DEPTH AND FORWARD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEPTH AND FORWARD
Interesting article in the STAR, quoted:
Defence chiefs collate aircraft as being either in the Forward Fleet or Depth Fleet.
All aircraft in the Depth Fleet are being serviced or upgraded.
Aircraft in the Forward Fleet are supposed to be ready to take part in operations around the world.
But the MoD has also admitted that some of these planes may also be unusable.
Why have MoD used Depth and Forward?
Surely it should be:
Depth and Shallow!
Forward and Backward!
Defence chiefs collate aircraft as being either in the Forward Fleet or Depth Fleet.
All aircraft in the Depth Fleet are being serviced or upgraded.
Aircraft in the Forward Fleet are supposed to be ready to take part in operations around the world.
But the MoD has also admitted that some of these planes may also be unusable.
Why have MoD used Depth and Forward?
Surely it should be:
Depth and Shallow!
Forward and Backward!
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 53
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a simple explanation.
Depth - Away from Unit (Minor, Major servicing / upgrade etc)
Forward - Yes available for Ops BUT every now & again maintenance prevents their use (Fuel leaks that take weeks to fix, OOPs maint etc). As good as us Engineers are we sometimes run out of quick fix spray.
Or
Depth - Making money for our supporting arms.
Forward - Overused / stretched beyond limits / extended beyond belief / skill fade preventing expedient return to service!
Depth - Away from Unit (Minor, Major servicing / upgrade etc)
Forward - Yes available for Ops BUT every now & again maintenance prevents their use (Fuel leaks that take weeks to fix, OOPs maint etc). As good as us Engineers are we sometimes run out of quick fix spray.
Or
Depth - Making money for our supporting arms.
Forward - Overused / stretched beyond limits / extended beyond belief / skill fade preventing expedient return to service!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mid-central South of England
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To protect the innocent....
Names of course for what you refer to in the new "buzz word" extra abbreviated lingo in use......
Outside the box, TRI-centric, customer focused approach, transactional leadership, transformational leadership.....
It's all just a " bit sh1t n'ting init?"
The leads of such, if they are in fact anymore, are still really
OC Ops, OC Admin, OC Supply and OC Eng.........
Outside the box, TRI-centric, customer focused approach, transactional leadership, transformational leadership.....
It's all just a " bit sh1t n'ting init?"
The leads of such, if they are in fact anymore, are still really
OC Ops, OC Admin, OC Supply and OC Eng.........
We really should have the classification of 'operational' for each fleet but it would be too embarrassing for the real figures to get out and no-one wants to face up to the problem of reality. Eg,
Depth = 5
Forward = 9
Operational = 2
Depth = 5
Forward = 9
Operational = 2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be an enduring process which pervades MoD and OGD.
Discover a problem.
Employ external consultants to examine the problem.
After much expediture of effort and resource provide a report which tells you what you already know.
Change the management structure. Invent new terms/ names for the new structure.
Change the name of the of the component parts which comprise the problem.
Sit back and conduct self-congratulation at a job well done.
Original problem - still there.
Discover a problem.
Employ external consultants to examine the problem.
After much expediture of effort and resource provide a report which tells you what you already know.
Change the management structure. Invent new terms/ names for the new structure.
Change the name of the of the component parts which comprise the problem.
Sit back and conduct self-congratulation at a job well done.
Original problem - still there.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic more like. Changing stuff has often been used camouflage decay, while implying groundbreaking new utility. Does wonders for careers tho! 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As good as us Engineers are we sometimes run out of quick fix spray.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. Here is the link to the 'article' quoted:
Plane daft! British aircraft suffers as third of RAF frontline jets are grounded | Latest News | Latest Breaking News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week
The Daily Star Sunday is not known for it's insightful analysis of the MoD. It is a non-story. The likes of 'depth' have been used for several years and were part of the focus on ops and supporting the front line operation. They distinguish the difference between what are activities in support of ops and the front line and what are essentially maintenance activities that were often performed elsewhere at MUs etc.
Accurately identifying what aircraft are available for ops is a very important part of managing expectations of governments when they want to do something with those aircraft.
