Air Force List 2010
Thread Starter
Air Force List 2010
The recently published 2010 Air Force List of serving Officers highlights that we currently have 131 Group Captains. Talk about being top heavy and what must be an area to be discussed within the forthcoming MoD restructuring study.
Unfortunately it's only accessible via the RAF intranet.
http://www.manning.raf.r.mil.uk/review/Manning/Air%20Force%20List.htm
Unfortunately it's only accessible via the RAF intranet.
http://www.manning.raf.r.mil.uk/review/Manning/Air%20Force%20List.htm
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there are only 131 then I am surprised, because not so long ago (10 ish years) there were just slightly over 600 and I remember thinking that there were more Group Captains in the Air Force than there were Sooty Chiefs…….and the rate of promotion from GP to AC was higher than CT to FS……can’t fault it.
Vec,
I half agree with you; however I would add the following with respect to Engineers.
Flt Lt JENGO’s – mostly salt of the earth and cracking blokes/lasses.
Sqn Ldr SENGO’s – mostly a pain in the arse because they have not a lot to do other than make the lives of JENGO’s very difficult. But they realise they might make Wing Cdr, so they have to look important.
Wing Cdr and OC Eng & Supply Wing – cracking people because they made Wing Cdr and better still became an OC Eng Wing on a real unit doing real work. Top blokes.
Group Captains – pain in the arse because like Sqn Ldrs, they don’t have a lot to do other than “made up work” and they just get in the way, not making any real decisions but relying on their WC’s. They just invent a pile of bureaucracy. However now they have desires of becoming a one star and that makes them an even bigger pain in the arse.
How many are aviators and how many Engineers? Its the Engineers who should get the chop.....useless lot
I half agree with you; however I would add the following with respect to Engineers.
Flt Lt JENGO’s – mostly salt of the earth and cracking blokes/lasses.
Sqn Ldr SENGO’s – mostly a pain in the arse because they have not a lot to do other than make the lives of JENGO’s very difficult. But they realise they might make Wing Cdr, so they have to look important.
Wing Cdr and OC Eng & Supply Wing – cracking people because they made Wing Cdr and better still became an OC Eng Wing on a real unit doing real work. Top blokes.
Group Captains – pain in the arse because like Sqn Ldrs, they don’t have a lot to do other than “made up work” and they just get in the way, not making any real decisions but relying on their WC’s. They just invent a pile of bureaucracy. However now they have desires of becoming a one star and that makes them an even bigger pain in the arse.
Last edited by SRENNAPS; 5th Sep 2010 at 08:01.
Chaps
This has been covered recently here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...1-000-a-3.html
and here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...1-000-a-2.html
I believe your 131 Gp Capts are aircrew and part of the 330 total - therefore, there are 199 "other branch" Gp Capts. At the last count there were about 25 flying stations that needed a Gp Capt - that would need 25 "in post", 25 "waiting to go in post" and 80 that have either "been in post or are not going to get a Station". Don't forget there are loads of NATO, other-country Air Force and Air Diplomatic jobs that need OF-5 level representation or the UK and its Military will get the "thin end of the wedge".
LJ
This has been covered recently here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...1-000-a-3.html
and here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...1-000-a-2.html
I believe your 131 Gp Capts are aircrew and part of the 330 total - therefore, there are 199 "other branch" Gp Capts. At the last count there were about 25 flying stations that needed a Gp Capt - that would need 25 "in post", 25 "waiting to go in post" and 80 that have either "been in post or are not going to get a Station". Don't forget there are loads of NATO, other-country Air Force and Air Diplomatic jobs that need OF-5 level representation or the UK and its Military will get the "thin end of the wedge".
LJ
viz - you are right that pure numbers mean nothing. However, putting it as a percentage of manpower over the last 20 years puts it into perspective.
In 1990 we had 89680 in the RAF. 0.19% of these (177) were 1* and above, 0.48% (430) were gp capt and 1.56% (1400) were wg cdr.
By 2000 total numbers had reduced to 54720 of which 0.25% (141) were 1* and above, 0.6% (330) were gp capt and 2.23% (1220) were wg cdr.
By 2010 (1 Apr) numbers were down at 44050 of which 0.3% (130) were 1* and above, 0.77% (340) were gp capt and 2.74% (1210) were wg cdr.
