Forces' productivity
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here's a creative idea ...
All PPRuNe members to stump £20 per head so that we can fund a Professorial Chair (out ranks the Navy's Phd bod) ... we then need an educated, erudite and persuasive individual to champion the RAF cause to counter the Navy propaganda.
I have a name in mind who is eminently qualified with a good degree of mischievous guile to be sucessful ... I suggest BEagle ... any seconds on that ?
Coff.
All PPRuNe members to stump £20 per head so that we can fund a Professorial Chair (out ranks the Navy's Phd bod) ... we then need an educated, erudite and persuasive individual to champion the RAF cause to counter the Navy propaganda.
I have a name in mind who is eminently qualified with a good degree of mischievous guile to be sucessful ... I suggest BEagle ... any seconds on that ?
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 10th Mar 2013 at 17:27.
....the specialised amphibious power projection force found in the Royal Marines....
Red-faced Royal Marines have been forced to beat a hasty retreat after storming a Spanish beach resort instead of the fortress rock of Gibraltar.
A map-reading glitch sent the 20-strong invasion force onto the beach at La Linea, the town on the frontier with the British colony, to the surprise of Spanish locals.
The marines were greeted by two local policeman who watched in amazement as the heavily armed troops rushed ashore from two launches on Sunday morning.
The mayor of La Linea, Juan Carlos Juarez, said: "They landed on our coast to confront a supposed enemy with typical Commando tactics."
"But we managed to hold them on the beach."
From BBC News 18 Feb 2002
A map-reading glitch sent the 20-strong invasion force onto the beach at La Linea, the town on the frontier with the British colony, to the surprise of Spanish locals.
The marines were greeted by two local policeman who watched in amazement as the heavily armed troops rushed ashore from two launches on Sunday morning.
The mayor of La Linea, Juan Carlos Juarez, said: "They landed on our coast to confront a supposed enemy with typical Commando tactics."
"But we managed to hold them on the beach."
From BBC News 18 Feb 2002
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very clever Beags but at least I don't think the the RN hasn't shot down one of its own aircraft (twice in Germany?) ....and when was it the RAF last shot down an enemy aircraft????
....when was it the RAF last shot down an enemy aircraft????
The most regrettable blue-on-blue was when the idiot RN killed off the excellent Sea Harrier FA2 before its time, leaving only non-radar bombers as the fixed-wing element on its little flat tops....
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Mar 2013 at 18:16.
The last Fleet Air Arm 'blue on blue' was sadly only 10 years ago...
22 March 2003 - Royal Navy Sea King ASaC7 XV650 and XV704 849 Naval Air Squadron collided five miles from HMS Ark Royal operating in the Persian Gulf near Kuwait, seven crew killed.
Originally Posted by Bismark
I don't think the the RN hasn't shot down one of its own aircraft (twice in Germany?)
Did you intend the odd double negative?
BEags, what you say there is absolutely correct, except you're forgetting that all of that was part of a RAF conspiracy to kill off the FAA.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 10th Mar 2013 at 19:19.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 61
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
I see the usual suspects have returned to drag the debate away from the subject; if the good doctor is attempting PR for the RN I’m sure we’d be better off without and it pails into obscurity compared to moving Australia does it not Cofman?
Blue on blue is not an appropriate way to describe an unfortunate collision during ops and is disrespectful IMHO.
Of more interest to me is why JHC has not adopted harmonised harmony? Surely it would be a good place to adopt common best practice.
Deepsixteen
I see the usual suspects have returned to drag the debate away from the subject; if the good doctor is attempting PR for the RN I’m sure we’d be better off without and it pails into obscurity compared to moving Australia does it not Cofman?
Blue on blue is not an appropriate way to describe an unfortunate collision during ops and is disrespectful IMHO.
Of more interest to me is why JHC has not adopted harmonised harmony? Surely it would be a good place to adopt common best practice.
Deepsixteen
Deep16,
To do that you would first of all have to agree on which set of the various harmony rules are actually "best practice", which may in itself be more difficult than you think.
You are also then faced with one bit of the RN/RAF/Army working to different rules to the rest of the RN/RAF/Army - and if those "different" rules are more restrictive/punitive they are a cause of discontentment, reason for experienced people to drift away from the role, discourage recruitment into the role, etc.....
