You know you have become a third rate Air Force when....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must agree with TJ. I think Red Line Entry makes a sound point and it is reassuring to hear the current members not only defending the RAF but enjoying it and extolling its virtues.
Mind you I detect a little cynicism in the username!
Much of what has been said on this thread also rings true to the many "old farts" like me who believe we enjoyed a far better overall experience than is offered today.
Mind you I detect a little cynicism in the username!
Much of what has been said on this thread also rings true to the many "old farts" like me who believe we enjoyed a far better overall experience than is offered today.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lads and lasses coming through the training system show the same determination and enthusiasm as the Few
You don't give a monkey's what a bunch of retired old farts on an internet website say.
You're proud to go into work each day because you feel the job you do is a million times more worthwhile than any of your civvy friends.
You're not bitter because you weren't promoted to whatever level your ego thought you had earned.
You know that the capability your sqn can deploy is at least ten times that than was possible a couple of decades ago.
You don't give a monkey's what a bunch of retired old farts on an internet website say.
You're proud to go into work each day because you feel the job you do is a million times more worthwhile than any of your civvy friends.
You're not bitter because you weren't promoted to whatever level your ego thought you had earned.
You know that the capability your sqn can deploy is at least ten times that than was possible a couple of decades ago.
That, and paper plates in the O's mess.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 22nd Sep 2013 at 22:39.
RLE said something along the lines of "...The lads and lasses coming through the training system show the same determination and enthusiasm as the Few..."
When one considers that the RAF is still an all volunteer organization it shouldn't be surprising that people going through the training system are committed - after all they wanted the job in the first place! All he is saying is that the training system hasn't put them off - which probably isn't surprising given the difficulty in "chopping" a student these days (96% pass rate at IOT?).
The true measure of the health of the RAF is likely to be in terms of the percentage of people serving the full length of service they joined up for, as opposed to leaving early. What percentage today are serving for their inital 16 years compared to 20 odd years ago. As one example, there is anecdotal evidence on this forum of increasing numbers of pilots leaving after 6 to 8 years - but it is just that, anecdotal.
The true answer no doubt could be found in some hard statistics, if they were actually analysed in the right way. But you know what they say about statistics and lies.....
When one considers that the RAF is still an all volunteer organization it shouldn't be surprising that people going through the training system are committed - after all they wanted the job in the first place! All he is saying is that the training system hasn't put them off - which probably isn't surprising given the difficulty in "chopping" a student these days (96% pass rate at IOT?).
The true measure of the health of the RAF is likely to be in terms of the percentage of people serving the full length of service they joined up for, as opposed to leaving early. What percentage today are serving for their inital 16 years compared to 20 odd years ago. As one example, there is anecdotal evidence on this forum of increasing numbers of pilots leaving after 6 to 8 years - but it is just that, anecdotal.
The true answer no doubt could be found in some hard statistics, if they were actually analysed in the right way. But you know what they say about statistics and lies.....
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I think that retention rates mirror the outside world - 40 years ago you joined a company and looked to stay for life - these days if you reckon you can survive three years you're doing well 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are absolutly correct Harry. I did 35 years in two stints (15 and 14 years) Any civillian job has lasted 3 years maximum. - only 20 months this last one!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,035
Received 2,908 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
I can understand that, we had a JT that was Q'd / frozen on Nimrod flap repairs and couldnt get off them, so he PVR'd. Having been out for 6 months he missed the place so joined up again, having been promised he wouldn't go back on Nimrods.
The RAF sent him back to Swinditz retaining his JT rank for a quick clothing issue etc ( though not allowed to wear his rank badges until his last day which confused the poo out of them). He then had to go to Halton where they gave him the Tech course final test piece to make which was the picture frame, bearing in mind he had been doing metal repairs for seven years and they gave him a week to make it, he knocked it out in just over a day. They then posted him onto Helicopters for his second career.
The RAF sent him back to Swinditz retaining his JT rank for a quick clothing issue etc ( though not allowed to wear his rank badges until his last day which confused the poo out of them). He then had to go to Halton where they gave him the Tech course final test piece to make which was the picture frame, bearing in mind he had been doing metal repairs for seven years and they gave him a week to make it, he knocked it out in just over a day. They then posted him onto Helicopters for his second career.
Last edited by NutLoose; 23rd Sep 2013 at 21:47.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TomJoad
you do wonder why these folk don't press to test and just leave.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by TomJoad; 24th Sep 2013 at 19:20.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching skilled and experienced guys walk out the door and go work hard for someone else, is not the right answer, it is not the best thing for the RAF. You should be offering these guys incentives to stay.
You know you have become a third rate Air Force when all the skilled and experienced guys have left and you don't have enough left who can do the job. Playing the statistics game and replacing one old sweat with one kid straight out of school, looks good on paper but doesn't work in practice.
You know you have become a third rate Air Force when all the skilled and experienced guys have left and you don't have enough left who can do the job. Playing the statistics game and replacing one old sweat with one kid straight out of school, looks good on paper but doesn't work in practice.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gr4,
Need to separate the emotional from reality here. Nobody, absolutely nobody no matter what the experience or ability is irreplaceable. Has always been thus and always will be. The RAF has seen such manning outflows before and no doubt will continue to see them in the future. Could they been better managed, most certainly. Are they entirely detrimental to the steady state capability of the service, not necessarily. Whether you like it or not the analogy of the hand in the bucket of water springs to mind. What is certain, is that there remains a greater proportion of folk who are still content, enthused, and happy with their service. The disgruntled just tend to be more likely to voice their opinions.
