Telegraph - RAF bare bones article
ShotOne, it's not aircraft, it's people!
We may have, on paper, 100 GR4s left. Some are knackered, some are in depth, others allocated to squadrons. Some are the wrong fit or the wrong software, but it's not that tricky, as we've just proven, to find a pile of them to take to a new op. Likewise ELLAMY.
But who flies and maintains them? We're down to 3 (thanks for the correction) squadrons. That means at any one time, you have one squadron going through the pre-SHADER workup, you have one squadron deployed, and you have one squadron at home. That squadron at home has to handle ALL your other commitments, detachments, training, everything, as well as giving its people the lion's share of leave.
Guys on the GR4 Force right now have done maybe 4 HERRICK dets during a tour. 16 months at Kandahar in 36 months; almost half their entire tour on ops. When you then add the fact that a lot of them did 3-4 months supporting ELLAMY as well, and now they're being retoured because of a lack of GR4 aircrew and being asked to sustain SHADER for 2-3 years....?
Take a guy who's had 20 months away out of 36, move him to another squadron, and tell him he's looking at 4 months on ops, 8 months at home for another 36 months and I'm not sure very many of them are going to be happy. That's not taking into account the fact that HERRICK isn't finished, so a third of your force is already deployed!
The GR4 Force worked fine handling HERRICK when it had 7 front line squadrons to service it. It managed ELLAMY as well with those numbers. With 5 squadrons it got a bit tighter. With 3, you're back into the situation the Harrier force had with HERRICK when it was just 1 Sqn, 3 Sqn and the NSW; sustainable for a while but eventually it just falls apart.
Three squadrons is not a big enough force to sustain a medium term op, really. The remaining GR4 Force should really be covering the bespoke commitments, like RAPTOR and Stormshadow, while the Typhoon picks up the rest.. although on that note, not so long ago people were pointing out that we used to have 5 sqns of F3s purely providing Q, so how are 5 smaller Typhoon sqns meant to do the job of the whole F3 force, the whole Jaguar force, and half the GR4 force?
Not enough people; and the more you push them, the more they'll push back!
We may have, on paper, 100 GR4s left. Some are knackered, some are in depth, others allocated to squadrons. Some are the wrong fit or the wrong software, but it's not that tricky, as we've just proven, to find a pile of them to take to a new op. Likewise ELLAMY.
But who flies and maintains them? We're down to 3 (thanks for the correction) squadrons. That means at any one time, you have one squadron going through the pre-SHADER workup, you have one squadron deployed, and you have one squadron at home. That squadron at home has to handle ALL your other commitments, detachments, training, everything, as well as giving its people the lion's share of leave.
Guys on the GR4 Force right now have done maybe 4 HERRICK dets during a tour. 16 months at Kandahar in 36 months; almost half their entire tour on ops. When you then add the fact that a lot of them did 3-4 months supporting ELLAMY as well, and now they're being retoured because of a lack of GR4 aircrew and being asked to sustain SHADER for 2-3 years....?
Take a guy who's had 20 months away out of 36, move him to another squadron, and tell him he's looking at 4 months on ops, 8 months at home for another 36 months and I'm not sure very many of them are going to be happy. That's not taking into account the fact that HERRICK isn't finished, so a third of your force is already deployed!
The GR4 Force worked fine handling HERRICK when it had 7 front line squadrons to service it. It managed ELLAMY as well with those numbers. With 5 squadrons it got a bit tighter. With 3, you're back into the situation the Harrier force had with HERRICK when it was just 1 Sqn, 3 Sqn and the NSW; sustainable for a while but eventually it just falls apart.
Three squadrons is not a big enough force to sustain a medium term op, really. The remaining GR4 Force should really be covering the bespoke commitments, like RAPTOR and Stormshadow, while the Typhoon picks up the rest.. although on that note, not so long ago people were pointing out that we used to have 5 sqns of F3s purely providing Q, so how are 5 smaller Typhoon sqns meant to do the job of the whole F3 force, the whole Jaguar force, and half the GR4 force?