Anyway, a point I made earlier, but which seems to have been ignored by everyone, is that many individuals (as opposed to formed units) in the RAF have regularly breached the current RAF harmony rules, but the system has either not picked up the fact, or simply ignored it, I'm not sure which!! The RAF rules may apparently be the most generous of all 3, but if they're regularly ignored then the rules themselves are of no consequence!
To do that you would first of all have to agree on which set of the various harmony rules are actually "best practice", which may in itself be more difficult than you think.
You are also then faced with one bit of the RN/RAF/Army working to different rules to the rest of the RN/RAF/Army - and if those "different" rules are more restrictive/punitive they are a cause of discontentment, reason for experienced people to drift away from the role, discourage recruitment into the role, etc.....
Anyway, a point I made earlier, but which seems to have been ignored by everyone, is that many individuals (as opposed to formed units) in the RAF have regularly breached the current RAF harmony rules, but the system has either not picked up the fact, or simply ignored it, I'm not sure which!! The RAF rules may apparently be the most generous of all 3, but if they're regularly ignored then the rules themselves are of no consequence!
No disrepect or poor taste intended. The loss of the 2x Sea Kings was dreadful (hence I described it as sad with a 
). However, it does show that dreadful mistakes happen and that is exactly what happened with the F4 vs Jag as well...
). However, it does show that dreadful mistakes happen and that is exactly what happened with the F4 vs Jag as well...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 61
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Biggus
The rules that achieve the highest availability sound like a good start point.
People in the services are still drafted/posted are they not? SM pay managed to encourage me to remain in the service.
Many submariners as individuals and as ships companies have had harmony guidelines breached and RN rules are as you alluded to less generous than those of the RAF.
I think the blue on blue thing needs to be dropped; shooting something down in the fog of war is not comparable to a negligent discharge.
Deepsixteen
To do that you would first of all have to agree on which set of the various harmony rules are actually "best practice", which may in itself be more difficult than you think.
You are also then faced with one bit of the RN/RAF/Army working to different rules to the rest of the RN/RAF/Army - and if those "different" rules are more restrictive/punitive they are a cause of discontentment, reason for experienced people to drift away from the role, discourage recruitment into the role, etc.....
People in the services are still drafted/posted are they not? SM pay managed to encourage me to remain in the service.
Anyway, a point I made earlier, but which seems to have been ignored by everyone, is that many individuals (as opposed to formed units) in the RAF have regularly breached the current RAF harmony rules, but the system has either not picked up the fact, or simply ignored it, I'm not sure which!! The RAF rules may apparently be the most generous of all 3, but if they're regularly ignored then the rules themselves are of no consequence!
I think the blue on blue thing needs to be dropped; shooting something down in the fog of war is not comparable to a negligent discharge.
Deepsixteen
Last edited by Deepsixteen; 10th Mar 2013 at 22:32. Reason: Spolling
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
We are in danger of exposing the unsavoury/ odd side of PPrune whereby any comment, however well founded, against ones parent service must in some way be an insult and a non-debateable lie or untruth.
When this happens the most strange tangential arguments crop up. They go something like - The RAF has different harmony rules, but then again the RN lose i-pods on patrol, but the RAF shot down a Jaguar...and very soon we're in the basement of 'Your mother wears combat boots' type discussion.
We also see occasionally, as has happened on this thread, that some consider Pprune to be a RAF resource of some description.
Whilst accepting that as a Fleet Air Arm type I have a thing for men, search aimlessly for the golden rivet and am responsible for both the HMS Cornwall incident and also the loss of Atlantic Conveyor and indeed the Mary Rose - could I perhaps ask for more balanced input?
Inputs such as 'Professor Fishhead doth spout utter rubbish because....' will show you and your point in a far better light than 'Rubbish, he used to be a fish head, he has an agenda and is probably actually Sharkey Ward'. We do a very good job of lampooning said pantomine villain - let's not become him.
If it's rubbish demonstrate it so to be and all will be well.
Incidentally. On the subject of kills. My personal view is that they are personal. If I had any Air-to-Air kills I'd consider them mine - not the FAA's or RAF's. I'd keep a record on the mantel piece with all the Air-to-Mud ones!
