RAF on Radio 4 Now
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wyler
Never, in the field of informed debate, has so much crap been spoken by so few.
I spoke to somebody very high up in the pecking order recently; while he wouldn't discuss specifics, what he did say that while their was no desire to amalgamate any of the services internally, that this was not being driven by any of the service chiefs and many things may be imposed on us from outside; that jointery within specific trades/groups was almost certainly going to be a feature of what is currently under discussion; when I asked if/whether that meant all wearing green, light-blue, or dark-blue, as you may expect, he wouldn't be drawn any further.
My perspective; all 3 services have an honourable place in this nations history; all that we have learnt previously leads me to think that we should not ignore that history and where it led us. I am however also forced to consider that maybe the world has changed sufficiently to permit us to ignore history, but I wonder if my grandad thought the same thing in the 1930's. It seems a very risky strategy we are pursuing.
guidedweaons said ....
According to here as a percentage of the officer corps the Royal Navy has the highest number of Lt Col/Cdr/Wg Cdr and above (20.44%), followed by the British Army (18.02%) and then the RAF (16.94%).
As a percentage of the total force size the Royal Navy still has the highest number (3.95%), followed by the RAF (3.80%) and then the British Army (2.46%).
But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good slagging!
I mean in an arm of 40000, 1300 plus wing commanders is ludicrous. Have you ever heard the phrase about cooks and broth!
As a percentage of the total force size the Royal Navy still has the highest number (3.95%), followed by the RAF (3.80%) and then the British Army (2.46%).
But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good slagging!
wouldn't your proposal lead to a headless chicken? How else do you work towards avoiding gaps , duplication and uneven tasking?
Not often I agree with Vec!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did we cope before the mid-nineties, when the wave of ops support arrived to save us?
Used aircrew on a ground tour and with relevant type experience as Ops Officers?
Used clerks and AATC as Ops Assistants?
Worked for 20-odd years in my own experience, but then of course we have to re-invent the wheel periodically - normally one with corners to replace the roundish one that had done a perfectly adequate job up to the point of re-invention.
Quite why the RAF did need a whole new branch to sit in Ops rooms sharpening chinagraphs, tidying up the charts in Flight Planning, and noting down requests for PDs from various other airfields was never very well explained.
Quite why the RAF did need a whole new branch to sit in Ops rooms sharpening chinagraphs, tidying up the charts in Flight Planning, and noting down requests for PDs from various other airfields was never very well explained
aircrew on a ground tour
It could also be argued that the AATC / Ops Clerk training requirements differ very little. However, I'm sure the majority of AATC joined to be in the 'cut and thrust' of air traffic-ing, with aspirations of being controllers themselves, and having them tidy maps and plot NOTAMs in a sqn / stn planning room was poor use of resources and training (and sometimes seen as an 'out of branch' tour and thus not good for an individuals career aspirations).
Of course, I'm sure the job could be done with fewer, but IMHO any permanent planning room left to aircrew to look after soon becomes a shambles (unless you are at a training unit where you have the duty stude to clear up the mess!).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just listened to the programme and found it more balanced (except Hastings and Collins) than the conversations above would suggest. What I did find amusing was Loaders claim to the Network Enabled expertise and thus future. The RN have been "doing" NEC for many, many, more years that either the RAF or Army and have generally led in this field....look at any warship's operations room since the '60s.
And to claim that the RAF are more Joint than the others is laughable....rarely have I found this claim to be the case, particularly from the AF seniors (incl Loader...but he was better than most).
And to claim that the RAF are more Joint than the others is laughable....rarely have I found this claim to be the case, particularly from the AF seniors (incl Loader...but he was better than most).
My perspective; all 3 services have an honourable place in this nations history; all that we have learnt previously leads me to think that we should not ignore that history and where it led us.
I have to agree..The Ops branch really is a step too far. They surely have to go.
Did nobody else notice the 'boots in the sand is the future' mantra of 'the wars we will be fighting in the foreseeable future'.
Can anybody point to a forecast in 1999 that the next ten years would be spent fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan?
Nobody has forecast the form of the next war for the last 200 years (at least).