Not enough people; and the more you push them, the more they'll push back!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When you overlay the shocking, and I suspect highly accurate, analysis provided by 5F6B to the stats published last week by the MOD on manning ... when are the Politicians going to wake up 
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-bulletin-2014
See headline table at Table 2.01.01a ... RAF Total Strength 1st April 2014 33,210 and that's 5.7% below the stated Requirement by the MOD ... if you are easily upset ... don't read any further ... especially the declining number of personnel in training.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-bulletin-2014
See headline table at Table 2.01.01a ... RAF Total Strength 1st April 2014 33,210 and that's 5.7% below the stated Requirement by the MOD ... if you are easily upset ... don't read any further ... especially the declining number of personnel in training.
From Coffman's link:
If the requirements have reduced quicker than the strength would that not reduce the deficit?
Have I gone mad or are clowns providing the manning evidence?
The deficit between strength and requirement of full-time trained Armed Forces was 8,750 or 5.5 per cent at 1 April 2014. This deficit has increased from 2,230 (1.4 per cent) at 1 April 2013 and increased from 7,880 (4.0 per cent) at 1 April 2000. The increase in the deficit since 1 April 2012 is due to the fact that SDSR-driven requirements have reduced quicker than the strength.
Have I gone mad or are clowns providing the manning evidence?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Guys on the GR4 Force right now have done maybe 4 HERRICK dets during a tour. 16 months at Kandahar in 36 months; almost half their entire tour on ops. When you then add the fact that a lot of them did 3-4 months supporting ELLAMY as well, and now they're being retoured because of a lack of GR4 aircrew and being asked to sustain SHADER for 2-3 years....?"
I thought they joined to fly?
there are plenty of complaints on here when there isn't much flying................
I thought they joined to fly?
there are plenty of complaints on here when there isn't much flying................
...and not forget that 3 Sqns of CH47 have done the same, if not more, than the GRs in Afg for 8 years (GRs only there relatively recently) plus Iraq, FRY, NI and the Falklands for 20 years before that.
And the AH force is in an even worse place, and CHF have been flogged too. At least Merlin Transition might help some draw breath.
Most of the time spent in tents...aircon Coremec being a relatively late luxury.
It's bloody hard work for the crews, and symptomatic of a regime which sees 'surge' as the new 'norm'...
Safe flying to all involved.
And the AH force is in an even worse place, and CHF have been flogged too. At least Merlin Transition might help some draw breath.
Most of the time spent in tents...aircon Coremec being a relatively late luxury.
It's bloody hard work for the crews, and symptomatic of a regime which sees 'surge' as the new 'norm'...
Safe flying to all involved.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Harry - you must be a troll! I'll happily bite.
Despite some confusion over numbers I disagree with ShotOne and think that much of the discussion on this topic has been considered and therefore useful.
What I'm surprised no-one has mentioned is the Tornado Force Elements @ Readiness (FE@R) - as per open source data the Tornado FE@R are on a "phased" drawdown from 40 to 18 (by March 2015). Assuming FE@R is some combination of available jets, CR crews and the myriad support functions required to generate an agreed combat capability, then its difficult (without understanding the logic that underpins FE@R) to determine actual force capacity based purely on volumes of jets, sqns, etc. Of course I suspect the logic behind FE@R is deliberately complex as this then ensures those vital elements of ambiguity and vagueness (which as we all know are essential to any good plan).
But just to give some meat to the bone the last significant funded GR4 upgrade was for a total of 59 jets (which gives a pretty strong indication of the total number of jets required to support 18 FE@R - and fits quite nicely with the 3:1 ratio in terms of total jets needed to support the task).
Anyway I digress, I think the real point I am trying to make is that (1) the cut from 40 to 18 FE@R is significant (over 50%), and (2) 18 is a LOW number (somewhat irrespective of what it actually equates to).
In conclusion it is my view that available capacity in the Tornado Force is currently VERY low, with no doubt some ability to support short term "surge" but that's probably about the lot.
