken seriously, he should make it briefer, correct his facts, get rid of the cattiness - and then get one of those many under-employed (staff) officers to rewrite it properly for him.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Actually 1 Wg Cdr to 10 SAC actually seems quite a good ratio.
While we might seem over burdened away from the coal face there are a lot of non-blue jobs around. A friend of mine has been at SHAPE for a number of years drifting higher up the stars. Lower down that tree, a flt lt on my first sqn had, by 1992, been at SHAPE for 15 years as a wg cdr. There is a fair sprinkling of Britmil and light blue with our allies. They are part of the numbers game but certainly out at the edge of the war fighter scenario.
Then there are the diplomatic posts, no less important and we were talkinh of one man a year or so back, TEL Jarron.
These might be considered 'fat in the system' although many, once in these posts, remain war-fighter ineffective until they retire. What to do? Slim them down and go grey suit?
While we might seem over burdened away from the coal face there are a lot of non-blue jobs around. A friend of mine has been at SHAPE for a number of years drifting higher up the stars. Lower down that tree, a flt lt on my first sqn had, by 1992, been at SHAPE for 15 years as a wg cdr. There is a fair sprinkling of Britmil and light blue with our allies. They are part of the numbers game but certainly out at the edge of the war fighter scenario.
Then there are the diplomatic posts, no less important and we were talkinh of one man a year or so back, TEL Jarron.
These might be considered 'fat in the system' although many, once in these posts, remain war-fighter ineffective until they retire. What to do? Slim them down and go grey suit?
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons we are so 'top heavy' in comparison to the other services is that the vast majority of our actual warfighters are officers (pilots / navs) - this is not true of either the Navy or the Army. The reasons why every pilot or nav is an officer have been done to death on here before and I won't kick that one off again, but the RAF draws it's executive from these branches also, adding to the perception of top-heaviness.
Agree about E-Goat - many posting there seem to have little understanding about the Officer Corps - although I also agree there seem to be a great many bluntie O's (AND sneks) in not-entirely-necessary and self-justifying jobs nowadays.
16B
Agree about E-Goat - many posting there seem to have little understanding about the Officer Corps - although I also agree there seem to be a great many bluntie O's (AND sneks) in not-entirely-necessary and self-justifying jobs nowadays.
16B
In my opinion the comments made on E-goat are perfectly valid. However, this is not the first time these points have been made, and will probably not be the last.
As the author says, his research has largely been up to the rank of Group Captain. Back in the late 80's or early 90's I remember a letter which appeared in 'Air Clues' on this very subject. The author of that letter used figures from the (freely available) Air Force List for 1946 and for the current year (198?/199? - I can't remember which) and looked at the number of officers in each specific rank from Group Captain upwards, in tabular form. In 1946, with WWII just having come to an end, the RAF had nearly 1 million men serving in it, and well over 100 front line squadrons, many Groups, overseas Commands, HQs, etc! At the time the letter was written the RAF was about 100,000 strong. As for the comparison in numbers, well the number of senior neddies had reduced by about 10-20% over the period!!
Comparisons have been made in the past with the Israeli Air Force, which probably now has more combat aircraft than the RAF, and I believe is headed by a 2* (but I am working from memory, not research, I hasten to add!).
I believe the UK armed services are very "top heavy". It is not just the RAF, compare the number of Admirals in the RN with the number of warships left today.
Every so often a newspaper picks up on this story and runs with it, but most of the time it just carries on regardless!!
As the author says, his research has largely been up to the rank of Group Captain. Back in the late 80's or early 90's I remember a letter which appeared in 'Air Clues' on this very subject. The author of that letter used figures from the (freely available) Air Force List for 1946 and for the current year (198?/199? - I can't remember which) and looked at the number of officers in each specific rank from Group Captain upwards, in tabular form. In 1946, with WWII just having come to an end, the RAF had nearly 1 million men serving in it, and well over 100 front line squadrons, many Groups, overseas Commands, HQs, etc! At the time the letter was written the RAF was about 100,000 strong. As for the comparison in numbers, well the number of senior neddies had reduced by about 10-20% over the period!!
Comparisons have been made in the past with the Israeli Air Force, which probably now has more combat aircraft than the RAF, and I believe is headed by a 2* (but I am working from memory, not research, I hasten to add!).
I believe the UK armed services are very "top heavy". It is not just the RAF, compare the number of Admirals in the RN with the number of warships left today.
Every so often a newspaper picks up on this story and runs with it, but most of the time it just carries on regardless!!