The UK needs either to give up any pretentions of military capability, or have 3 flexible services capable of response to any conceivable threat - and then lay down to the politicians what can be done with the forces they decide to afford.
Can anybody point to a forecast in 1999 that the next ten years would be spent fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan?
Nobody has forecast the form of the next war for the last 200 years (at least).
The UK needs either to give up any pretentions of military capability, or have 3 flexible services capable of response to any conceivable threat - and then lay down to the politicians what can be done with the forces they decide to afford.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The disbandment argument is a pointless one - it's just not going to happen.
Couldn't agree more with comments above - the RAF has become it's own worst enemy - promotion based on being Dodgems Monitor at the Summer Ball rather than actually having a single wit about you in the field of leadership or management. In the past few years i've come across several who jumped the hoops then didn't/couldn't take the SO2 level job and found that there was no way back. Not one of them asked for help - all just make an arse of it, pi$$ing off all in their wake. It's time the RAF reporting system took a reality check.
The Ops Supt Branch has, IMHO, achieved nothing positive since its inception. It came about due to a shortage of able and willing aircrew to fill Ops-related posts. The issue is that there are still no surplus aircrew types to fill that gap. The lack of ability and trg at the base level in the branch is shocking (SAC Flt Plans recently "what's a quarter mil?"). We have cut the force, in the lower levels at least, to the bone and nothing short of more manning, time and training can fix that.
The issue that creates the emotive in-fighting is that now, for the first time, the MOD is forced to choose between capabilities - keeping some, scrapping others and adjusting all. There has to be some basis for those adjustments but it's an impossible call to make - as has been said already, future conflict has never been predicted before, how are we going to start now???
I wait with baited breath for SDSR....
Couldn't agree more with comments above - the RAF has become it's own worst enemy - promotion based on being Dodgems Monitor at the Summer Ball rather than actually having a single wit about you in the field of leadership or management. In the past few years i've come across several who jumped the hoops then didn't/couldn't take the SO2 level job and found that there was no way back. Not one of them asked for help - all just make an arse of it, pi$$ing off all in their wake. It's time the RAF reporting system took a reality check.
The Ops Supt Branch has, IMHO, achieved nothing positive since its inception. It came about due to a shortage of able and willing aircrew to fill Ops-related posts. The issue is that there are still no surplus aircrew types to fill that gap. The lack of ability and trg at the base level in the branch is shocking (SAC Flt Plans recently "what's a quarter mil?"). We have cut the force, in the lower levels at least, to the bone and nothing short of more manning, time and training can fix that.
The issue that creates the emotive in-fighting is that now, for the first time, the MOD is forced to choose between capabilities - keeping some, scrapping others and adjusting all. There has to be some basis for those adjustments but it's an impossible call to make - as has been said already, future conflict has never been predicted before, how are we going to start now???
I wait with baited breath for SDSR....
Reference the SDSR, I draw your attention to post 30 on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-say-no-2.html
....which highlights (in my opinion) how it is being cost driven rather than based on capability decisions.
Uncle G,
When the Ops Support Branch was first set up, at least the Flt Ops part, I offered an alternative. In terms of Ops staff at active airfields I suggested re-employing aircrew from the airfield who had just retired at 55 on "reserve type" terms and conditions. Such people would normally have lots of experience of the airfield and the aircraft type operating from it. They would be looking for some employment (possibly on reduced hours) to 60 or 65 on the basis they were still active and didn't want to retire yet. I felt there would be enough takers to fill the posts, based on people retiring in the area they had worked and lived in for the past umpty-ump years. Needless to say the RAF preferred to employ young 20 somethings with no experience, who spend the next 10 years moving from base to base trying to acquire it...
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-say-no-2.html
....which highlights (in my opinion) how it is being cost driven rather than based on capability decisions.