Unlike HH I can see beyond the pure flying hours point and I feel quite sorry for the guys and gals that are working their butts off to generate the task (both at home and overseas).
Despite some confusion over numbers I disagree with ShotOne and think that much of the discussion on this topic has been considered and therefore useful.
What I'm surprised no-one has mentioned is the Tornado Force Elements @ Readiness (FE@R) - as per open source data the Tornado FE@R are on a "phased" drawdown from 40 to 18 (by March 2015). Assuming FE@R is some combination of available jets, CR crews and the myriad support functions required to generate an agreed combat capability, then its difficult (without understanding the logic that underpins FE@R) to determine actual force capacity based purely on volumes of jets, sqns, etc. Of course I suspect the logic behind FE@R is deliberately complex as this then ensures those vital elements of ambiguity and vagueness (which as we all know are essential to any good plan).
But just to give some meat to the bone the last significant funded GR4 upgrade was for a total of 59 jets (which gives a pretty strong indication of the total number of jets required to support 18 FE@R - and fits quite nicely with the 3:1 ratio in terms of total jets needed to support the task).
Anyway I digress, I think the real point I am trying to make is that (1) the cut from 40 to 18 FE@R is significant (over 50%), and (2) 18 is a LOW number (somewhat irrespective of what it actually equates to).
In conclusion it is my view that available capacity in the Tornado Force is currently VERY low, with no doubt some ability to support short term "surge" but that's probably about the lot.
Unlike HH I can see beyond the pure flying hours point and I feel quite sorry for the guys and gals that are working their butts off to generate the task (both at home and overseas).
Today’s combat aircraft are more capable than those of 1991 but eventually technology cannot substitute for numbers
'Quantity has a quality all its own'. Lenin.
'Quantity has a quality all its own'. Lenin.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR4 force wind down plan was always too aggressive and driven purely by cost. As we know the enemy (and parliament) have a vote. The utopia of contingency ain't going to happen with SF and the light blue being the weapons of choice. Keeping the third GR4 sqn appears an obvious choice as the op looks like it will be similar in tempo to the no fly zones of 98 to 03 ie lots of sorties with regular use of weapons and lots of dets to AKI vice AAS.
FRIs for WSOs anyone....
FRIs for WSOs anyone....
Will the fleets be able to keep up with the PVR's that will surely come. Airlines recruiting mean less able men the only ones to remain. Lack of frames no lack of people yes that is what will stop this war effort.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a few months in Cyprus is the deal-breaker for your RAF career I'd think twice about airline flying these days, ferg!
5 forward, thank you for that reasoned explanation. Pity the Air Marshal didn't frame his argument so well.
Just this once, "3 out of area commitments" for tornado: Afgan (not for long) now Cyprus, where's the third?
5 forward, thank you for that reasoned explanation. Pity the Air Marshal didn't frame his argument so well.
Just this once, "3 out of area commitments" for tornado: Afgan (not for long) now Cyprus, where's the third?
A few months in Cyprus away from family (again). Having been over to Aki they're not exactly on holiday, time off being limited, no Op bonus (standby for pilots to get it for days they fly over Iraq). Not sure of the accom they're in but doubt it'll be slam etc.
Typical image of Cyprus eh? It's all fun out here well believe me it isn't, working out here is more stressful than in the UK, where I work we support Ops 24/7 365 with working hours to match.
Typical image of Cyprus eh? It's all fun out here well believe me it isn't, working out here is more stressful than in the UK, where I work we support Ops 24/7 365 with working hours to match.
The 3rd location is in the original article at the start of this thread. Probably worth re-reading it before challenging it.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southend
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Heathrow Harry, in common with a lot of civilians, thinks that the RAF is composed entirely of pilots or aircrew! I know we lower orders don't do anything remotely important, or have families who like to see us etc etc ......!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If the RAF has 60 aircraft of a particular type (I know it's 59x GR4, but we'll go with easy maths), and is struggling to provide 6 for a new task, this raises two questions in my mind:
1. (Less important). What happened to the other 40 from the previous 100? Just retired as 30 year old hulks? If so, what does that say about the inability of the latest jet (i.e. Typhoon) after 6 years in service (FGR4) and 11 years for the Typhoon as a whole, to take on the roles it needs to in order to do its job?