If any of you actually have kills - what do you think?
We are in danger of exposing the unsavoury/ odd side of PPrune whereby any comment, however well founded, against ones parent service must in some way be an insult and a non-debateable lie or untruth.
When this happens the most strange tangential arguments crop up. They go something like - The RAF has different harmony rules, but then again the RN lose i-pods on patrol, but the RAF shot down a Jaguar...and very soon we're in the basement of 'Your mother wears combat boots' type discussion.
We also see occasionally, as has happened on this thread, that some consider Pprune to be a RAF resource of some description.
Whilst accepting that as a Fleet Air Arm type I have a thing for men, search aimlessly for the golden rivet and am responsible for both the HMS Cornwall incident and also the loss of Atlantic Conveyor and indeed the Mary Rose - could I perhaps ask for more balanced input?
Inputs such as 'Professor Fishhead doth spout utter rubbish because....' will show you and your point in a far better light than 'Rubbish, he used to be a fish head, he has an agenda and is probably actually Sharkey Ward'. We do a very good job of lampooning said pantomine villain - let's not become him.
If it's rubbish demonstrate it so to be and all will be well.
Incidentally. On the subject of kills. My personal view is that they are personal. If I had any Air-to-Air kills I'd consider them mine - not the FAA's or RAF's. I'd keep a record on the mantel piece with all the Air-to-Mud ones!
If any of you actually have kills - what do you think?
On the subject of kills. My personal view is that they are personal. If I had any Air-to-Air kills I'd consider them mine - not the FAA's or RAF's.
Anyway, back on thread; does anyone know whether the Army and RAF harmony guidelines are supposed to account for time away on exercises? In the last 15 years, operations have formed only about 60% of my nights away from home, with much of the rest being taken up with operational training both within the UK and overseas. It's my understanding that Navy sea training time counts as time away for harmony purposes... it would be interesting if a 'baselined' comparison could be made if you take that into account for Army / RAF.
One other thing that I certainly can't put any numbers to, just a feeling in the water, is the differing working culture between the services during routine home-based operations. My (admittedly tribal) judgement would be that there is still a strong 'POETS day' culture in the Navy, which also has a foothold in bits of the RAF but is by no means widespread. I also get the impression that many flying units are working much longer days than was the case say, 10 years ago, to get the most out of the limited equipment resource available to them. Over a 2- or 3-year period these kind of issues can have an effect equivalent to hundreds of days away from home. Before getting too conclusive that 'the Navy harmony is the right harmony' all the routine home-based business of the three services would have to be taken into account - sounds like a perfect topic for an expensive consultancy study...
Last edited by Easy Street; 10th Mar 2013 at 22:58.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original post...
I think the professor has the argument totally the wrong way around.
Harmony, in my experience, is generally abysmal in the RN. The 'squad' system proposed by the 'Topmast' scheme was set out with the best of intentions to enable greater harmony for all in the RN, however it rarely works in practice for those in seagoing drafts. Ships are undermanned with various positions gapped as it is. Trying to allow personnel to switch with replacements halfway through deployments is impractical given the numbers the RN have at their disposal.
Let's take the example of a typical 2 year Ship's life cycle and for instance, an ETME (stoker). In 2 years a Ship can generally expect to be deployed to a task for 12-14 months. Our stoker, on a 3 year sea draft will in theory, get his 'harmony' time while the Ship is in UK waters in home port. However, in practice the Ship will be on various work-ups and port visits (2x OST at 4-8 weeks, Joint Warrior at 3 (ish) weeks which will likely include a further week at sea for missile firings in the NWAPPS, the list goes on). In all, I would conservatively estimate that a Ship will be alongside for around 7 weeks a year including block leave periods + a further 5 weekends in home port. Therefore our stoker is getting 59 nights in home port per year as his harmony time. Over 2 years that is 118 days at home, 612 days at sea and only 48 days short of the maximum 660 for a 3 year period.
What about the other year? The Ship may be in refit (if not on a 3 year lifecycle) and if our stoker is lucky he will be retained as skeleton crew. If not, he will be sent on courses (potentially) away from home port or worse, crash drafted to fill another gapped billet on another Ship. The cycle continues ad nauseum until he gets a shore draft after a couple of sea drafts (after 5 years or so).