Uncle G,
When the Ops Support Branch was first set up, at least the Flt Ops part, I offered an alternative. In terms of Ops staff at active airfields I suggested re-employing aircrew from the airfield who had just retired at 55 on "reserve type" terms and conditions. Such people would normally have lots of experience of the airfield and the aircraft type operating from it. They would be looking for some employment (possibly on reduced hours) to 60 or 65 on the basis they were still active and didn't want to retire yet. I felt there would be enough takers to fill the posts, based on people retiring in the area they had worked and lived in for the past umpty-ump years. Needless to say the RAF preferred to employ young 20 somethings with no experience, who spend the next 10 years moving from base to base trying to acquire it...
Interesting!
When the Call Centre Branch first started it was often a case of "Hello, Plt Off Pointless speaking, how may I be of annoyance?" - followed by "One moment please....err, corporal, could you take this call?"
A few ex-aircrew doing shift work as reservists would be infinitely preferable to someone who doesn't know what a 'quarter mill' is - or who (when I once asked one to check some detail) where 'Tremblers' were based....
When the Call Centre Branch first started it was often a case of "Hello, Plt Off Pointless speaking, how may I be of annoyance?" - followed by "One moment please....err, corporal, could you take this call?"
A few ex-aircrew doing shift work as reservists would be infinitely preferable to someone who doesn't know what a 'quarter mill' is - or who (when I once asked one to check some detail) where 'Tremblers' were based....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen both sides of this debate, I suspect the Flt Ops branch will survive; lower capitation rates make them more cost effective in ground posts than aircrew. Why pay someone flying pay to do a non-flying job, particularly when most (all?) aircrew want to be flying anyway? I have met plenty of aircrew employed in ground posts who had little interest in doing a ground tour at all and so put precious little into the job.
The branch was introduced in a somewhat haphazard manner, with some stations doing an excellent job of training their people while others just left people to flounder and then criticised the branch for failing to provide fully trained individuals. I never understood why some stations felt that it wasn't their job to train people for the specific role - no-one ever questioned the need for OCUs/Trg flts for aircrew.
The branch has also been characterised by some muddled management - individuals told to become specialists (ie multiple tours in the same area - eg Sqn Ops Brize then Stn Ops Brize then HQ 2 Gp etc etc) and then being told that to "progress" they needed to "broaden" and do a tour at a GR4 stn for example. Without a defined structure (IMHO the specialist route is better) the branch was bound to suffer from mixed standards and experience gaps.
As for an SAC in Flight Planning not knowing what a quarter mill is, I'd be speaking to the PFOM or SOpsO about trg standards!
The branch was introduced in a somewhat haphazard manner, with some stations doing an excellent job of training their people while others just left people to flounder and then criticised the branch for failing to provide fully trained individuals. I never understood why some stations felt that it wasn't their job to train people for the specific role - no-one ever questioned the need for OCUs/Trg flts for aircrew.
The branch has also been characterised by some muddled management - individuals told to become specialists (ie multiple tours in the same area - eg Sqn Ops Brize then Stn Ops Brize then HQ 2 Gp etc etc) and then being told that to "progress" they needed to "broaden" and do a tour at a GR4 stn for example. Without a defined structure (IMHO the specialist route is better) the branch was bound to suffer from mixed standards and experience gaps.
As for an SAC in Flight Planning not knowing what a quarter mill is, I'd be speaking to the PFOM or SOpsO about trg standards!
I disagree. All the trg required rested with the experienced cadre of SNCO/JNCO within the branch who, for a large part, did an excellent job.
All the newly qualified Ops Officers had to do was listen.
As an aside, we now have plenty of downgraded aircrew looking for meaningful posts to cover whilst they regain a flying cat. Op Telic/Herrick have seen to that.
All the newly qualified Ops Officers had to do was listen.
As an aside, we now have plenty of downgraded aircrew looking for meaningful posts to cover whilst they regain a flying cat. Op Telic/Herrick have seen to that.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Melchett01
For once, I find myself agreeing with a Mover!
With regards to your comment re politicization; surely the reality of the situation is that this has always been the case? The only thing worthy of note from my perspective is how this has crept down the rank structure where Commanders at a much lower level are now more interested in adopting the party line, regardless of their obligations to those they command; often taking advantage of (or maybe abusing) the "can-do" attitude of many service personnel of all ranks.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Course profile, we don't agree, and I'm afraid you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Why don't you find out for yourself why the infantry are split, and to what effect that has on them for the positive.