2. (More important). If the structure and procedures of the RAF are such that it needs 10x as many aircraft to provide a small force for a new op, then that looks like something is very wrong.
The RAF has shed many airfields (Cottesmore, Kinloss, Leuchars, Coltishall all major airfields) , several aircraft types (Tornado F3, Jag, Harrier, Nimrod, C130K, Tristar, Merlin off the top of my head), and yet still is in this position. What is wrong?
If the savings produced by shedding aircraft fleets (and aircraft within remaining fleets) haven't produced a efficient and capable air force, then something is very wrong at the top. Looks like a systemic failure of thinking.
6 aircraft needing 60 on strength (or worse still, 100 on strength, with 40 in a shed at Shawbury or similar) looks very inefficient. It may be that there are a legion of reasons for this, but that's not what is being read in the papers, and ultimately, voted for.
I don't know what the answer is, and it thankfully isn't my problem, but it does look pretty bad.
1. (Less important). What happened to the other 40 from the previous 100? Just retired as 30 year old hulks? If so, what does that say about the inability of the latest jet (i.e. Typhoon) after 6 years in service (FGR4) and 11 years for the Typhoon as a whole, to take on the roles it needs to in order to do its job?
2. (More important). If the structure and procedures of the RAF are such that it needs 10x as many aircraft to provide a small force for a new op, then that looks like something is very wrong.
The RAF has shed many airfields (Cottesmore, Kinloss, Leuchars, Coltishall all major airfields) , several aircraft types (Tornado F3, Jag, Harrier, Nimrod, C130K, Tristar, Merlin off the top of my head), and yet still is in this position. What is wrong?
If the savings produced by shedding aircraft fleets (and aircraft within remaining fleets) haven't produced a efficient and capable air force, then something is very wrong at the top. Looks like a systemic failure of thinking.
6 aircraft needing 60 on strength (or worse still, 100 on strength, with 40 in a shed at Shawbury or similar) looks very inefficient. It may be that there are a legion of reasons for this, but that's not what is being read in the papers, and ultimately, voted for.
I don't know what the answer is, and it thankfully isn't my problem, but it does look pretty bad.
Roadster, your question is only valid if the number of aircraft was the only factor in generating FE@R. The underfunding of Typhoon development and the salmi slicing of some fleets and rapid disposal of others is outwith the control of the MoD. These are government directed cuts underpinned by a supine electorate. The cuts were justified on the basis that our need to participate in conflicts would end by will-power alone.
As for efficiency, I am not aware of any fleet failing to meet its funded posture. Indeed, our continued ability to pull rabbits out of hats is seen by some politicians as evidence that we cry wolf. Of course, the true penalty is felt only by real servicemen and their all-too-real families. Counting tail numbers stored for disposal is a poor measure of military capability and our ability to sustain.
As for efficiency, I am not aware of any fleet failing to meet its funded posture. Indeed, our continued ability to pull rabbits out of hats is seen by some politicians as evidence that we cry wolf. Of course, the true penalty is felt only by real servicemen and their all-too-real families. Counting tail numbers stored for disposal is a poor measure of military capability and our ability to sustain.
You're spot on Roadster but whenever anyone attempts to get a Government person to explain this, a well worn mantra is recited, as follows; (delivered in the manner of a cross English Primary School Teacher telling off a persistently griping child) "Look this country is the fourth largest spender on Defence across the world, further I feel what is far more important to mention in these difficult times, is the immense gratitude we owe to the marvellous men and women of our armed services and the difficult and often dangerous job they do, one more thing I'd like to say about the previous government's blah blah blah...."
One thing I'd like to say myself, it is becoming all the more difficult I'm sure, with the greater degree of overseas campaigns with increasingly much sparser resources.
