RAF size and balance
I speak as I found.
My most intensive exposure to fairly senior RAF officers came during my six years as C Met O BFG at JHQ Rheindahlen ........... I paid Mess Subs as a Gp Capt and attended Heads of Branch meetings but that is as far as "rank" went [oh! I did have a real set of combats badged as a Gp Capt in case WW III broke out].
I have to say that the vast majority at the one star, Gp Capt and Wg Cdr level that I dealt with on a day to day basis were impressively gentlemanly/ womanly, hard-working, professional and well-informed. Very few pr*cks or ar*eholes, and those mostly without a brevet.
As a taxpayer I hope today's lot are as good.
My most intensive exposure to fairly senior RAF officers came during my six years as C Met O BFG at JHQ Rheindahlen ........... I paid Mess Subs as a Gp Capt and attended Heads of Branch meetings but that is as far as "rank" went [oh! I did have a real set of combats badged as a Gp Capt in case WW III broke out].
I have to say that the vast majority at the one star, Gp Capt and Wg Cdr level that I dealt with on a day to day basis were impressively gentlemanly/ womanly, hard-working, professional and well-informed. Very few pr*cks or ar*eholes, and those mostly without a brevet.
As a taxpayer I hope today's lot are as good.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
but would they also have been looking for leadership and direction as a gp capt rather than as a met officer?Once the 'war for you is over' would you have been better off in civilian garb and perhaps interned or as a gp capt, and therefore a VSO, and subjected to special treatment?
Did those thoughts ever cross your mind?
Lest anyone thinks I am sniping at those deemed not to be 'real' officers, let me say a wg cdr dentist won my complete respect in his role as a deputy ground defence commander.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've come accross as many sh!te SNCOs/WOs in my quarter century of RAF life as I have officers - I guess that's life! 
...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,181
Received 3,039 Likes
on
1,281 Posts
Avionker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 358
Degrees of dubious worth, or appropriateness, are hardly a new thing. I remember sitting in a classroom at Cosford, on my Air Radar Technicians course, having the finer points of waveguide theory "explained" by an RAF Education officer. She was very proud of her Zoology degree.......
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 358
Degrees of dubious worth, or appropriateness, are hardly a new thing. I remember sitting in a classroom at Cosford, on my Air Radar Technicians course, having the finer points of waveguide theory "explained" by an RAF Education officer. She was very proud of her Zoology degree.......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,181
Received 3,039 Likes
on
1,281 Posts
I think that it all lies with career progression and it is normally easy for a Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr to do the job these days on a computer that used to involve a plethora of LACs/SACs/Cpls to do.
Surely sense would dictate the work was still carried out by a reduced number of
LACs/SACs/Cpls with a equally reduced number of Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs overseeing that.
Paying a Sqn Ldr to do the job a SAC used to do is barking, no wonder the budgets so stuffed up.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jimlad1:8024427
Were I to post suggesting a view that large numbers of the non commissioned elements of the military were useless idle layabouts who, based on the regular flow of stories about Captains Table or AGAI issues are often criminal in their behaviour and who had serious alcohol and discipline problems, and we could easily sack half without noticing, I suggest there would be outrage from the same people who slag off the Officers.
PN .......... interesting, and there were parallels in the HQ, some mysterious posts Int/ battle damage assessment for example.
All Met Officers in BFG held Dormant Commissions. The bog-standard forecaster at Guetersloh [me] had a Flt Lt one. We did NBC courses but never got near a weapon, wisely.
SMetOs and the senior forecasters at JHQ got S/Ldr [me, later].
I think the bottom line was that we would not/ could not run if the balloon went up, but would not be expected to command anything except our own little Met empire.
The whole thing had become ludicrous by 1990 of course .......... survivability to put on the combats was zilch and we knew it, JHQ would have disappeared well before we dispersed to the cave at Maastricht.
The Dormant Commission went with the job, no commission, no job. There was a piece of paper allocating my number, no Gazette entry, and one uniform held in stores gathering dust checked annually. I happily sat above all the wing commanders and below all the Gp Capts at Mess functions, called my boss SASO "sir" as frequently as was seemly, and concentrated on my six offices and about 100 workers.
One of my reforms was to facilitate the formation of a Mobile Met Unit Wing based in BFG. These men [later women] were removed from the dormant list, were commissioned RAFVR, trained to a degree, armed as appropriate, and deployed with the relevant RAF formation [TacComms? memory fails]. The Balkans saw them quite busy. Once deployed, they were "nothing to do with me Guv!".
