How Many to Manage 41,000

[light_my_spey]

What is the current Officer/Airman ratio just now?

[Yeller_Gait]

What is the current Officer/Airman ratio just now?

Not that long ago, it was somewhere near 2:1. I cannot imagine it has changed that much in the last 3 years or so.

Y_G

[goudie]

last National Serviceman

philrigger The last one was discharged in May '63

I had a couple of the last RAF National Servicemen in my Servicing team at RAF Bassingbourn. They were good technical guys and did a good job but boy were they disgruntled at being the last in.

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

Don't forget:

To look at reducing the number of senior officers, the standard MOD policy is to set up a One-Star Steering Group........................

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by philrigger

Slightly off topic



Am I correct in thinking that the last National Serviceman was discharged in December 1960?

Phil.

No. Our educator in 1962 was NS. Our batman in mid 1963 was NS. He had a marvellous job and did a marvellous job too. He was in a barrack block with 16 single rooms. He brought us morning tea. Cleaned the rooms, polished shoes, pressed uniforms and kept his head down with no one bothering him.

[whowhenwhy]

Kitbag, that's the point. The problem is not with the Service as such, just our lords and masters persistence with all-commissioned front-crew. If the Israeli's and probably a large number of our European allies (of similar size) can cope with one 3/4* equivalent, then cascade down from there, why the he'll can't we?

[kiwi grey]

The old war canoe Melbourne [ +15 aircraft+ 1400 sailors] had a Commodore while the USS Midway sailed by with 80+ air vehicles + 6000 sailors driven by a Captain [4 bar].....

And a current Nimitz class CVN will be driven by one USN Captain and have another on board as CAG. So that's two four-bars to command ~4500 personnel and ~100 front-line combat aircraft.

[RumPunch]

KitBag ,

Where are them figures available for use.

Current manning gives about 40k strength, current officer core gives us just over 10k , thats a quarter of all troops in the RAF are commisioned.
I know we can all use figures and change the view on things , thats what has made the officer bretheren last so long. but 1 officer for 4 airmen sounds a bit better. 20 years earlier things were so different.

I am glad in a way that finally we are going to loose numbers at the top as the RAF has had it coming for a long time. Justice maybe but its the only way to preserve the RAF for the future.

[Pontius Navigator]

RP. in 1990 the then AirSec said the aircrew cadre would reduce to 1,000 officers. While that figure may have excluded some categories such as senior officers, even at 57k the aircrew cadre would represent 1:56. If the strength dropped to 41k and the aircrew cadre remained at 1,000 (it won't) that is still 1:40.

So what branches change that ratio to 1:4?

In 1962, on a training unit, we had a Senior Technical Officer (Sqn Ldr), a Senior Admin Officer (Sqn Ldr), Stn Adjt (Flt Lt GD), an accountant, a caterer and a junior Admin Officer. We had a couple of educators and that was about it - a tail of about 6 non-aircrew officers.

Most flights were commanded by FS and WOs. The tail was not banded into sqns.

Now that was a long time ago, I was in training and not best placed to learn these details, but I think it was pretty close to the truth.

True we had one Group responsible for training pilots and another for training navigators. Both groups were in Flying Training Command so a lot of top weight there. However there was a robust external examination system from staff college all the way to training school exams.

[The B Word]

What is the current Officer/Airman ratio just now?

From November 2009:

Air Cdre and above 130
Gp Capt 330
Wg Cdr 1,230
Sqn Ldr 2,540
Flt Lt and below 4,260
Officers total 8,480
Required Strength 8,670

WO 1,210
CT/FS 3,180
Sgt 6,210
Cpl 8,370
SAC and below 11,930
Other ranks total 30,900
Required Strength 32,190


I make that an actual officer to OR ratio of 1:3.64 or the requirement is 1:3.71.

The figures above from Hansard show that we are 30 air ranks overborne, as well as 40 Gp Capts, 100 Wg Cdrs, 120 Sqn Ldrs but 560 Flt Lts and below underborne. Therefore, the officer cadre is net underborne by 190.

For the ORs we have 130 too many WOs, manning balance for CT/FS, 400 too few Sgts, 270 too few Cpls and 730 too few SACs and below. Therefore, OR cadre is net underbourne by 1,290.

On the officers side, this is why there are only 28 Wg Cdrs being promoted this year (45 last year) when the "norm" was around 65. The same for Sqn Ldrs where there are about 68 this year, compared to about 120 being promoted in a normal year.

The ORs are also "top heavy" at the WO level - this is also why it is so hard for guys/gals to get their MACR. However, if you're new to the RAF the chances to advance to Cpl and then Sgt are better than normal.

Finally, as has already been said, we need Sqn Ldrs/Wg Cdrs to fill the miriad of NATO/Overseas jobs that require equivalency in post. Often, if we fill it with an under-ranked indivdual we lose out in NATO as other countries are soooo very rank conscious. Also, as I understand it, we are over-borne on non-aircrew Sqn Ldrs and Wg Cdrs and Gp Capts but have less aircrew-types - hence the FRI for aircrew Sqn Ldrs.

I hope that all makes sense (apologies if some of my numbers don't add up - too many beers last night!).

