letter that RAFNEWS would not print

[ukmil]

The following has just been posted on e-goat the unofficial RAF Rumour service- I cant see why the RAF News won't print it????????



I]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 peoples opinions on the contents. I]

I was pleased to see the letter from Sgt Mark Clay in issue 1136 of the RAF News, I'm sure his comments are welcomed by many, his point about the low morale of many personnel within the ground trades should cause concern. In recent months many have been affected by E2E Studies, Leaning and amalgamation, no doubt more will be, either by loss of individual posts, whole sections, or by leaving the service due to redundancy or natural wastage. The changes occurring within most ground trades vary from mild to traumatic, the rapidity of some of these changes in the interest of saving money does smack of knee jerk reactions to political or monetary pressure, it's only a matter of time before a few baby's get thrown out with the bathwater.

My reason for putting pen to paper is to ask if/when the people who have made all the changes to date are to be 'leaned', namely the management structure and the officer corps. The collocation of the two Command Headquarters may see a reduction of manpower by 1000, but most of this manpower will be civilians who are no longer needed when one Headquarters closes. Interesting debates will no doubt follow if this letter is published; here are a few points to ponder.

Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting. How many of these posts can be justifiably classed as essential cogs in the machine required to produce a cost effective operational force? The ratio of executive officers per operational airframe must cause some raised eyebrows in Whitehall; add all the pay, gratuities and pensions together over 10 years and you can easily afford a few more Typhoons or JCA's. Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.

The career structure of the officer corps can also be improved upon, why is it that officers only do 2-year tours; can this be classed as good value for money? The methods used in End to End studies is to compare the work done to a large factory, using phrases such as 'customer', 'product' and 'materials'; continuing the theme, any civilian company worth it's salt would bend over backwards to keep a good manager in place, and would act quickly to move on or dismiss the worst. A two year tour gives little time for development, the first six months learning the job and getting to know people leaves just 18 months of actual productivity. Officers who excel within a certain post move on all too soon, often to an area that bears little or no relationship to the post they leave behind. With competent NCOs shouldering the burden a less adept manager can keep a low profile for 2 years relatively easily. A four year tour will allow the better officer to shine through career-wise, and allow the less competent to be seen for what they are and, hopefully, correct their failings. Other benefits would be increased stability for the individual, not to mention a reduction in training and movement costs.

I read with interest the article by ACM Sir Brian Burridge in issue 1,135 of the RAF News entitled 'RAF is adapting to new challenges', where he made some interesting comments on the changes to the structure of the RAF currently being undertaken. He concluded by saying 'we need a relevant Air Force; that's relevant operationally, and relevant in an economic or a value for money sense.' Adding 'We need fewer, but more adaptable people.' I have served over 26 years and like Sgt Clay have seen many changes, from the end of the Cold War to today's E2E; adaptability and the good old 'can do' attitude have been bywords that have been applied to airmen throughout. Speaking as an engineer we have seen the demise of the Flight Line Mechanic, Direct Entrant technician and the Apprentice, the Mech(Mech) and Mech(Tech) system quickly replaced with the SAC Tech causing the loss of the J/T rank, amalgamation of TG1 trades and the re-introduction of the Flight Line Mechanic in the form of the AMM. One area that has never changed in this time is the way the officer corps functions, and to my knowledge no one has looked into it's efficiency and effectiveness; with the future manning of the RAF giving a ratio of almost 1 officer for 2 airmen perhaps it's time to do so now.

In the late 80's it was said that you could get the whole of the RAF into Wembley, nowadays everyone would fit into the average Division 1 ground; but if seats were allocated by status the terraces would look empty, whilst the VIP boxes would be packed solid.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

As the person who would have replied to your letter would have been a "Royal" it comes as no surprise to me he/she ducked on this one

I always use as an arguement "Would Branson do it like this" when trying to reason with our "betters" as to the barking mad way the O Corp do business..... but 414 Gp Capt's would love to hear someone justify that..................

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Olly O'Leg]

Brilliant!!!!

[soddim]

Circa 1976 General Alexander Haig said 'The British Forces comprise mainly Admirals and bands' - most of the bands have gone but the Admirals remain (and the Field Marshals and the Air Marshals).

[SASless]

Back during the Second War World, the US military had approximately eighteen million in uniform.....today about one and half million. Anyone care to guess how many more Flag Rank positions there are now compared to the end of WWII?

[AC Ovee]

Writing to the RAF News was never going to produce a response. It is an interesting letter, spoiled by one or two emotive phrases. It also asks pointed questions, but not in a structured manner. Take out the swipes, round up the questions in a summary and address the letter to the politicians on the Defence Select Committee. This should not be a debate between airmen and officers in a newspaper but a subject to be explored by politicians demanding answers from the airships.

[4Greens]

A service that requires officers to fly all the planes leads to giving those officers some incentive in the form of promotion. Inevitably this leads to an oversupply.
Aircrew pilots can solve the problem.

[Sunfish]

The author of this letter should be up on a charge........We will think of something.

[Mr Blake]

Letter already posted and commented on in the "meltdown" thread.