Hope that background helps, it was a job, I did it and I enjoyed it.
All Met Officers in BFG held Dormant Commissions. The bog-standard forecaster at Guetersloh [me] had a Flt Lt one. We did NBC courses but never got near a weapon, wisely.
SMetOs and the senior forecasters at JHQ got S/Ldr [me, later].
I think the bottom line was that we would not/ could not run if the balloon went up, but would not be expected to command anything except our own little Met empire.
The whole thing had become ludicrous by 1990 of course .......... survivability to put on the combats was zilch and we knew it, JHQ would have disappeared well before we dispersed to the cave at Maastricht.
The Dormant Commission went with the job, no commission, no job. There was a piece of paper allocating my number, no Gazette entry, and one uniform held in stores gathering dust checked annually. I happily sat above all the wing commanders and below all the Gp Capts at Mess functions, called my boss SASO "sir" as frequently as was seemly, and concentrated on my six offices and about 100 workers.
One of my reforms was to facilitate the formation of a Mobile Met Unit Wing based in BFG. These men [later women] were removed from the dormant list, were commissioned RAFVR, trained to a degree, armed as appropriate, and deployed with the relevant RAF formation [TacComms? memory fails]. The Balkans saw them quite busy. Once deployed, they were "nothing to do with me Guv!".
Hope that background helps, it was a job, I did it and I enjoyed it.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz
Finally, the RAF has always been SNCO/WO/officer top-heavy in the past due to the all-officer/all-WO/all-NCO aircrew policy - it's got even worse in recent years with the transition to more officer aircrew that matches the policy of most NATO Air Forces.
Then pilots and navs were commissioned when we had the nuclear deterrent, as apparently wearing a different rank tab meant the nuclear payload would be safer.
Now that certain middle eastern countries have a complete disregard for the Geneva convention and their sharp knife doesn't care what rank you are. Also that we now longer carry nukes. The rank of aircrew is as irrelevant as ever. Nice to see it doesn't matter in the Army Air Corps.
Last edited by gr4techie; 1st Sep 2013 at 15:17.
Nutty
The problem is that the Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs are needed to make the decisions and the LACs/SACs/Cpls aren't able or don't have the experience to make the decisions. Thus, it is vital to leave the Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs in the post after its function has been computerised (hence JPA thinned out SHQs significantly).
GR4Techie - its a common myth that the Army Air Corps is awash with Cpl pilots - most* are Sgts/SSgts/WOs/Lts/Capts which all get about the same sort of pay (as I stated before ~£35k to ~£45k plus 'flying pay').
thing - nice play on words!
LJ
* from the post below, change "most" to "all"!!!!
Surely sense would dictate the work was still carried out by a reduced number of LACs/SACs/Cpls with a equally reduced number of Flt Sgt/WO/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldrs overseeing that.
GR4Techie - its a common myth that the Army Air Corps is awash with Cpl pilots - most* are Sgts/SSgts/WOs/Lts/Capts which all get about the same sort of pay (as I stated before ~£35k to ~£45k plus 'flying pay').
thing - nice play on words!
LJ
* from the post below, change "most" to "all"!!!!
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 1st Sep 2013 at 15:45.
PS I just looked at the Army Careers website. Here is the real info:
So the only Cpl pilots are the ones that are under training - as soon as they qualify they promote to A/Sgt. So no real saving between an A/Sgt and an OF1 2Lt/Pilot Officer equivalent.
Rank: Corporal
If you pass the necessary selection tests, you can go forward for pilot training. After completing the course successfully, you're awarded your pilot's wings and are given the acting rank of Sergeant. You also receive extra pay.
If you pass the necessary selection tests, you can go forward for pilot training. After completing the course successfully, you're awarded your pilot's wings and are given the acting rank of Sergeant. You also receive extra pay.
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 1st Sep 2013 at 15:44.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GR4, you are correct about POWs.
Officer POW were not obliged to work whereas ORs were. SNCOs, while obliged to work, were supposed to be used in a supervisory role.
There was another interesting quirk in the GC. The senior officer was de facto the senior responsible for all other officers. In the case of ORs the cap leader (not sure of the correct term) was supposed to be elected by the prisoners and not based on rank.
If anyone knows more delighted to see a bit of thread drift.
In the case of nukes, the 'officer class' was perceived to be more responsible. Of course many SNCO did a course and joined the 'officer class'.
Officer POW were not obliged to work whereas ORs were. SNCOs, while obliged to work, were supposed to be used in a supervisory role.