The reason the system does not work in the RN is that there simply are not enough people to fill the billets in order to harmonise correctly. My point is that it is not the case that the other two forces are not, as the letter implies, pulling their weight but that the RN is pulling an equal weight without sufficient people to make the system work as it should.
This isn't at all a moan. Most people in the RN accept that this is the way of the world and get on with it, enjoy it immensely and it is of course the extreme end of the spectrum. I am just trying to paint the picture to show where the letter writer is coming from.
How the problem is solved is another argument altogether, and one I feel would only be solved with more people and fewer ships that require fewer people. One of those solutions we seem to be lurching towards anyway.
*standing by for incoming*
I think the professor has the argument totally the wrong way around.
Harmony, in my experience, is generally abysmal in the RN. The 'squad' system proposed by the 'Topmast' scheme was set out with the best of intentions to enable greater harmony for all in the RN, however it rarely works in practice for those in seagoing drafts. Ships are undermanned with various positions gapped as it is. Trying to allow personnel to switch with replacements halfway through deployments is impractical given the numbers the RN have at their disposal.
Let's take the example of a typical 2 year Ship's life cycle and for instance, an ETME (stoker). In 2 years a Ship can generally expect to be deployed to a task for 12-14 months. Our stoker, on a 3 year sea draft will in theory, get his 'harmony' time while the Ship is in UK waters in home port. However, in practice the Ship will be on various work-ups and port visits (2x OST at 4-8 weeks, Joint Warrior at 3 (ish) weeks which will likely include a further week at sea for missile firings in the NWAPPS, the list goes on). In all, I would conservatively estimate that a Ship will be alongside for around 7 weeks a year including block leave periods + a further 5 weekends in home port. Therefore our stoker is getting 59 nights in home port per year as his harmony time. Over 2 years that is 118 days at home, 612 days at sea and only 48 days short of the maximum 660 for a 3 year period.
What about the other year? The Ship may be in refit (if not on a 3 year lifecycle) and if our stoker is lucky he will be retained as skeleton crew. If not, he will be sent on courses (potentially) away from home port or worse, crash drafted to fill another gapped billet on another Ship. The cycle continues ad nauseum until he gets a shore draft after a couple of sea drafts (after 5 years or so).
The reason the system does not work in the RN is that there simply are not enough people to fill the billets in order to harmonise correctly. My point is that it is not the case that the other two forces are not, as the letter implies, pulling their weight but that the RN is pulling an equal weight without sufficient people to make the system work as it should.
This isn't at all a moan. Most people in the RN accept that this is the way of the world and get on with it, enjoy it immensely and it is of course the extreme end of the spectrum. I am just trying to paint the picture to show where the letter writer is coming from.
How the problem is solved is another argument altogether, and one I feel would only be solved with more people and fewer ships that require fewer people. One of those solutions we seem to be lurching towards anyway.
*standing by for incoming*
Last edited by Hovermonkey; 10th Mar 2013 at 23:05.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I simply can't see how any of the forces can be judged by an industrial type productivity measure and it is foolish to do so.
To take the example of an infantry unit, its primary role is to close on and kill the enemy fortunately most of them are 100% unproductive by this measure and those that are engaged are likely to have times when their productivity reaches 200%.
Training directly connected with military matters might well be considered productive but what of adventure training and sport both of these are used to keep mind and body fit but are not a direct military task ?
Finally where will the other tasks of national importance such as clearing up the foot & mouth mess or giving aid to civilian authority's during severe weather come into the productivity picture ?
If you ask me this is just another way of dressing up cuts to the defense budget and trying to make it sound like it has some sort of science behind it.
To take the example of an infantry unit, its primary role is to close on and kill the enemy fortunately most of them are 100% unproductive by this measure and those that are engaged are likely to have times when their productivity reaches 200%.
Training directly connected with military matters might well be considered productive but what of adventure training and sport both of these are used to keep mind and body fit but are not a direct military task ?
Finally where will the other tasks of national importance such as clearing up the foot & mouth mess or giving aid to civilian authority's during severe weather come into the productivity picture ?
If you ask me this is just another way of dressing up cuts to the defense budget and trying to make it sound like it has some sort of science behind it.