RAF Pinch Points?

[LFFC]

From Hansard

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current percentage shortfall is of each pinch point trade in the armed forces. [179677]

Derek Twigg: Details of percentage shortfalls for pinch point trades are provided in the following table. The figures are those reported for financial year 2007-08 quarter 3 returns:

RAF Percentage Shortfall
Medical 29
Operational Support (Intelligence) 3
Operational Support (RAF Regiment) 17
Operational Support (Provost/Security) 8
Operational Support (Flight Ops) 8
Princess Mary’s RAF Nursing Service 18
Weapons Support (Air Load Master) 11
Weapons Support (Linguist) 19
Air Traffic Control/Flight Operations Manager/Flight Operations Assistant—Sergeant 10
Firefighter 12
Gunner 16
Movements Operations/Controller 1
RAF Police 8
Staff Nurse (RGN) A and E 14

[In Tor Wot]

My maths must be dodgy

Bollox! I don't know which fantasy island these figures came from but I can certainly argue with the Ops Spt Int percentage.

There are 216 JO posts and there are currently 160 JOs. The total of the Branch is 280. You do the maths that make this 3%

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just out of interest what are weapons support personnel?

Weapons Support (Air Load Master) 11
Weapons Support (Linguist) 19

If that quote came from Hansard you would have thought Twigg would have got the titles right!!

[LFFC]

It's the things that are missing that worry me!

The AFPRB report last year stated:

3.39 MOD reported on a number of specialist groups in each Service where the level of operational commitments and manpower shortages created pressure. In total the evidence pointed to over 80 Operational Pinch Point Trades – 18 in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 24 in the Army and 41 individual areas in the RAF.

Things have either improved quite quickly in the RAF, or something's missing. I wonder what the AFPRB will say about pinch points this year?

[CommonSenseApproach]

Missing the point?

In Tor Wot you are missing the point "Pinch Point Trades" not pinch point branches! Since when have JOs been tradesmen?
Or should we simply go the Norwegian route and commission all regular air force personnel with the other ranks being the part-timers?

[Guzlin Adnams]

So who listens to New liarbor politicians anyway. Their reputation is about as low as it gets........ Most of their rantings can be classified as dung of the bull.

[dallas]

Or should we simply go the Norwegian route and commission all regular air force personnel with the other ranks being the part-timers?

Yeah, great idea. Instead of getting anything done we can all ponce around trying to impress the boss with pointless initiatives and secondary duties. You're not an enemy agent, per chance?

[In Tor Wot]

Higlighting a point - trying not to miss it!

CSA - sorry, not suggesting Norwegian model etc, Just highlighting one of the pinch points.

As for the airmen I know that the Int An(I) is way below 97% - FMDL currently at 87% I believe.

There are lies, damn lies, and Noo Liarbore

[Biggus]

I thought the current definition of 'full manning' was only 95% FMDL?

[FATTER GATOR]

Come to think of it, where did all the RAF Kinloss QFI's go? And 4 crews

[MrBernoulli]

Did they go to NetJets?

[Ivan Rogov]

Only some of the pilots went to Netjets, that leaves at least 44 crew positions that are not manned, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Crews is reduced to match the manning .
The MOD and Government always like to trot out figures on manning, but as they say "there are lies, damn lies and statistics!". Many figures include those in training, don't show those leaving at natural points, etc. Few show the true problems, after all that would make us look bad wouldn't it
ISTR the Army had a shortage of infantry in the late 90's, it was solved on the back of another Defence Review by reducing the establishment. With a new total to aim for the percentage recruited was similar to before the cut, no point trying to recruit as many as before It wasn't long until the new manning shortage

Just a thought, if we are established for X crews and don't have them, can we have the cash that must be set aside to pay for them in the annual budget? After all we must be doing the extra work that they were needed for.

[Al R]

Nope, because then you have to reduce the training and recruiting budget too as there's nothing left on the salary line to pay the people that you want to recruit and train..

[Biggus]

Is not part of the Nimrod fleet's problem the inability of the OCU, due to its small size, to catch up any shortfall in the fleet that was not originally expected/planned for?

Considering the fleet went from 3 Sqns to 2 only a couple of years ago, presumably it has gone from manning surplus to deficite in a remarkably short period of time?

[EdSet100]

Re the Nimrod MR2 force:

Considering the fleet went from 3 Sqns to 2 only a couple of years ago, presumably it has gone from manning surplus to deficite in a remarkably short period of time?