So - poor article but if you got to make a couple of ill-informed one-liners, great.
Plane daft! British aircraft suffers as third of RAF frontline jets are grounded | Latest News | Latest Breaking News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week
The Daily Star Sunday is not known for it's insightful analysis of the MoD. It is a non-story. The likes of 'depth' have been used for several years and were part of the focus on ops and supporting the front line operation. They distinguish the difference between what are activities in support of ops and the front line and what are essentially maintenance activities that were often performed elsewhere at MUs etc.
Accurately identifying what aircraft are available for ops is a very important part of managing expectations of governments when they want to do something with those aircraft.
So - poor article but if you got to make a couple of ill-informed one-liners, great.
Do keep up at the back! The Forward/Depth construct has been around since about 2003 so it's hardly new.
The National Audit Office Report (2007) identified that Harrier and Tornado IPT support costs had reduced from £711M in FY01/02 to £328M in FY06/07 (and supporting roughly the same number of aircraft) while at the same time reducing maintenance time (GR4 Minors reduced by 37% compared to the times achieved by DARA).
Far from being a 'change of management structure', it was a really successful improvement programme. Just a shame we then went and got rid of the Harriers!
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/transf...for-fast-jets/
The National Audit Office Report (2007) identified that Harrier and Tornado IPT support costs had reduced from £711M in FY01/02 to £328M in FY06/07 (and supporting roughly the same number of aircraft) while at the same time reducing maintenance time (GR4 Minors reduced by 37% compared to the times achieved by DARA).
Far from being a 'change of management structure', it was a really successful improvement programme. Just a shame we then went and got rid of the Harriers!
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/transf...for-fast-jets/
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I can see how they arrived at Depth and Forward.
Depth will be based on the term Deep Maintenance
and
Forward will be based on the term Front line.
Sad really that these people seem to have nothing better to do with their lives than to invent bnew word plays to make themselves feel they are in the loop.
Depth will be based on the term Deep Maintenance
and
Forward will be based on the term Front line.
Sad really that these people seem to have nothing better to do with their lives than to invent bnew word plays to make themselves feel they are in the loop.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
While it's easy to have a pop at the Star for it's defence reporting, the MoD does have a bit of a situation here, within the 'Depth/Forward' issue.
The RN used to run a system that classified aircraft as being in either 'Operating' or 'Reserve' fleets, similar to the 'Forward' and 'Depth' classification. These were aligned in 2003. So far, so good.
A couple of problems arise when you start looking at the 'Forward/Operating' fleet and what is happening to them. The first. In some cases, aircraft at 'Forward' are undergoing quite extensive packages of upgrade work that takes them out of play for some time (up to 5/6 months). In no way could these be called 'available for ops'. The old RN system used to have a sub-classification for these, called the 'Forward Immediate Reserve (FIR)'. However, the RAF system didn't, and the 2003 system doesn't. This leads to a 'Forward' fleet number that is optimistic.
The second issue is more serious, and it's due to 'fleets within fleets', as well as 'fitted for but not with'. These can, and do, have the effect of drastically reducing the number of aircraft that can actually, truly be called 'available for ops.' Some of the reductions are due to funding limits, but they are aggravated by poor configuration management of the aircraft fleets. This is a long standing problem.
C Hinecap is bang on the menu here about managing expectations, and my direct experience of the problem was at Strike, when we got a PQ asking a very straightforward question about 'numbers of RAF Harriers available for operations'. I drafted a reply that accurately broke down the whole fleet, finishing with the number of aircraft we had that could be accurately called 'R2'. It wasn't a big number. My draft went up to the gods, and by the time the reply went out, the number had been inflated to include all aircraft that weren't actually in storage at St. Athan.
The MoD's 'situation', as I see it, is that the RAF consistently overstates how many aircraft it has 'available for operations'. There may be various reasons for this, but my own view (and I'm happy to be wrong) is that the actual (low) number of aircraft that could, on a given day, be 'thrown into the war' or 'committed to operations' is seen by the VSOs as politically unpalatable.
Best regards
Engines
While it's easy to have a pop at the Star for it's defence reporting, the MoD does have a bit of a situation here, within the 'Depth/Forward' issue.