Indeed, the trumpeted deployment of just six Tornados is an indication of how far H.M. Forces have come, at the hands of an increasingly detached and unfamiliar parliament driven by an increasing desire to convince the electorate that they are the party best placed to meet evermore demands for public spending on welfare and the NHS.
FB
One thing I'd like to say myself, it is becoming all the more difficult I'm sure, with the greater degree of overseas campaigns with increasingly much sparser resources.
Indeed, the trumpeted deployment of just six Tornados is an indication of how far H.M. Forces have come, at the hands of an increasingly detached and unfamiliar parliament driven by an increasing desire to convince the electorate that they are the party best placed to meet evermore demands for public spending on welfare and the NHS.
FB
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
All valid points, so WTF does the MOD spend the money on? 4th largest spender indeed, but on what?
It doesn't appear to be people.
Yes, there are large capital equipment programmes, e.g. new boats for the Navy, trucks and tanks for the Army, and Chinooks, Typhoons, A400Ms etc for the RAF. But these are continuing needs. The services all have ongoing requirements for replacement of kit approaching its OSD. Therefore not a new problem, and one that isn't going away. The MOD ought to have enough experience of managing this ongoing problem for it not to be an issue. The procurement black hole has been plugged, right?
In the meantime, if I am British Airways, and I buy 50 new 787s, my shareholders are not going to be happy if I am only using 25 of them to earn revenue. If the other 25 are in hangars various, or don't have the right seats in them so can't be used, I would be strung up by the balls. Similarly, if I have 25 shiny new 787s AOG because I can't find crews, then my recruitment and training organization(s) is/are for the high jump.
Granted scheduled airline service is quite different from running an Air Force that has to build in contingency planning, so I need a lot of aircraft if I am CAS. If I can only use 6 of them when the **** hits the fan, why should I not be brought to account? Why can't I provide 20? or 30? I have two Ground Attack fleets, and I am rolling out a half-dozen 30 year old airframes, and struggling to do that. Yet I run the Air Force for the 4th largest defence spender in the world?
Something very not right here.
It doesn't appear to be people.
Yes, there are large capital equipment programmes, e.g. new boats for the Navy, trucks and tanks for the Army, and Chinooks, Typhoons, A400Ms etc for the RAF. But these are continuing needs. The services all have ongoing requirements for replacement of kit approaching its OSD. Therefore not a new problem, and one that isn't going away. The MOD ought to have enough experience of managing this ongoing problem for it not to be an issue. The procurement black hole has been plugged, right?
In the meantime, if I am British Airways, and I buy 50 new 787s, my shareholders are not going to be happy if I am only using 25 of them to earn revenue. If the other 25 are in hangars various, or don't have the right seats in them so can't be used, I would be strung up by the balls. Similarly, if I have 25 shiny new 787s AOG because I can't find crews, then my recruitment and training organization(s) is/are for the high jump.
Granted scheduled airline service is quite different from running an Air Force that has to build in contingency planning, so I need a lot of aircraft if I am CAS. If I can only use 6 of them when the **** hits the fan, why should I not be brought to account? Why can't I provide 20? or 30? I have two Ground Attack fleets, and I am rolling out a half-dozen 30 year old airframes, and struggling to do that. Yet I run the Air Force for the 4th largest defence spender in the world?
Something very not right here.
Your BA analogy is a good one.
Can you imagine BA surviving if a completely different company held all the money and saw moving passengers around as discretionary?
Can you imagine BA surviving if this separate company decided that the future was short-haul and on delivery of new assets binned them?
Can you imagine if BA didn't shop around for the best deal on its aircraft and was directed to buy stuff from a failing company just to keep the workers employed?
We are directed to waste money and then blamed for that waste.
CAS has little or no control.
Can you imagine BA surviving if a completely different company held all the money and saw moving passengers around as discretionary?
Can you imagine BA surviving if this separate company decided that the future was short-haul and on delivery of new assets binned them?
Can you imagine if BA didn't shop around for the best deal on its aircraft and was directed to buy stuff from a failing company just to keep the workers employed?
We are directed to waste money and then blamed for that waste.
CAS has little or no control.