Yes. This was down to short term thinking at Kinloss and PMA. In addition to losing 4 front line crews, they reduced the OCU's staff to a level whereby the output rate became only 3 crews per year for a 20 crew fleet (vice 6 for 25). This clearly means that everyone graduating from the OCU now has a minimum of 7 years ahead of them, to remain in current flying practice, before they can either go into a ground tour or leave the fleet. 7 years' flying in one stretch (FL then OCU) is not difficult for the individual, but someone forgot to tell PMA to stop posting people away from Nimrod flying duties at the old rate. Consequently, we have gaps in all branches; pilots more than most due to the additional Netjet factor. The Netjet pull is being used as the reason for the lack of constituted crews due to a lack of pilots. However, once the netjet pull is passed it will become obvious that we are very short all round. Its a complete farce. I understand that the OCU is now increasing its staff level to feed the FL at a higher rate but, ironicly, the increased staff can only come from....the front line.

There was some pi$$ poor thinking 3 years ago.

[Biggus]

Surely the effect of reducing the OCU so drastically as described should have been blinding obvious to all those involved, OCU Boss, Stn Cdr Kinloss, Gp staff, etc.......?

As to increasing the size of the OCU now, isn't that a bit of a case of closing the stable door, and how much life is left in the MR2. Wouldn't it be logical for the OCU to close, or switch to MRA4 a couple of years before the MR2s totally fold?

[LFFC]

So according to Hansard, Derek Twigg says that there are 14 pinch points in the RAF.

However, according to the Defence Select Committee's report published today:

The Royal Air Force continued to manage a period of deficit manning as the drawdown programme proceeded…..There were 22 critically manned Airmen trades, including…. Fire-Fighters, Gunners, and Weapon System Operators.”

But then it goes on to say:

In its memorandum to the inquiry, the MoD provided a list of pinchpoint trades in each of the three Services. There were: 11 pinchpoint trades in the Royal Navy; 27 pinchpoint trades in the Army; and 14 pinchpoint trades in the RAF.

All very confusing. Maybe the DSC found it so too as they summarise:

We recommend that, in its response to our report, the MoD provides us with an update on the position relating to manning pinchpoints and its assessment of the success of the measures introduced to reduce their number.

[Ivan Rogov]

Sorry to just cut and paste but;

36. We are concerned that there are signs that voluntary departure in the Armed
Forces, in particular the Army, is increasing and that in the RAF personnel are not
extending for a further engagement to the extent that had happened in the past. This
may well reflect the pressure that our Armed Forces continue to experience. We look to
the MoD to monitor this issue closely.

43. We note that the Army and the RAF are failing to meet both individual and unit
harmony guidelines, and that the percentage of RAF personnel exceeding the
individual harmony guidelines has risen sharply during 2007. We find the reported
performance against Unit Tour Interval harmony guidelines for the RAF much less
precise than for the other two Services, with some RAF squadrons just reported as
“heavily tasked”. We look to the MoD to identify how the setting and measuring of
Unit Tour Interval harmony guidelines for the RAF can be improved.

I stopped reading after that

[LFFC]

Interestingly, the Defence Select Committee's report, published today, doesn't make any mention of shortage of RN Harrier pilots:

ROYAL NAVY Percentage shortfall

Merlin Pilots 39

Merlin Observers 47
Merlin Aircrew 22
Leading Hand Warfare 29
Able Bodied Diver 15
Royal Marines Other Ranks 9
Leading Hand Air Engineering Technician 36
Petty OYcer Mine Warfare 44
Able Bodied Warfare Specialist (Sensors Submariner) 27
Able Bodied Warfare Specialist (Tactical Submariner) 23

Strategic Weapons Systems Junior Ranks Nuclear Watchkeepers 26

Whereas, according to Hansard only 6 days ago, Derek Twigg said that there are major problems with RN Harrier pilots:

Royal Navy Percentage Shortfall

RN Harrier GR7 Instructors 57
Lt GR7 Harrier Pilots 51
Merlin Observers 46
Merlin Pilots 39
Merlin Aircrew 22
Able Bodied Warfare Specialist (Sensors Submariner) 26
Able Bodied Warfare Specialist (Tactical Submariner 22
Strategic Weapons Systems Junior Ranks 29
Leading Hand Warfare 33
Able Bodied Diver 35
Royal Marines Other Ranks 9
Sea-King and Lynx Avionics Supervisors 18
Petty Officer Mine Warfare 25
Nuclear Watchkeepers 24
Able Bodied Seaman 40

It looks like something very fishy is going on!

[Not_a_boffin]

Just spotted that myself - you beat me to it. Very fishy indeed....