There was another interesting quirk in the GC. The senior officer was de facto the senior responsible for all other officers. In the case of ORs the cap leader (not sure of the correct term) was supposed to be elected by the prisoners and not based on rank.
If anyone knows more delighted to see a bit of thread drift.
In the case of nukes, the 'officer class' was perceived to be more responsible. Of course many SNCO did a course and joined the 'officer class'.
"I think you just did post that very view Jimlad. You're own generalisation with regards to the non-commissioned ranks does little to support any point you attempted to make in that whole post. It does, however emphasise just how big a chip you're lugging around on that shoulder pal."
Pete - I don't hold those views in the slightest - but you've just proven my point beautifully by biting on my deliberately OTT comments. The fact is people seem fit to throw around utterly ridiculous views about the officer corps, but then get very defensive should anyone dare offer similarly ridiculous views on the ranks.
I find it sad that we seem to think it acceptable to so overtly question the numbers of Officers and their competence, while not being prepared to do the same for the ranks. Frankly I'd ask why do we need so many NCOs? Surely we could cut their numbers a bit too? Or is it only officers who must be culled with extreme prejudice?
Pete - I don't hold those views in the slightest - but you've just proven my point beautifully by biting on my deliberately OTT comments. The fact is people seem fit to throw around utterly ridiculous views about the officer corps, but then get very defensive should anyone dare offer similarly ridiculous views on the ranks.
I find it sad that we seem to think it acceptable to so overtly question the numbers of Officers and their competence, while not being prepared to do the same for the ranks. Frankly I'd ask why do we need so many NCOs? Surely we could cut their numbers a bit too? Or is it only officers who must be culled with extreme prejudice?
It seems to me that if the number of OR's is reducing, then officers responsibility must likewise be reducing. If we have fewer "indians" whilst retaining the same number of "chiefs", then said "chiefs" have less responsibility in terms of a supervisory role. So, let's reduce their privileges accordingly.
Also all those jobs that used to be done by the OR's still need doing. Junior officers should probably be doing gate guard, don't you think?
Also all those jobs that used to be done by the OR's still need doing. Junior officers should probably be doing gate guard, don't you think?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Avionker - reducing the ORs does not imply the same reduction in officers, in particular the senior ones. You need just as many RAF officers working in NATO whether we have 500 strike aircraft or 100, for example, and there are plenty of other areas where the same rule applies.
Indeed and one must not forget all the roles in the RAF that are solely done by officers. Officers are not merely managers of the workforce; in many cases they are the workforce.
Have a look at this link - click here
Percentage wise the RAF are not really different in terms of (officer) rank structure when compared to the other Services (except for OF2 [Flt Lt] which, as this is the 'core' aircrew rank, is perhaps understandable) .
When comparing other ranks the percentage difference in terms of the number of OR4 (Corporal) and OR 6 (Sergeant) between the Army and the RAF is, on the other hand, quite marked. In pure number terms the RAF have more Sergeants and Corporals than they do LCpl, JT, SAC(T), SAC and AC and almost as many Corporals as there are officers.
But then again, on 99% of occasions, statistics that do not support your argument are either made up or bull$hit.
Percentage wise the RAF are not really different in terms of (officer) rank structure when compared to the other Services (except for OF2 [Flt Lt] which, as this is the 'core' aircrew rank, is perhaps understandable) .
When comparing other ranks the percentage difference in terms of the number of OR4 (Corporal) and OR 6 (Sergeant) between the Army and the RAF is, on the other hand, quite marked. In pure number terms the RAF have more Sergeants and Corporals than they do LCpl, JT, SAC(T), SAC and AC and almost as many Corporals as there are officers.
But then again, on 99% of occasions, statistics that do not support your argument are either made up or bull$hit.
Also all those jobs that used to be done by the OR's still need doing. Junior officers should probably be doing gate guard, don't you think?
When comparing other ranks the percentage difference in terms of the number of OR4 (Corporal) and OR 6 (Sergeant) between the Army and the RAF is, on the other hand, quite marked. In pure number terms the RAF have more Sergeants and Corporals than they do LCpl, JT, SAC(T), SAC and AC and almost as many Corporals as there are officers.
But then again, on 99% of occasions, statistics that do not support your argument are either made up or bull$hit.
But then again, on 99% of occasions, statistics that do not support your argument are either made up or bull$hit.
Indeed and one must not forget all the roles in the RAF that are solely done by officers.
Last edited by Avionker; 1st Sep 2013 at 19:00.