The B Word

PS. I believe that there is about 8-10% of the RAF that makes up Aircrew Cadre - I believe it is about 50 Gp Capts, 150 Wg Cdrs, 350 Sqn Ldrs and about 1,200 Flt Lts. On top of that about 260 MACR (from DASA site), about 400 FS and 800 Sgts (of the "plastic" NCO variety!). About 3% of these are female (from the DASA site). About 3,200 to 3,500 (max) in total.

[Lima Juliet]

B Word

I believe that there might be a few more Wg Cdrs in the Flying Branch than 150 - here's why:

Here are a list of Sqns from 2009 with Wg Cdr Bosses:

1 Sqn
II (AC) Sqn
3 Sqn
4 Sqn
5 (AC) Sqn
8 Sqn
9 Sqn
11 Sqn
12 Sqn
13 Sqn
14 Sqn
18 Sqn
22 Sqn
24 Sqn
27 Sqn
28 Sqn
30 Sqn
31 Sqn
32 (The Royal) Sqn
33 Sqn
39 Sqn
43 Sqn
47 Sqn
51 Sqn
70 Sqn
78 Sqn
99 Sqn
100 Sqn
101 Sqn
111 Sqn
120 Sqn
201 Sqn
202 Sqn
216 Sqn
230 Sqn
617 Sqn

That's 36 Wg Cdrs without counting OC Ops Wg and the 22Gp CFIs and Sqn Cdrs. Therefore, let's call it 56 with at least 15 per yr in staff college. On top of that, there are HQ posts and also MoD. I would expect it to be closer to 300.

On the Gp Capt front, there are about 25 stations with Gp Capts. So again the number of aircrew Gp Capts is probably closer to 100. I seem to remember that there was about a 1 in 3 chance of making Gp Capt from Wg Cdr (in very rough maths!).

So I would expect that the total aircrew are closer to 4,000(max) than 3,500. That would then be about 10%, which again I believe is correct and about right.

In my opinion, we have too many penguin senior officers that stemmed from their bleating that all the top jobs went to aircrew - well the RAF is all about flying, so go figure!

LJ

PS. And before you say "But O'leary isn't a pilot" (RyanAir), well he also doesn't run a Service, he runs a business, and that's a BIG difference! By the way, Willie Walsh is a pilot, as is Jim French of FlyBE (who is doing VERY well at present).

[Tankertrashnav]

So from the last two posts I make it that's 3.6 air officers per squadron! We're fond of saying that the navy's got more admirals than ships - seems like the RAF's no better!

[Kitbag]

LJ, reinforcing your argument, there's at least 3 Reserve sqns missing: 15, 41, 54. Probably others too.

As for your comments re Walsh and French, don't think they are surrounded by pilot types, indeed looking at the Board structures they are built of men and women who are specialists in their role: lawyers, accountants, personnel strategists. People who have been trained to lead large organisations to success.

[Grabbers]

For what it's worth, I think we need leaders, not managers.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

Pontius

I found the following in Wiki.

National Service ended on 31 December 1960, but those who had deferred service for reasons such as university studies or on compassionate or hardship grounds still had to complete their National Service after this date. It had also previously been decided that only those born up to 1 October 1939 were to be called up. The last man called up for National Service, Private Fred Turner of the Army Catering Corps, was discharged on 7 May 1963. However, the last National Serviceman was Lieutenant Richard Vaughan of the Royal Army Pay Corps, who was discharged six days later on 13 May 1963. When National Service ended, some men continued serving voluntarily.

Obviously those that continued to serve after their NS became regulars by default.

[RumPunch]

B Word

Thanks , I knew that data was out there, ok im not exactley bang on with 1 officer for every 4 airmen but damm close.

I just cant beleive that even now the RAF is trimming looking towards the SDR and making cuts now , all the people that are not getting kept are the people who are hands on and make the RAF what it is. Most folk dont give a **** anymore from poor leadership, the RAF from the top does not show leadership , just care for ones job and a pension to follow. they have failed thousands and I hope the government yeilds that axe. There will be many happy people post October

[Pontius Navigator]

AARON, thank you. Certainly our batman was no undergrad but serving his time. IIRC one of the NS docs at ITS in 1961 was also using us for research as he was heavily in to EEG.

You could tell the NS officers, and RAFVR(T) as they wore hairy blues whereas the regulars wore barathea.

[Pontius Navigator]

AARON, thank you. Certainly our batman was no undergrad but serving his time. IIRC one of the NS docs at ITS in 1961 was also using us for research as he was heavily in to EEG.

You could tell the NS officers, and RAFVR(T) as they wore hairy blues whereas the regulars wore barathea.

[Roland Pulfrew]

there's at least 3 Reserve sqns missing: 15, 41, 54. Probably others too.

And 19, 42, 45, 54, 56 and 208

[Kitbag]

For what it's worth, I think we need leaders, not managers.

Absolutely 100% behind that; the elephant in the room is that the whole system for identifying, developing and promoting those leaders seems to have failed totally if the comments on this thread and many others are to be given any credence.

Far too many criticisms, perhaps justified, perhaps not, have been laid against the senior echelons leading to dissatisfaction and distrust