Need to separate the emotional from reality here. Nobody, absolutely nobody no matter what the experience or ability is irreplaceable. Has always been thus and always will be. The RAF has seen such manning outflows before and no doubt will continue to see them in the future. Could they been better managed, most certainly. Are they entirely detrimental to the steady state capability of the service, not necessarily. Whether you like it or not the analogy of the hand in the bucket of water springs to mind. What is certain, is that there remains a greater proportion of folk who are still content, enthused, and happy with their service. The disgruntled just tend to be more likely to voice their opinions.
Last edited by TomJoad; 24th Sep 2013 at 22:39.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM
Agreed, and in the case cited by gr4 it could have been better managed. The underlying problem there I believe was a failure of the manners to manage it to avoid the short term impact that particular outflow had.
Agreed, and in the case cited by gr4 it could have been better managed. The underlying problem there I believe was a failure of the manners to manage it to avoid the short term impact that particular outflow had.
Last edited by TomJoad; 24th Sep 2013 at 22:33.
TJ,
I have to take a degree of issue with that last post. I will go along with the idea that nobody is bigger than the Service, but to have people walking out of the door in their droves is not good for any organisation. If pointing that out is an 'emotional' response, then simply trotting out the bucket of water analogy is is to stick your head in the sand and hope it all sorts itself out.
To say that the RAF can simply absorb skilled and experienced personnel leaving en masse is way off the mark. I have spent most of the past 3 tours working in an Army dominated environment. They too are seeing people leaving in their droves and it frankly terrifies the manners and the senior planners because they recognise the benefits of having combat experienced personnel in a fighting force. And that is what we are - a fighting force. You might be able to replace a manager or an technical specialist in a civvie company with relative ease, but you cannot do that in the military, because at its core, the military is about people not just equipment and technical skills. It is about how they are trained, lead and their mindset and ethos.
And it is precisely those very specific characteristics that cannot be replaced overnight and have often proven to be battle winning. Just look what happened in 1973 when Syria invaded Israel and had a 10-1 advantage. After a few modest gains the Syrian armoured units were defeated within 3 days and retreated. The Israelis pursued and within 2 days were shelling Damascus. The Syrians were equipped with the latest Soviet armour, anti-tank kit and NVGs. The Israelis were outgunned and being attacked on 2 fronts when their entire reserve contingent were home celebrating Yom Kippur. I would suggest that the Israel's display of commitment and skill was not grown overnight or nurtured by an organisation casually dismissing its people when they walked out of the door, and is precisely the sort of fighting spirit and experience we can ill afford to lose if we are going to downsize. By 2020, our quality really must make up for our lack of quantity.
As soon as any of the Services are seen to be not giving a damn when a pool of experienced manpower leaves en masse, then that Service is in trouble because the leadership at the top has missed a problem somewhere down the chain. You would be treading a very dangerous path to equate the replacability of experienced military manpower with the ease that it is replaced in the civilian world (which although you didn't openly do, I think is the next step in the logic chain of your argument).
I have to take a degree of issue with that last post. I will go along with the idea that nobody is bigger than the Service, but to have people walking out of the door in their droves is not good for any organisation. If pointing that out is an 'emotional' response, then simply trotting out the bucket of water analogy is is to stick your head in the sand and hope it all sorts itself out.
To say that the RAF can simply absorb skilled and experienced personnel leaving en masse is way off the mark. I have spent most of the past 3 tours working in an Army dominated environment. They too are seeing people leaving in their droves and it frankly terrifies the manners and the senior planners because they recognise the benefits of having combat experienced personnel in a fighting force. And that is what we are - a fighting force. You might be able to replace a manager or an technical specialist in a civvie company with relative ease, but you cannot do that in the military, because at its core, the military is about people not just equipment and technical skills. It is about how they are trained, lead and their mindset and ethos.
And it is precisely those very specific characteristics that cannot be replaced overnight and have often proven to be battle winning. Just look what happened in 1973 when Syria invaded Israel and had a 10-1 advantage. After a few modest gains the Syrian armoured units were defeated within 3 days and retreated. The Israelis pursued and within 2 days were shelling Damascus. The Syrians were equipped with the latest Soviet armour, anti-tank kit and NVGs. The Israelis were outgunned and being attacked on 2 fronts when their entire reserve contingent were home celebrating Yom Kippur. I would suggest that the Israel's display of commitment and skill was not grown overnight or nurtured by an organisation casually dismissing its people when they walked out of the door, and is precisely the sort of fighting spirit and experience we can ill afford to lose if we are going to downsize. By 2020, our quality really must make up for our lack of quantity.
As soon as any of the Services are seen to be not giving a damn when a pool of experienced manpower leaves en masse, then that Service is in trouble because the leadership at the top has missed a problem somewhere down the chain. You would be treading a very dangerous path to equate the replacability of experienced military manpower with the ease that it is replaced in the civilian world (which although you didn't openly do, I think is the next step in the logic chain of your argument).
Last edited by Melchett01; 24th Sep 2013 at 22:57. Reason: Paragraphs