You should find out for yourself, to stop you looking like a complete and total hypocrite, as you yourself believe it is for the other services to find out what the RAF do. As a starter for ten, I already know the paras don't jump for combat lately, and that the RAF also has no means to deliver them, if they wanted to! But, that is not what gives them their abilities (jumping from an aircraft is just the way they get to work....Not the work itself!).
At least you have not come across as badly as kharmael
Who seems intent of rebuffing suggestions that have not been made, and certainly not by me...I have already stated the RAF needs to stay, but have indeed answered your comment on scrapping the paras, with the fact that part of the reason to buy as many Hercs as we did, was so they could be used for para ops
If there were no paras to support (irrespective of what the hercs are doing in real life) Any government desperate to cut costs, would slash herc support/numbers, as there would be no case on paper to keep them in number! This has already happened to the Nimrod fleet, with the RAF now no longer having enough aircraft to actually fulfil their wartime role.
I do wonder what would happen if the army tw@ts kharmael refers to (in his/her narrow world) withdrew their funding for a lot of RAF aircraft (as command land foots the bill for quite a few airframes).
I'm not saying they should of course, but if enough short sighted whiners keep on slagging the other two services, to make themselves look good, it certainly won't make it less likely to happen.
As per usual, I still have utmost respect for a huge majority of the RAF who are not only working hard, but are seen to be doing so!
Are the whiners mostly those still in the UK, wearing nice clean uniforms to work?
Why don't you find out for yourself why the infantry are split, and to what effect that has on them for the positive.
You should find out for yourself, to stop you looking like a complete and total hypocrite, as you yourself believe it is for the other services to find out what the RAF do. As a starter for ten, I already know the paras don't jump for combat lately, and that the RAF also has no means to deliver them, if they wanted to! But, that is not what gives them their abilities (jumping from an aircraft is just the way they get to work....Not the work itself!).
At least you have not come across as badly as kharmael
Who seems intent of rebuffing suggestions that have not been made, and certainly not by me...I have already stated the RAF needs to stay, but have indeed answered your comment on scrapping the paras, with the fact that part of the reason to buy as many Hercs as we did, was so they could be used for para ops
If there were no paras to support (irrespective of what the hercs are doing in real life) Any government desperate to cut costs, would slash herc support/numbers, as there would be no case on paper to keep them in number! This has already happened to the Nimrod fleet, with the RAF now no longer having enough aircraft to actually fulfil their wartime role.
I do wonder what would happen if the army tw@ts kharmael refers to (in his/her narrow world) withdrew their funding for a lot of RAF aircraft (as command land foots the bill for quite a few airframes).
I'm not saying they should of course, but if enough short sighted whiners keep on slagging the other two services, to make themselves look good, it certainly won't make it less likely to happen.
As per usual, I still have utmost respect for a huge majority of the RAF who are not only working hard, but are seen to be doing so!
Are the whiners mostly those still in the UK, wearing nice clean uniforms to work?
Last edited by barnstormer1968; 19th Aug 2010 at 13:49.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hit a nerve much Barnstormer?
^I presume you thought I was responding to that?^
If you were to take my outcry in the context of the post by Ken Scott two above my first one you would see that I wasn't riposting you directly, but using an extreme-hypothetical situation to illustrate the situation that the Tac AT fleet is in.
The second half of the post referred more to Collins on the Radio 4 show.
Of course if the paras were scrapped as you suggest, then their NATO means of delivery could be scrapped too I suppose...The Hercules!
If you were to take my outcry in the context of the post by Ken Scott two above my first one you would see that I wasn't riposting you directly, but using an extreme-hypothetical situation to illustrate the situation that the Tac AT fleet is in.
The second half of the post referred more to Collins on the Radio 4 show.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen both sides of this debate, I suspect the Flt Ops branch will survive; lower capitation rates make them more cost effective in ground posts than aircrew. Why pay someone flying pay to do a non-flying job, particularly when most (all?) aircrew want to be flying anyway? I have met plenty of aircrew employed in ground posts who had little interest in doing a ground tour at all and so put precious little into the job.