As total numbers have decreased the actual percentage ratio in each rank have increased suggesting either rank creep (to keep up with the other services perhaps [particulalrly the Army]) or an increasingly top heavy outfit - the excuse that the RAF sends it officers to war doesn't cut it as the vast majority of the (active) front line (i.e not the staff officers in the various HQs
) are sqn ldr and below.
The figures for 2010 show we have more gp capts then we had 10 years previously (and when the RAF was ~25% bigger!)
. There was also little change in physical wg cdr posts as well. That cannot be healthy and IMHO, points to where the P45 line has got to be drawn!
In 1990 we had 89680 in the RAF. 0.19% of these (177) were 1* and above, 0.48% (430) were gp capt and 1.56% (1400) were wg cdr.
By 2000 total numbers had reduced to 54720 of which 0.25% (141) were 1* and above, 0.6% (330) were gp capt and 2.23% (1220) were wg cdr.
By 2010 (1 Apr) numbers were down at 44050 of which 0.3% (130) were 1* and above, 0.77% (340) were gp capt and 2.74% (1210) were wg cdr.
As total numbers have decreased the actual percentage ratio in each rank have increased suggesting either rank creep (to keep up with the other services perhaps [particulalrly the Army]) or an increasingly top heavy outfit - the excuse that the RAF sends it officers to war doesn't cut it as the vast majority of the (active) front line (i.e not the staff officers in the various HQs
) are sqn ldr and below. The figures for 2010 show we have more gp capts then we had 10 years previously (and when the RAF was ~25% bigger!)
. There was also little change in physical wg cdr posts as well. That cannot be healthy and IMHO, points to where the P45 line has got to be drawn!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That cannot be healthy and IMHO, points to where the P45 line has got to be drawn!
Given that the RAF Staff training takes far less time than the other Services, largely due to their extra numbers in each rank to cope with training, perhaps we have it more right / less wrong than they do? RAF ICSC being some 8 wks - Army 8 months or something?
Chicken and egg.......
Do we have more officers in HQ staff posts because they are needed, or do we have more HQ staff posts because we have more officers?
Answers on a post card to Mr L Fox, Whitehall.
Do we have more officers in HQ staff posts because they are needed, or do we have more HQ staff posts because we have more officers?
Answers on a post card to Mr L Fox, Whitehall.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Slight error with my original post.
We currently have:
1226 Wing Commanders
We currently have:
1226 Wing Commanders
The RAF operates 1,114 aircraft (2010)
The 'business' has changed dramatically in that time
Of course there will always be the view that we have to match what the Army have in the various staff appointments. If we're going to match the Army then lets do it across the board (and what we do in the non-flying branches) - squadrons led by squadron leaders, flying wings led by wing commanders and the groups led by group captains! And around the buoy we go
Not quite sure what is being proved here by the figures. For example, Nutloose, USAF have 5573 ac (from Wiki) and 14,045 lt cols! USAF also has 10,082 cols out of a total strength of 328,532 (from AF Personnel Centre website) - this is over 3%. Compares pretty well with the RAF's 0.77% (from Wrathmonk).
As wrathmonk points out, a lot of posts have been civilianised, particularly at technician level - but why would we expect this to result in significant senior officer reductions? If all of Marham's second line engineers turn into civilians for example, where is the logical saving in posts above wg cdr level?
However, who wants to let logic get in the way of a good rant - 2 rings good, 4 rings bad, senior officers, OUT, OUT, OUT!
As wrathmonk points out, a lot of posts have been civilianised, particularly at technician level - but why would we expect this to result in significant senior officer reductions? If all of Marham's second line engineers turn into civilians for example, where is the logical saving in posts above wg cdr level?
However, who wants to let logic get in the way of a good rant - 2 rings good, 4 rings bad, senior officers, OUT, OUT, OUT!
Jay,
Why?
USAF again: 328,532 total, 65,181 of whom are officers. That's one in five and if you've seen the levels of over-specialisation of their groundcrew you'd understand why they're a little higher than us. "Yes sir, my job is to service the left-hand outboard flap track of B52H aircraft, Bob does the right hand side"
We're not the Army, our requirement isn't for a few officers to lead herds of men over the top.
Why?
USAF again: 328,532 total, 65,181 of whom are officers. That's one in five and if you've seen the levels of over-specialisation of their groundcrew you'd understand why they're a little higher than us. "Yes sir, my job is to service the left-hand outboard flap track of B52H aircraft, Bob does the right hand side"
We're not the Army, our requirement isn't for a few officers to lead herds of men over the top.