[Matt Skrossa]

All three of our armed forces have websites and newspapers which purport to include 'News'. However, on closer examination they very rarely include any 'bad' news, which leads me to the conclusion that they do not take a balanced view and only 'spin' good news. This makes them little more than propaganda in my view.
I recall a few years ago that a Petty Officer had been accused of murder, which was widely reported in the proper press but got no mention in Navy News. Even today four soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment, are due before a military court accused of smuggling guns out of Iraq, but there is no mention of this on the Army website, so don't be surprised your letter to the RAF News wasn't published.

Link to BBC report on Army gun smugglers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/6167735.stm

Link to MoD/British Army report on Army gun smugglers:

There isn't one!!!

The serving sailors/soldiers/airmen of our Armed Forces are not stupid and have access to a wide variety of media info, so start some honest reporting of everything of interest, not just the positive PR bits.

[StopStart]

It's a shame we don't churn out something like Army Times or AF News etc like the yanks do for their folks on det. Whilst they are obviously a little skewed in a certain direction editorially they still print contentious articles from other newspapers giving the paper some balance. They also cover news items about servicemen charged with civil offences etc.

The funnies are rubbish though.

The C17 news is only really any good for playing spot-yer-mate or laughing at some unit or another bigging up their non-existant role.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by Pass-A-Frozo

... because they didn't try hard enough at school.

(A fact my teacher wife throws out all the time) 80% of all education is received outside of formal education establishments.

Some would argue they learnt where it counts.

[Kitbag]

Judging by some of the comments elsewhere in this forum re cuts and demoralisation, it would seem that a large number of contributors believe that the selection of our senior officers and future CEOs is not very successful. Too much time spent studying theory rather than practise?

[sharmine]

replace junior officers with warrant officers

[quote=Pass-A-Frozo;3013684]... because they didn't try hard enough at school.

Most WO and FS are far smarter (not better educated, just smarter) than junior officers, however, they are also paid more. Therefore it doesn't make sense to replace junior officers with these grades because it would be more expensive in the long run.

Sharmine

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by Pass-A-Frozo

Yes and that's why all CEO's of successful international corporations dropped out in the 6th grade
Burn the books! Education means nothing! Just think of all those millions our governments are wasting on education!
You mean the "some" who didn't get a formal education!

I'm a 'some' who did manage a formal (degree level) education although I bothered to get it whilst already serving. Whilst I agree that qualifications gained through university may show an interest in bettering yourself they do not in any manner display leadership qualities.

[Maple 01]

Pass old boy, academia isn't everything, I had a 2:1, my boss had a 2:2, I, as the CIO correctly identified, had few leadership talents and was therefore not offered a commission. Tom N***** on the other hand had the potential and will probably run the shop by 2012.
I could still run rings round his earlier Fg Off self though

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by Pass-A-Frozo

That's right. One is based on your intelligence. The other is based on avoiding death. (Congrats! You haven't died - you have built "experience"). Hang on a second. I saw my 80 something year old cleaner walking around the other day. Why isn't he Prime Minister!
Close all the universities! Close the officer training schools! (What a waste of money!!) Hundred year old turtles will save us all!
Really? Explain that one. I'm guessing that none of the English cricket team were WO's or FS's?

So your alternative appears to be to continue to employ spotty erks who have managed to pick up an academic qualification but have no real life experience or leadership qualities on the bottom rung of the leadership ladder where the meat hits the metal, so to speak?

I suppose it must work as you never hear any complaints about this system.

In the Army the SNCO's run the sharp end whilst the officers deal with the 'bigger picture' and generally things get done. In the RAF many would like to do the same but unfortunately we have such a glut of commissioned hangers on that they get in the way.

[bagsyboy]

let me guess

[quote=Pass-A-Frozo;3013684]... because they didn't try hard enough at school.


let me guess judging by all your smart alec replys you must be a JO who went to uni
I have respect for all ranks, looks like you could try opening your mind, or is the RAF just for officers?

[threepointonefour]

It's quite surprising to go into the Officers Mess at Wyton and look at the 'named' mail slots. Last time I had the misfortune to visit (took an aircraft for some arb open day) back in 2002 there were 7 Air Cdre slots, 36 Gp Capt slots and innumerate Wg Cdrs.

Let's go back to the old days and 'lean' properly - cut the air ranks drastically and have a pyramidal career structure where each squadron is commanded by a sqn ldr, each wing by a Wg Cdr and each stn by a Gp Capt. I believe the Israelis still have something similar in place and manage to run their equally capable air force with a fraction of the 'air-rankage'. The savings made on cutting 10 AMs (£1.5M), 20 AVMs (£2.7M), 100 Air Cdres (£10M), 400 Gp Capts (£35M), 1000 Wg Cdrs (£75M) & 2000 Sqn Ldrs (£125M) would EASILY pay to 'un-civilianise' the RAF (savings of around £275M). Maybe then there would be more people to deploy!!

Using ukmil's quoted figures of 414 Gp Capts ... WHO, HIGHER UP, CAN TELL THE TAX PAYER WHY WE HAVE MORE GROUP CAPTAINS THAN AIRCRAFT?

[Shot to the Beach]

Talking of good honest open reporting (we were, weren't we?), Coningsby used to produce an erstwhile rag, 'The Irrigator', full of good honest reporting. A splendidly inciteful article on Truckie FRCs I seem to remember.