The RN used to run a system that classified aircraft as being in either 'Operating' or 'Reserve' fleets, similar to the 'Forward' and 'Depth' classification. These were aligned in 2003. So far, so good.
A couple of problems arise when you start looking at the 'Forward/Operating' fleet and what is happening to them. The first. In some cases, aircraft at 'Forward' are undergoing quite extensive packages of upgrade work that takes them out of play for some time (up to 5/6 months). In no way could these be called 'available for ops'. The old RN system used to have a sub-classification for these, called the 'Forward Immediate Reserve (FIR)'. However, the RAF system didn't, and the 2003 system doesn't. This leads to a 'Forward' fleet number that is optimistic.
The second issue is more serious, and it's due to 'fleets within fleets', as well as 'fitted for but not with'. These can, and do, have the effect of drastically reducing the number of aircraft that can actually, truly be called 'available for ops.' Some of the reductions are due to funding limits, but they are aggravated by poor configuration management of the aircraft fleets. This is a long standing problem.
C Hinecap is bang on the menu here about managing expectations, and my direct experience of the problem was at Strike, when we got a PQ asking a very straightforward question about 'numbers of RAF Harriers available for operations'. I drafted a reply that accurately broke down the whole fleet, finishing with the number of aircraft we had that could be accurately called 'R2'. It wasn't a big number. My draft went up to the gods, and by the time the reply went out, the number had been inflated to include all aircraft that weren't actually in storage at St. Athan.
The MoD's 'situation', as I see it, is that the RAF consistently overstates how many aircraft it has 'available for operations'. There may be various reasons for this, but my own view (and I'm happy to be wrong) is that the actual (low) number of aircraft that could, on a given day, be 'thrown into the war' or 'committed to operations' is seen by the VSOs as politically unpalatable.
Best regards
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forward = (Potentially*) Available on front line.
Depth = Deep behind the front line sat in a hangar in St Athan or Marham in bits and pieces.
* However, aircraft that are forward could be unserviceable. Unless it a GR4... then it's more than likely unserviceable.
I've never fancied a commission as the "P Ed O" of the gym.
Depth = Deep behind the front line sat in a hangar in St Athan or Marham in bits and pieces.
* However, aircraft that are forward could be unserviceable. Unless it a GR4... then it's more than likely unserviceable.
Officer Commanding Shallow Fleet or OC Backward Fleet sound like non career enhancing postings.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR4,
It's not so much the aircraft that are unserviceable - that happens all the time, it's 'ops normal', in my view.
However, an aircraft that's in a five month modification line at 'Forward' isn't, by my definition of the term, 'available for ops'. Neither are aircraft that would need to be fitted with kit that's already deployed on other aircraft on ops. Neither are aircraft that would need a mod embodied to be able to fit that kit in the first place.
The accurate number (in my view, anyway) is this - how many aircraft can be declared (at the same time) as 'Force Elements @ Readiness at R1 or R2'? The problem is that this would be a smaller (much smaller) number than the politicians (or the public) would expect. And there aren't always especially good reasons for those numbers.
Thoughts, anyone?
Engines
It's not so much the aircraft that are unserviceable - that happens all the time, it's 'ops normal', in my view.
However, an aircraft that's in a five month modification line at 'Forward' isn't, by my definition of the term, 'available for ops'. Neither are aircraft that would need to be fitted with kit that's already deployed on other aircraft on ops. Neither are aircraft that would need a mod embodied to be able to fit that kit in the first place.
The accurate number (in my view, anyway) is this - how many aircraft can be declared (at the same time) as 'Force Elements @ Readiness at R1 or R2'? The problem is that this would be a smaller (much smaller) number than the politicians (or the public) would expect. And there aren't always especially good reasons for those numbers.
Thoughts, anyone?
Engines
There is one reason for fleets within fleets, fitted for but not with, etc, etc..... And that is money. It costs too much to have entire fleets at current TES and the bean counters won't fund it.
However, an aircraft that's in a five month modification line at 'Forward' isn't, by my definition of the term, 'available for ops'.
Also your continual RAF bashing detracts from some very good posts that you make. Aren't we above petty service bashing here?